Identity politics refers to attempts to split working people and middle class in such a way that
it no longer represented a threat to neoliberlim in the USA or other country. It is a variant of Divide and conquer strategy
Identity politics has been co-opted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth
inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of democratic
accountability in governance.
Identity politics
artificially amplifies aspects of their identity that are different then their social status. Examples include race,
gender, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, culture, language.
The term identity politics came into being during the latter part of the 20th century, during the
Civil Rights Era, but the first king of identity politics and associated "bat and switch" of voters
was Bill Clinton. He was followed by Barak Obma with him important "bat and switch" maneuvers (aka
"change we can believe in").
While the term is popularly used when referring to
national identity, Hillary Clinton was adept of playing gender to divide voters.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. discussed early attempt to use identity politics to split and marginalize
working class and middle class in his book The
Disuniting of America. Schlesinger, a strong supporter of liberal conceptions of civil rights,
argues that a liberal democracy requires a common basis for culture and society to function.
In his view, basing politics on group marginalization fractures the civil polity. Schlesinger believes that
nationalist and rasicl movements such as
"movement for civil rights" should aim "toward integration of marginalized groups
into the mainstream culture, rather than...perpetuating that marginalization through affirmations of
difference".[13]
Recently identity politics was aptly played in LGBT sphere. Such issues as gay marriage and
bathroom access served as powerful destruction from more important social issue for almost 20 years.
Brendan O'Neill has contrasted the politics of gay liberation and identity politics by saying "...
[Peter] Tatchell also had, back in the day, was a commitment to the politics of liberation, which
encouraged gays to come out and live and engage. Now, we have the politics of identity, which
invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround
themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the
world—from any questioning."[14] Left-wing author Owen Jones rightly claims that identity politics
is directed mainly toward marginalization of the working class and as such represent a dirty
political trick used now by neolibrals to stay in power:
In the 1950s and 1960s, left-wing intellectuals who were both inspired and informed by a powerful
labour movement wrote hundreds of books and articles on working-class issues. Such work would help
shape the views of politicians at the very top of the Labour Party. Today, progressive intellectuals
are far more interested in issues of identity. ... Of course, the struggles for the emancipation of
women, gays, and ethnic minorities are exceptionally important causes. New Labour has co-opted them,
passing genuinely progressive legislation on gay equality and women's rights, for example. But it is
an agenda that has happily co-existed with the sidelining of the working class in politics, allowing
New Labour to protect its radical flank while pressing ahead with Thatcherite policies.
— Owen Jones, Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class[15]
Emphasizing and promoting groups based on shared identity, other than class (e.g.,
religious identity, gender, etc ), can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues,
such as class conflict in capitalist societies.
Such arguments have been expressed by a number of writers, such as Eric Hobsbawm,[16] Todd Gitlin,[17]
Michael Tomasky, Richard Rorty, Sean Wilentz, Robert W. McChesney, Bart Landry, and Jim Sleeper.[18]
Hobsbawm, in particular, has criticized nationalisms, and the principle of national
self-determination adopted internationally after World War I, since national governments are often
merely an expression of a ruling class or power, and their proliferation was a source of the wars of
the 20th century. Hence Hobsbawm argues that identity politics, such as queer nationalism, Islamism,
Cornish nationalism or Ulster Loyalism are just other versions of bourgeois nationalism.
The conclusion of George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" includes these
two sentences: "Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are
meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since
you don't know what fascism is, how can you struggle against fascism?"
Doesn't this remind you of attempts today to deflect attacks on critical race theory? A
parental and governmental counterrevolution against CRT has exploded into life, and one of the
ways defenders try to protect it is to advocate a kind of political quietism -- since you don't
know what CRT is, how can you struggle against it?
Slate, a left-wing magazine, for example, tweeted last month, "Conservatives want to
cancel critical race theory. But they don't know what it is." This is gaslighting to make CRT's
opponents question their understanding and doubt the evidence of their own ears and
eyes.
It fits the progressive trope that conservatives are ignorant and stupid. Such contempt
(which is reciprocated) led, among other things, to Donald Trump's victory in 2016. And just as
it failed five years ago, it is failing again now. Which prompts the thought, if Left-liberals
are so smart, why can't they think of a new line of attack and stop repeating what is so
ineffectual?
Conservatives know very well what CRT is. It's not really a theory; it's the
unfalsifiable assertion of racial essentialism, stigmatizing white people as irredeemably
racist and privileged, and black people as systematically repressed. It is used to poison
the minds of children down to the elementary school level. Public and parental understanding of
CRT comes despite its advocates' efforts to obscure its meaning (which makes the Left's charges
of ignorance grimly ironic).
And this brings us back to Orwell's essay. His overarching argument was for clarity of
language in political debate. He demanded then, as we should demand at least as urgently today,
that language be used not to conceal meaning but to convey it.
Political argument is conducted as dishonestly in 2021 as it has been within living
memory. In a TV discussion a few weeks ago, I was confronted by Kristal Knight, former
political director of Priorities USA, a left-wing activist organization, who defined CRT as a
theory that "racism undergirds all the systems of this country, how racism exists in our
structure, and how racism was one of the foundations when our founding fathers created the
Constitution." Amazingly, this was intended as a defense.
She asserted that CRT is "not taught in K-12 education." Perhaps she should be introduced to
Bryan Lindstrom, a history teacher and union organizer in Colorado, who declared on Twitter
that "critical race theory is a component of everything I do." Many of this ilk are fully aware
that those who pretend CRT is an obscure academic discipline don't know or don't care about the
truth.
"In our time," wrote Orwell, "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the
indefensible." That's certainly true of advocacy of CRT.
Their comments came after Austin Knudsen, Republican attorney general of Montana, wrote a
legal opinion about whether Marxist-invented critical race theory (CRT) violated the U.S. and
Montana constitutions as well as various federal civil rights laws. He was responding to an
inquiry by Elsie Arntzen, Montana's superintendent of public instruction, also a
Republican.
The opinion came as public resistance to CRT grows and intensifies among parents in
communities across the country who are fighting back by protesting and taking over local school
boards. In 26 state legislatures bills have been introduced or other steps have been taken to
prevent CRT from being taught , according to
Education Week .
But those measures have rarely offered a comprehensive rationale for banning CRT, which is
something Knudsen's legal opinion provides, sources consulted for this article told The Epoch
Times. Without tying objections to CRT to the Constitution or state constitutions, CRT
opponents had left their laws more susceptible to being overturned.
Acknowledging resistance to CRT in education is "absolutely grassroots" and led by parents
at the local level, Ian Prior, a parent who helped to found and is executive director of
Virginia-based Fight for Schools ,
said Knudsen did the right thing.
" Whenever one is taking action against policies being pushed downstream from the highest
levels of government authority, having a rock-solid legal basis for those actions is absolutely
necessary to accomplish required change and do so in a way that will not fluctuate with changes
in political powe r," Prior said.
David Randall, director of research at the National Association of Scholars, told The Epoch
Times that in his view "there has been a sudden spike of outrage by ordinary people, that the
professional political class has been caught off-guard by it, and that they are struggling to
catch up with popular outrage rather than fanning it."
Although legal opinions like Knudsen's are needed, much more is required for the fight, he
said.
"Our elite institutions have practiced unconstitutional race discrimination for decades,
regardless of the Constitution and the law. They will continue to do so until the people
reassert control over their authoritarian elites. The solution must be political as well as
legal. We need Knudsen, but we also need an effective political movement to remove all the
elite discriminators from the chokepoints of power."
Adam Waldeck, founder of 1776 Action, a nonprofit group, said " the tighter and more
grounded these anti-CRT laws are the better, and there are no doubt preexisting laws on the
books against discrimination that CRT opponents should look to as well. "
"That said, the opposition to CRT started at the local grassroots level and that must
continue, particularly in regards to school boards. It's up to voters to make sure that their
officials (and relevant candidates) state exactly what they believe and support, which is
exactly why we created The
1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools. "
In his legal opinion ,
Knudsen wrote that in many instances the use of CRT and so-called antiracism programming does
discriminate "on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution, and the Montana Human Rights Act."
CRT, he noted, calls for teaching students how white people are supposedly by their nature
racist and for engaging in racial discrimination in the name of combating it.
What Is
Critical Race Theory?
" The driving force behind CRT and antiracism is the complete and total acceptance of a
specific worldview -- one that encompasses very specific notions about history, philosophy,
sociology, and public policy. Being a so-called 'antiracist' requires individuals to accept
these premises and advocate for specific policy proposals. Individuals who do not comply cannot
truly be 'antiracist,' and are, therefore, considered racist," Knudsen wrote.
" By its own terms, antiracism excludes individuals who merely advocate for the neutral
legal principles of the Constitution , or who deny or question the extent to which white
supremacy continues to shape our institutions," he wrote. "To that end, no one can be
antiracist who does not act to eliminate the vestiges of white supremacy, i.e., embrace the
specific public policy proposals of CRT and antiracism."
"For example, critics have suggested that there is one, and only one, correct stance on
standardized testing, drug legalization, Medicare for All, and even the capital gains tax rate.
This paradigm is conveniently constructed 'like a mousetrap,'" Knudsen wrote, quoting
Christopher Rufo.
"Disagreement with any aspect becomes irrefutable evidence of its premises of systemic
racism, bias, fragility, or white supremacy. CRT and antiracism are not merely academic ideas
confined to university critical studies courses. These ideologies have begun to infiltrate
mainstream American dialogue and permeate our institutions ."
Compelled Speech
Knudsen argues that, "Trainings, exercises, or assignments which force students or employees
to admit, accept, affirm, or support controversial concepts such as privilege, culpability,
identity, or status, constitute compelled speech," which is something the First Amendment
forbids the government from forcing people to do.
"It is obvious that CRT and antiracism programming take strident positions on some of the
most controversial political, societal, and philosophical issues of our time. Compelling
students, trainees, or anyone else to mouth support for those same positions not only assaults
individual dignity, it undermines the search for truth, our institutions, and our democratic
system. "
Some schools have proposed separate housing and advisors based on race, as well as separate
professional development training , he wrote. Some universities have been sued for diversity
programs in which "they make people get down on the floor and apologize for being white."
Key elements of CRT and antiracism education and training, when used to classify students or
other Montanans by race, run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and federal and state civil rights
laws, Knudsen wrote.
"The term 'antiracism' appears reasonable and innocuous on its face. After all, our
Constitution, our laws, and nearly all our citizens are 'antiracism,'" he wrote. But
"antiracism," when used to describe radical activists' worldview, is " an Orwellian rhetorical
weapon."
Knudsen added that the National Museum of African American History and Culture's website had
a page dealing with "Whiteness," that bizarrely claimed traits such as "individualism," "hard
work," "objectivity," "progress," "politeness," "decision-making," and "delayed gratification"
were hallmarks of "white culture."
Teaching CRT
CRT supporters have lashed out at critics. Michelle Leete, Vice President of Training at the
Virginia PTA (Parent Teacher Association) wished death on CRT opponents at a public event on
July 15. Two days later Leete, who is also a vice president of the NAACP's chapter in Fairfax
County, Virginia, was
forced to resign her PTA post. The American Federation of Teachers and National Education
Association have vowed to defend their members who teach CRT.
After he was inaugurated, President Joe Biden promptly rescinded former President Donald
Trump's Executive Order 13950, which banned teaching CRT to government contractors. Trump said
the ideology was "divisive and harmful" and "like a cancer."
Critical race theory -- whose proponents frequently denounce American culture and history as
"Eurocentrism" and "whiteness" -- is "a variation of critical theory applied to the American
context that stresses racial divisions and sees society in terms of minority racial groups
oppressed by the white majority, " according to the
report of the 1776 Commission, an advisory body created by Trump, which sought to move U.S.
education away from a radical curriculum that unduly emphasized race-related injustices of the
past.
"Equally significant to its intellectual content is the role Critical Race Theory plays in
promoting fundamental social transformation," the report states, "to impart an oppressor-victim
narrative upon generations of Americans. This work of cultural revolution has been going on for
decades, and its first political reverberations can be seen in 1960s America."
Trump unveiled the commission last year as the New York Times-promoted 1619 Project gained
widespread acceptance among elites as it rode a wave of national revulsion over the death in
Minneapolis police custody last year of black suspect George Floyd which was popularly blamed
on anti-black racism by police.
The 1619 Project claims real American history began when the first African slaves arrived in
colonial America in 1619, and not on July 4, 1776 , when the colonists declared independence
from the United Kingdom. Educators helped to lay the foundation for the revisionist history
project years ago by teaching the ahistorical "A People's History of the United States," by
academic Howard Zinn, who was a member of the Communist Party USA. Millions of copies of the
book have been sold.
Leftists claim CRT promotes racial equality by highlighting the supposed damage that white
people have done to others in society. Left-wing sociology professor Robyn Autry of Wesleyan
University,
praised Biden for killing the commission, falsely claiming it promoted a "dangerous
alternative history," instead of seeking a return to the traditional way the country's history
has been taught.
Subversion
But critical race theory "is designed to subvert our system of government," Mary Grabar,
resident fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization told
The Epoch Times.
"Distorted history, such as The 1619 Project, is used to make CRT seem plausible. CRT is
inherently anti-Constitutional and cannot be justified at the K-12 and even undergraduate
levels because students are still learning history in terms of fundamentals and facts. They
cannot perceive its Marxist underpinnings."
Grabar's new book , "Debunking
the 1619 Project," will be published by Regnery on Sept. 7. She is also author of "Debunking
Howard Zinn," published in
2019.
bikepath999 6 hours ago
that bizarrely claimed traits such as "individualism," "hard work," "objectivity,"
"progress," "politeness," "decision-making," and "delayed gratification" were hallmarks of
"white culture." -- they are, what of it? These are excellent traits that are shared by
successful people
Zero-Hegemon 5 hours ago
By CRT logic it makes Asians "white" also
MaxMax 5 hours ago (Edited)
Universities now have black only fraternities and sororities, social clubs and sometimes
even buildings. Now imagine if some white students said they wanted some white only of the
same thing.
I run a business; I will hire the best qualified, lowest cost, hardest working person
out there. I don't care what color you are. I am here to make money and make the best
product possible.
Utopia Planitia 6 hours ago
CRT is a bolshevik tactic. That's it. It is a made-up story with the purpose of dividing
people. Just like the bolsheviks did in Russia during the first communist revolution.
Farmer Dave 6 hours ago remove link
My daughter is in med school at Tulane and they teach this crap all day long. She is
definitely my daughter and doesn't hold her tongue. So far she's doing well but only time
will tell if they try to cancel her. Then, they'll have me to deal with.
Stack Trace 6 hours ago remove link
Let's all focus on CRT instead of the a-holes strip mining the wealth of our
communities. A distraction that fuels the fake red-blue divide. Folks, it's a show it's not
real. This is a repeat of the same tactics as other "fake" social division issues. Lots of
bogeyman manufactured to keep the sheep off balance instead of focusing on the real enemy:
The Fed and the institutions and individuals it enriches
Without sound money there is no fuel to support movements that can affect real and
enduring change because the communities are starved of resources to support it. The only
communities that get some support the 0.001 percent and the thin sliver of the those that
serve them directly.
Epoch times strikes me as controlled opposition. I could be very wrong but I don't buy
their messaging.
ThaBigPerm 6 hours ago
CRT = National Socialism. Reheated Kaiser Wilhelm Institute leftovers. Just swap out the
"most chosen" and "least chosen" races.
ThaBigPerm 5 hours ago (Edited)
Classical Socialism (aka International Socialism/Communism), according to its authors,
is a framework that declares history is a struggle between oppressor classes and oppressed
classes, and provides that the government should be given plenary power to enact
remediation (dictatorship of the proletariat). If you scratch out "class" from the
framework and replace it with "race", you've got National Socialism. If you then rebrand
that as Critical Race Theory, then you have Critical Race Theory.
Greater Fool Theory PREMIUM 4 hours ago
Did you read the article? The main point is that conversation is not allowed. You agree
completely or you are a racist white supremacist.
Pdunne 5 hours ago
This is total nonsense scholastically but if shaping a "Race Relations" narrative for
use in a Political Campaign then it is useful.
BLM = CRT = BAD
Keep it simple keep it on a bumper sticker.
scraping_by 5 hours ago
One interesting admission here is that CRT is justification for Affirmative Action.
Affirmative Action was Nixon's way of continuing race divisions, and generally causing
hatred and discontent among the American people. Make getting a job a zero-sum game to keep
working people at each others throats.
Trying to keep conflicts away from economics, war and peace, and other things that
really matter since the late 1960s.
UpTo11 5 hours ago
Thank the dems for attempting to only pay farmers of color.
struck down by SC setting precedence
keep pushing back 'merica!!
4medicinalpurposesonly 6 hours ago
Nothing but deflecting blame for the outcomes their policies created
"... American universities are busy establishing black only dorms and black only graduation ceremonies. I really don't care if that's what blacks want, I'm all for freedom of association. But please stop ascribing segregation to white racism. ..."
1. Civic Pride: No littering. Nice parks. Nice walking areas.
2. Honest elections.
3. Quiet evenings.
4. Good policing. Low crime.
5. Good schools and stores.
6. Respectful neighbors.
7. A cultural norm that demands that violence be a rare and last resort for everyday disputes; not the normal first resort
for any dispute.
The fact that when I have the resources to live where I want, the population just happens to be higher than average Asian population
and lower than average Black population is a result of following criteria that has nothing to do with race... but, indirectly,
does due to cultural differences we're supposed to pretend don't exist.
Joseph Katz 30 minutes ago
If people choose to live near others with whom they feel they have something in common, it is no one else's business. New York
has characteristically Italian, Irish, Chinese, Jewish, etc. neighborhoods. There is nothing wrong with that.
Robert LaPorta 52 minutes ago (Edited)
As Mark Twain is purported to have said. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." and "Statistics is
the art of never having to say you're wrong."
Igor Liokumovich 53 minutes ago
American universities are busy establishing black only dorms and black only graduation ceremonies. I really don't care if
that's what blacks want, I'm all for freedom of association. But please stop ascribing segregation to white racism.
Ernest Montague 57 minutes ago
I live in a city, Oakland, with a large black community. My neighborhood is quite integrated. One of the things that we see here
is that many times black people enjoy living in a community where their culture is predominant and where they feel comfortable.
There are large, middle class black neighborhoods here where the resident could easily sell and move to more diverse areas. They
don't.
Bruce Lyon 1 hour ago
Am I the only person who questions why we have all of this racial scorekeeping to begin with? The nation's GDP would go up a few
points if all of these race-obsessed bureaucrats, analysts, academics, advocates, et al were actually engaged in productive activity.
Mark A. Rosasco 1 hour ago
I don't doubt our cities are becoming more segregated, they are mostly run by democrats, horribly mismanaged, and crime is reaching
very high levels.
People who can get out are leaving and in many cases only people who are too poor to leave are trapped there and a large majority
of them are African American.
Many cities are in a serious downward spiral and are in desperate need of better policing.
The defund the police movement is the exact opposite of what is needed.
Better relations between the law abiding citizens and the police is badly needed and better training of police officers so
less people get killed.
Community leaders should be doing everything they can to stop people from resisting arrest, you don't hear much about that
issue.
Obviously none this happens by reducing or eliminating police funding.
The exact opposite is needed, increase funding.
What a leadership vacuum.
BRUCE MONTGOMERY 1 hour ago
Highly recommended that Berkeley eliminate the "Belonging Center" and fund the Woodson Center instead.
The Woodson Center does the hard work in the streets.
Yuri Vizitei 1 hour ago
I am encouraged, relieved even, that the commentators are just worked up and outraged about progressive's statistical shenanigans'.
These days of insurrections and such, since some folks want to go back when things were great (again), say 1955? I was fully
expecting to see some expressing nostalgia for those good old segregated days.
But I suppose we haven't quite gotten back there yet.
Robert D 1 hour ago
The left lies. They need to make up fake statistics to even debate a topic. These are the same people say Republicans were the
ones defunding the Police!
James Rodden 1 hour ago
It's so easy to make up any "index" which shows whatever it is you want to show. This "index" will be taken as gospel by our wonderfully
"unbiased" press and then followed by all the liberal politicians who will spout it as fact"¦.
BRUCE MONTGOMERY 1 hour ago
Why is Univ. of Calif - Berkeley allowing an advocacy center to set up shop on its campus?
Academic research is supposed to aim for objective, dispassionate findings, not ideological advocacy.
Such a center only stains the university's reputation and credibility.
carl sanders 2 hours ago
Meanwhile, China must be laughing at how the Left in this country loves to trash our country.
China is focused on domination in all areas--which means talent over feelings.
We are becoming a Nation of weak minded people who look to the Government to run their lives.
Gregory Dolinajec 2 hours ago
As a graduate of UC Berkeley I can honestly say I am amused ( and saddened) by its loss of purpose. I routinely get emails from
the Chancellor which border on comedic. This study follows her lead. Diversity trumps academic rigor. Safe spaces trump the intellectually
demanding class. Drivel, clear thought. and so on.
J Seders 2 hours ago
Just like inflation. When the outcome doesn't fit your narrative, change the metric. Then feign moral superiority
Jack Johnson 2 hours ago
Thomas Sowell wrote dozens of articles and books that completely destroy this "study."
Carlos Lumpuy 2 hours ago
College graduates separated by race and ethnicity, so they graduate with others who look like themselves.
How disgusting is that?
Where is the outrage?
What on earth are we doing to our young?
People live where they can afford to live more than any diversity.
The real American Dream is not achieved through meritless affirmative action at work or in school but through providing all people
with the opportunity to better themselves through individual effort and skill, not by specially created classes.
These false collectivist narrative constructs are not the fulfillment of the American dream but its very debasement.
We are all Americans, human beings;
But until we stop looking at each other with this prejudice, I describe,
We will never be united, colorblind, and free.
Only the truly educated are free.
Woke yet?
BRUCE MONTGOMERY 2 hours ago
Can't trust any research study coming out of academia; contaminated by ideology and identity politics.
Academic researchers will twist and contort data into pretzels to produce their ideological outcomes.
They've nearly lost all credibility.
Martin Schneider 1 hour ago
Bruce; I have thought that was true for a long time but recently I have looked up things on critical race theory and the "facts"
they bring up defy the imagination. That race is only a social construct is one of the most absurd. It completely flies in the
face of common sense
ALAN T 3 hours ago
I'm am so tired and confused. Isn't African American now that are insisting on sperate but equal? I mean we have at their insistence
separate living quarters, separate graduation ceremonies, white free days on campus ..... I mean you really can't win can you.
No matter how you attempt to accommodate their demands every action is racist.
At its recent annual meeting, the National Education Association adopted an agenda item
stating, "It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks
for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including
critical race theory."
Becky Pringle, the teachers union's president, declared that "if this grand experiment in
democracy is to succeed," then "we must continuously do the work to challenge ourselves and
others to dismantle the racist interconnected systems and the economic injustices that have
perpetuated systemic inequities."
Asked about the NEA's decision, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that President
Biden believes "children should learn about our history," including the view that "there is
systemic racism that is still impacting society today."
With this statement, Mr. Biden has plunged headlong into a roiling national debate about
critical race theory, and it isn't clear he can win it. The issue has become central to the
cultural agenda that Republicans hope to ride to victory in the midterm elections. The share of
Americans who believe its impact on our society will be negative is twice as large as those
with a positive assessment. Only 16% strongly support teaching critical race theory in public
schools, compared with 29% who strongly oppose it.
Between Feb. 1 and June 13, Fox News mentioned critical race theory more than 1,300 times.
Christopher Rufo, a young conservative activist who was instrumental in persuading President
Trump to issue an executive order restricting diversity training throughout the executive
branch, has a remarkably effective strategy. It's no secret: In a well-known tweet, he
described his plan for turning critical race theory "toxic" by putting "all of the various
cultural insanities under that brand category."
Elizabeth became increasing bold in stating her religious opinions openly -- as well as her
anti-slavery views and support for abolitionist John Brown.
So in 1860 her husband exercised his legal right to have her committed to an insane
asylum.
Elizabeth spent three years in the asylum before being deemed incurable. She was released
back to the custody of her husband, who locked her in a room and nailed the windows shut.
But with the help of a friend, Elizabeth managed to take her husband to court over the
confinement. A jury took only seven minutes to decide that she was healthy, sane, and deserved
her freedom.
Sadly, her case was not unique.
The records from one mental asylum from the era still survive, and they show vast amounts of
cases in which women were diagnosed as insane because they did not accept the prevailing views
of society, or of their husbands.
A common diagnosis was to rule a woman "insane by religious fantasy." In other words, she
did not believe in the exact same religious principles as her neighbors and family members.
Behaving and thinking independently was more than enough to deem a woman crazy and totally
ruin her life.
And everyone in her social circle -- friends, neighbors, family members, and even her own
husband -- was able to rat them out to the authorities for their dangerous, aberrant
behavior.
You'd think this sort of custom would have gone out of style long ago.
But thanks to a new program being developed by the White House, you too can soon report your
'insane' friends and family members who don't express approved social views.
And this new strategy includes programs for people to "seek help" from the government on
behalf of anyone they "perceive to be radicalizing".
Their objective here is to prevent violence and domestic terrorism. That sounds noble
enough.
But even basic truths about violence are completely tainted by ideology and politics.
Angry, menacing rioters rampaging through the streets, torching cars, looting stores, and
destroying property? They're "mostly peaceful", hence this White House program doesn't apply to
them.
But the man who grabs a weapon to defend his family against those angry, menacing rioters?
He's a violent radical who should be reported.
Then there's Dr. Aruna Khilanani, who earlier this month lectured at Yale University about
her fantasies of killing white people.
Again, though, she's neither considered radical nor potentially violent so she doesn't fit
into this new White House program.
Saying, however, that "a man cannot get pregnant," which was enough for
Twitter to ban a Spanish politician recently, is absolutely considered radical.
The rules are terribly confusing. Fortunately the US government will be bringing in the Big
Tech companies to monitor our behavior and keep us all in check.
It's also notable that the federal government is spending boatloads of taxpayer dollars
teaching US government employees about Critical Race Theory, which asserts that everyone is
racist and that you are either a victim or an oppressor based on your skin color.
I say this is notable because they don't spend those same taxpayer dollars on the principles
taught by Martin Luther King, i.e. that we should strive for a society where people are judged
by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
But MLK's view is now considered outdated by the woke progressives in charge.
And they even have 'science' to back up their assertions.
For example, the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association
published an article last month explaining that whiteness is "a malignant, parasitic-like
condition".
And as we've all been told, you gotta trust the science!
This is rapidly becoming the accepted social view, and any departure from this thesis is
considered 'radical'.
It's ironic that most of the bureaucrats and politicians mandating this training don't have
the first clue what they're talking about.
Recently General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that
teaching Critical Race Theory and "white rage" to military cadets at West Point (my alma mater)
was important.
Yet he simultaneously acknowledged that he doesn't know the first thing about Critical Race
Theory, referring to it as "whatever the theory is. . ."
And that pretty much sums up institutional leadership these days in the Land of the
Free.
Politicians in government, business executives, and now even military generals, are only
concerned about appearances, not substance.
They know nothing about Critical Race Theory. They just want to give the appearance that
they're doing something especially when everyone else is doing the same thing.
Just about every big company and organization, from Coca Cola to Disney to Major League
Baseball to the Central Intelligence Agency, has jumped on board the Woke train and embraced
these idiotic principles.
Hardly a single so-called 'leader' has stood up to say 'I agree there are problems to solve,
but this approach is totally absurd and I'm not going along with it.'
These executives have too much to lose -- power, prestige, paychecks so they fall in line
and do what everyone else is doing.
Standing apart from the crowd, risking your reputation, and raising a voice of dissent takes
courage -- something that is sorely lacking in political and corporate leadership.
This weak, pitiful leadership is the reason why the entire woke movement has snowballed out
of control: no one with any real power is willing to stand against it anymore.
It's also the reason why looting Nike stores and rioting in the streets is seen as 'mostly
peaceful'.
Yet anyone with conservative views is considered "radical", worthy of being committed to
modern-day digital insane asylum (i.e. censored by the Big Tech platforms).
Frankly, if history is any guide, this trend is most likely going to become much worse. But
one day it will subside.
It may take years. But the woke Twitter mob will eventually run out of people to hate and
start feeding on its own fanatics. It's like the Soviet Union: sooner or later the entire
idiotic ideology will collapse on itself.
y_arrow 1
Greed is King 18 hours ago
The Hitler Youth were encouraged to "snitch", and they did, on their parents, their
teachers, everybody. The NAZI Concentration Camps killed Aryans as well as ****.
Welcome to the Elite`s brave new world.
_Conax_ 15 hours ago
Insane, huh.
The soviet communist party used their mental hospitals to silence and punish their
critics. I never trusted shrinks because their profession is based on the hack theories of
bearded hare brains. Everyone either hates their father or want to boink their moms
according to those quacks.
The treatment involves zombie pills.
Are our leftists so weak they can't face the free thinking in the war of ideas?
Absolutely horrifying. And that was in the 20th century, not the 15th!
indus creed 14 hours ago (Edited)
One NY judge tried to commit Dinesh D'Souza to a mental hospital during his campaign
finance hearing. They are gonna declare all old school thinking as insane.
jakevee 18 hours ago
Sounds like North Korea.
Dr Phuckit 12 hours ago
Snitching was a major part of 1984, you got rewarded with a few bread crumbs.
Baby steps until one day you realize ....
Obamanism666 7 hours ago
Bring me the person, we will find a crime
JustSayNo 5 hours ago (Edited)
Sometime this weekend, I'm going to have to find the time to post a little write up I'd
found on the persecution of the Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland in the late 1600's- early
1700's. This included crucifixion of their Presbyterian ministers, tossing their babies
alive into pots of boiling water, hunting the men down and murdering as in the style of an
English fox hunt. This occurred at the hands of the English, and though just one example of
the atrocities spurred by the English aristocracy and bankers of the times, the fate of the
Ulster Scots was probably the worst of it. The Ulster Scots migrated to the US in droves at
the time. They tended to push out into the American wilderness, getting as far away from
the systems of English rule and governance in the American cities as possible. Justifiably,
they hated the English. It seems, that the English aristocracy and bankers are still after
the descendants of the Ulster Scots today- labeling them "domestic terrorists", blaming
them for slavery (which was really to the profit of the English banking system and
investors in trade of the times, and was not of benefit to the average American ). To the
Ulster Scots and others who had suffered in Europe, and some other parts of the world, at
the hands of the English, slavery probably seemed rather tame, and pushing out to the
wilderness and frontiers the way that the Scots did, slavery of Africans was likely not
much a part of their universe . What the Ulster Scots cared about, was freedom from the
rule and governance of the despicable English aristocracy. And with good reason. They also
tended not to talk about what had happened to them, as our Irish-American ancestors tended
not to talk about what had really happened at the hands of the English. Its time to start
talking about the Ulster Scots. Much of the our ideas about freedom, about our relationship
to government, property. about the second amendment and the importance an ability of the
people to protect itself from government, come from the Scots. We need a reminder as to why
the Scots felt this way, based on experiences. Their experience of exactly what government
will do to a people when that people is unable to defend itself, and that government is
controlled by Khazarian and other bankers.
ebear 8 hours ago
"It's like the Soviet Union: sooner or later the entire idiotic ideology will collapse
on itself."
Ozarkian 2 hours ago
The media narratives no longer work. The movers and shakers are losing control and it
should scare the hell out of them. They might actually have to work for a living.
Aireannpure 14 hours ago
Do not comment on social dogma, rhetoric and platitudes dudes.
As
Peter Hitchens noted recently "the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector
from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is 'not as nuts' as the indoctrination now
forced on Western students."
One of Yeonmi Park's initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be
met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. "Did
you know," Ms. Park was sternly admonished, "that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They
were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you."
But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi
concluded: "Even North Korea is not this nuts North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this
crazy." Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the
land of her dreams.
Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new
situation: "She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree.
Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant
regimes, and let the drivel wash over her."
Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to
say.
You need to drink a lot of "woke coke" and wearing exclusively "woke Nike" to digest those
recommendations without laughing.
History repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce. White Guard rebels during Russian civil
War called Bolsheviks "Tovatitcshi"(Comrades) as they prohibited to say Sir to the officers.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I
choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make
words mean so many different things."
As George Orwell has taught us, language manipulation is at the frontline (yes, I have just
broken one of the cardinal rules of his "
Politics and the English Language ," but not his final injunction to "break any of these
rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous") of politicised mind-bending. The sort of
language we are permitted to use circumscribes the thinking that we shall be allowed to engage
in. The assault on language is, therefore, an integral component of the unrelenting warfare
being waged for the conquest and control of the mind. Word elimination and reassignment of
meaning, as Orwell also presciently noted, are essential elements of the campaign to reformat
the mind and eventually to subjugate it.
A breath-taking example of how this process works was recently unveiled by the thoroughly
brain-washed students of the once prestigious Brandeis University who, this time without
prompting from their faculty elders and betters, voted to ban from their campus such odious
words and phrases as "picnic" and "you guys," for being "oppressive". "Picnic" is prohibited
because it allegedly evokes the lynching of Blacks.
The precocious young intellectuals took pains to produce an entire list of objectionable
words and phrases, shocking award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates who tweeted in
bewilderment: "What sort of punishment is doled out for a faculty member who utters the word
'picnic' at Brandeis? Or the phrase [also proscribed – S.K.] 'trigger warning'? Loss of
tenure, public flogging, self-flagellation?"
Oppressive Language
Possible Alternatives
Explanation
Killing it
Great job!
If someone is doing well, we
don't need to equate that to
Awesome!
murder!
Take a shot at
Give it a go
These expressions needlessly use
imagery of hurting someone or
Take a stab at
Try
something.
Trigger warning
Content note
The word "trigger" has
connections to guns for many
Drop-in
people; we can give the same
head's up using language less
connected to violence.
Rule of thumb
General rule
This expression comes from an
old British law allowing men to
beat their wives with sticks no
wider than their thumb.
Pknk
Outdoor eating
Tlie term picnic is often
associated with lynchings of
Black people in the United
States, during which white
spectators were said to have
watched while eating, referring
to them as picnics or other terms
involving racial slurs against
Black people.
Go off tlte reservation
Disagree with tlie group, defect
This phrase has a harmful
from the group
history rooted in the violent
removal of indigenous people
from their land and the Itorrible
consequences for someone that
left the reservation.
_arrow
Not Your Father's ZH 8 hours ago (Edited)
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and
to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " ― George Orwell
The constant reconstruction of language is a highly effective tool when employed against
weak minds... as most folks have only a loose association with the words in their
heads...
As meanings of words are changed the ideas associated with those words change...
consequently a society can be transformed into a different society without ever answering a
single argument...
1748 (in Chesterfield's "Letters"), but the thing itself apparently was rare before c.
1800 as an English institution [OED]; it originally meant "a fashionable social affair (not
necessarily out of doors) in which every partaker contributed something to the general
table;" from French piquenique (1690s), perhaps a reduplication of piquer "to pick, peck,"
from Old French (see pike
(n.1)), or the second element may be nique "worthless thing," from a Germanic source.
As in many other riming names, the elements are used without precision, but the lit.
sense is appar. 'a picking or nibbling of bits,' a snatch, snack .... [Century
Dictionary]
The word also turns up 18c. in German, Danish, Swedish. Later "pleasure party the
members of which carry provisions with them on an excursion, as to some place in the
country." Figurative sense of "something easy" is from 1886. Picnic basket is by 1857.
Picnic table is by 1858, originally a folding table used for outdoor dining.
Meanwhile the top Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Indian etc. schools concentrating on STEM
are laughing their asses off.
John Grady 6 hours ago
Activism is now a career path so to differentiate yourself as an activist you have to
have an angle so you look busy. Endless bickering about minutia makes it look like they're
doing something.
Little wonder that here and there sanity nostalgia is gripping the Western world, at least
those isolated portions of it that are not internalising the sinister "new normal." But it is
seemingly to no avail. All commanding positions are firmly in the hands of lunatics, who are
determined to turn a once great and exemplary civilisation into an asylum.
As George Orwell has taught us, language manipulation is at the frontline (yes, I have just
broken one of the cardinal rules of his "
Politics and the English Language ," but not his final injunction to "break any of these
rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous") of politicised mind-bending. The sort of
language we are permitted to use circumscribes the thinking that we shall be allowed to engage
in. The assault on language is, therefore, an integral component of the unrelenting warfare
being waged for the conquest and control of the mind. Word elimination and reassignment of
meaning, as Orwell also presciently noted, are essential elements of the campaign to reformat
the mind and eventually to subjugate it.
A breath-taking example of how this process works was recently unveiled by the thoroughly
brain-washed students of the once prestigious Brandeis University who, this time without
prompting from their faculty elders and betters, voted to ban from their campus such odious
words and phrases as "picnic" and "you guys," for being "oppressive". "Picnic" is prohibited
because it allegedly evokes the lynching of Blacks.
The precocious young intellectuals took pains to produce an entire list of objectionable
words and phrases, shocking award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates who tweeted in
bewilderment: "What sort of punishment is doled out for a faculty member who utters the word
'picnic' at Brandeis? Or the phrase [also proscribed – S.K.] 'trigger warning'? Loss of
tenure, public flogging, self-flagellation?"
All three punishments will probably be applied to reactionary professors who go afoul of the
list's rigorous linguistic requirements.
Not to be outdone by the progressive kids on the East Coast, avant-garde
California legislators have passed a law to remove the pronoun "he" from state legal texts.
The momentous reform was initiated by California's new attorney general, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan,
who after looking up the job requirements made the shocking discovery that the law assumed that
the attorney general would be a man.
Upon review, it turned out that the state code and other legal documents were enabling
unacceptable concepts by using pronouns "he," "him" and "his" when referring to the attorney
general and other state-wide elected officials. Appalled, Ms. Bauer-Kahan denounced these
linguistic lapses for not representing "where California is and where California is going." She
inarguably was right on that score at least, which has perhaps also something to do with the
massive exodus of California residents to less complicated parts of the country.
When lawmakers of a state which is rapidly turning into a North American Calcutta have no
concerns more pressing than to revise the use of pronouns in official documents, that sends a
clear message where that state is going, exactly as the smart and thoroughly up-to-date woman
said.
But as a Pakistani
immigrant father in Seattle, state of Washington, discovered to his chagrin, the linguistic
clowning can have very serious personal and political consequences. After checking in his
16-year-old autistic son for treatment in what he thought was a medical facility, Ahmed was
shocked to receive a telephone call where a social worker explained to him that the child he
had originally entrusted to the medical authorities as a son was actually transgender and must
henceforth, under legal penalty of removal, be referred to and treated as a "daughter."
Coming from a traditional society still governed by tyrannical precepts of common sense and
not accustomed to the ways of the asylum where in search of a better life he and his family
inadvertently ended up, the father (a title that like mother, now officially "number one
parent," is also
on the way out ) was able to conceive his tragic predicament only by weaving a complex
conspiracy theory:
"They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to
absolutely want to push us in that direction. We had calls with counsellors and therapists in
the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because
that's the only way he's going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state."
Since in the equally looney state of Washington the age when minors can request a
gender-change surgery without parental consent is 13, the Pakistani parents saw clearly the
writing on the wall and, bless them, they came up with a clever stratagem to outwit their
callous ideological tormentors. Ahmed "assured Seattle Children's Hospital that he would take
his son to a gender clinic and commence his son's transition. Instead, he collected his son,
quit his job, and moved his family of four out of Washington."
Perhaps feeling the heat from the linguistic Gestapo even in his celebrity kitchen, iconic
chef Jamie Oliver has come on board. Absurdly, Jamie vowed
fealty to the ascendant normal by dropping the term "Kaffir lime leaves" from his recipes ,
in fear that the alleged "historically racist slur" would offend South Africans. No evidence at
all has been furnished or demanded of complaints from South Africa in that regard. But it
speaks volumes that someone of Jamie's influence and visibility should nevertheless deem it
prudent to anticipate such criticism even though, should it have materialised, it of course
would not originate from South Africa but from white Western political correctness
commissars.
Jamie is now busy, but not just cooking. He is going over his previously published recipes
in order to expunge all offensive references to kefir leaves. Orwell aficionados will recall
this precious passage from 1984 : "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book
rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed,
every date has been altered." And now every recipe as well. The dystopia fits, does it not, to
a tee even something as seemingly trivial as a cooking show?
But it is not just recipes. Children's fairy tales are also fair game for 1984 revision.
Hollywood actress Natalie Portman ( Star Wars , The Professional , Thor ), inspired
apparently by the new cultural normal, has taken it upon herself not to write, but to re-write,
several classic fairy tales to make them "gender-neutral," so "children can defy gender
stereotypes." Predictably, pronouns were again a major target:
"I found myself changing the pronouns in many of their books because so many of them had
overwhelmingly male characters, disproportionate to reality," quoth Natalie as she put her
linguistic scalpel to such old favourites as The Tortoise and the Hare , Country Mouse and
City Mouse and The Three Little Pigs .
Need we go on, or does the sharp reader already get the general drift? How about
State University of New York student Owen Stevens , who was suspended and censured for
pointing out on his Instagram the ascertainable biological fact that "A man is a man, a woman
is a woman. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man." (Owen was snitched on by fellow
students, readers from the former Eastern bloc will be amused to learn.) Or the Nebraska
university basketball coach who was suspended for using in a motivational speech the
mysteriously offensive word "plantation"? Or the hip $57,000-a-year NYC school that
banned students from saying "mom" and "dad" , from asking where classmates went on vacation
or wishing anyone "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays"? Or
female university student Lisa Keogh in Scotland who said in class "women have vaginas"
(who would be better informed than she on that subject?) and are "not as strong as men", who is
facing disciplinary action by the university after fellow classmates complained about her
"offensive and discriminatory" comments? Or
Spanish politician Francisco José Contreras whose Twitter account was blocked as a
warning for 12 hours after he tweeted what some would regard as the self-evident truth that
"men cannot get pregnant" because they have "no uterus or eggs"?
As
Peter Hitchens noted recently "the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector
from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is 'not as nuts' as the indoctrination now
forced on Western students."
One of Yeonmi Park's initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be
met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. "Did
you know," Ms. Park was sternly admonished, "that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They
were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you."
But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi
concluded: "Even North Korea is not this nuts North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this
crazy." Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the
land of her dreams.
Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new
situation: "She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree.
Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant
regimes, and let the drivel wash over her."
Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to
say.
ay_arrow
Plus Size Model 9 hours ago
No worries! We're talking about two different things. You explicitly mentioned meanings
of words in your initial post. Now you're also alluding to what a psyop officer would
describe as manipulating the cognitive environment of a target group. Cognitive
manipulation is a much larger toolbox and involves things like perception management,
information management, memory retrieval, what old timers refer to as symbol manipulation,
etc.
In psychological warfare literature, symbols are somewhat of a mental bookmark. You can
really mess people up by altering the bookmarks slightly or changing around the files they
reference in a prolonged campaign.
The Nazi swastika is probably the most successful symbol manipulation campaign ever. It
means different things to different people and these meanings have evolved substantially
over time. Each new generation and is indoctrinated with different presentations of the
swastika. The wide latitude of interpretation and extreme views associated with it have
consistently created huge social flash points over the past 90 years.
Lorenz Feedback 9 hours ago
I think somethings are being overlooked on this point, Semantic prosody concerns itself
with the way unusual combinations of words can create intertextual 'resonance' and can
suggest speaker/writer attitude and opinion. Consider the difference with using very
powerful versus utterly compelling when presenting an argument. Some words shape narratives
better than others and trigger a response well known to advertisers and propagandists...and
help shape public opinion.
Yes... changing the context of words has a huge impact...
ie the word white is now seen in the context of numerous pejoratives...
Cautiously Pessimistic 10 hours ago
I fit in here in America less and less with each passing year. I feel like a stranger in
my own country at times. I am sure that is by design.
Max Power 9 hours ago
On the other hand, as soon as people encounter real problems like hunger, bankruptcy, or
homelessness, all this ivy league brainwashing evaporates in an instance. Just a stupid
game played by wealthy white libtards believing in fairytales.
So even in 1971 corporate American understood usefulness of critical race theory and "black
bolshevism" for their needs. Otherwise Bell would never get a tenure in Harvard -- the bastion of
neoliberalism and corporatism.
As the theory is a typical pseudoscience in the best style of Academician Lysenko, it is
natural that " Far more Americans have learned about critical race theory from its opponents
than from the theorists themselves."
The idea that "struggle for racial equality is worthwhile even though it will never succeed."
remiinds me Eduard Bernstein's "movement toward goal is everything; goal is nothing" see
Eduard Bernstein's
Revisionist Critique of Marxist Theory and Practice Bernstein was a member of the German
Social Democratic party which was a particularly strong and important member of the Second
International conference. Bernstein's thoughts are encapsulated in his book, Evolutionary
Socialism, published in 1899.
Notable quotes:
"... ...Far more Americans have learned about critical race theory from its opponents than from the theorists themselves. ..."
"... The political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr., whose work focuses on race and inequality, wrote about a conference he attended at Harvard Law School in 1991, where "I heard the late, esteemed legal theorist, Derrick Bell, declare on a panel that blacks had made no progress since 1865. I was startled not least because Bell's own life, as well as the fact that Harvard's black law students' organization put on the conference, so emphatically belied his claim." Mr. Reed dismissed the idea as "more a jeremiad than an analysis." ..."
"... Like the French existentialist Albert Camus, who saw Sisyphus's eternal effort to roll a boulder uphill as a symbol of human endurance in an absurd world, Bell demands "recognition of the futility of action" while insisting "that action must be taken." ..."
"... To the journalist and historian James Traub, who profiled Bell for the New Republic magazine in 1993, this amounted to a recipe for paralysis: "If you convince whites that their racism is ineradicable, what are they supposed to do? And what are blacks to do with their hard-won victim status?" ..."
In their book "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction," Mr. Delgado and Jean Stefancic list
several of its core premises, including the view that "racism is ordinary, not aberrational,"
and that it "serves important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group,"
that is, for white people. In recent years, these ideas have entered the mainstream thanks to
the advocacy of the Black Lives Matter movement, which was catalyzed by several high-profile
cases of police violence against Black people, as well as the New York Times's 1619 Project and
bestselling books like Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" and Ibram X. Kendi's "How to Be an
Antiracist." Critical race theory also informs instruction at some schools and other
institutions.
...Far more Americans have learned about critical race theory from its opponents than
from the theorists themselves. That may be inevitable, since their writing was mostly
aimed at other scholars. But at least one major work is more accessible: "Faces at the Bottom
of the Well," the 1992 book by Derrick Bell, who is often described as the founder or godfather
of critical race theory.
Bell died in 2011, but the response to his work foreshadows today's controversies. In
"Faces," he blends the genres of fiction and essay to communicate his powerfully pessimistic
sense of "the permanence of racism" -- the book's subtitle. Bell's thought has been an
important influence on some of today's most influential writers on race, such as Ta-Nehisi
Coates and Michelle Alexander.
Derrick Bell was born in Pittsburgh in 1930, and after serving in the Air Force he went to
work as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Eisenhower Justice Department. He left
the job in 1959 after being told that he had to resign his membership in the NAACP to avoid
compromising his objectivity. That experience reflects a major theme in Bell's work: Can
traditional legal standards of objectivity and neutrality lead to justice for Black Americans,
or does fighting racism require a more politically engaged, results-oriented approach to the
law?
In 1971, Bell became the first Black professor to receive tenure at Harvard Law School. As
he writes in "Faces," "When I agreed to become Harvard's first black faculty member I did so on
the express commitment that I was to be the first, but not the last, black hired. I was to be
the pioneer, the trailblazer." But the school was slow to hire more Black faculty, leading Bell
to leave in protest in 1990. He ended up spending the last part of his career at NYU Law
School.
... ... ...
The political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr., whose work focuses on race and inequality,
wrote about a conference he attended at Harvard Law School in 1991, where "I heard the late,
esteemed legal theorist, Derrick Bell, declare on a panel that blacks had made no progress
since 1865. I was startled not least because Bell's own life, as well as the fact that
Harvard's black law students' organization put on the conference, so emphatically belied his
claim." Mr. Reed dismissed the idea as "more a jeremiad than an analysis."
In the conclusion to "Faces," Bell argues that the struggle for racial equality is
worthwhile even though it will never succeed. Like the French existentialist Albert Camus,
who saw Sisyphus's eternal effort to roll a boulder uphill as a symbol of human endurance in an
absurd world, Bell demands "recognition of the futility of action" while insisting "that action
must be taken."
To the journalist and historian James Traub, who profiled Bell for the New Republic
magazine in 1993, this amounted to a recipe for paralysis: "If you convince whites that their
racism is ineradicable, what are they supposed to do? And what are blacks to do with their
hard-won victim status?"
... ... ...
These experiences inform "Faces at the Bottom of the Well," which is made up of nine fables,
some with a science-fiction twist. In one story, a new continent emerges in the Atlantic Ocean,
with an atmosphere that only African-Americans can breathe. In another, the U.S. institutes a
system where whites can pay for permission to discriminate against Blacks -- a kind of
cap-and-trade scheme for bigotry.
The question implies that state actors are specially qualified or motivated to subsidize
minority opinion in order to rectify the unfair treatment of minorities -- that the state is
the most qualified entity for intervening in opinion to favor minorities. But it is easily
demonstrated that the market provides more incentives to advocate for the fair treatment of
minorities than does the state. Markets encourage legal equality among buyers and sellers. The
state, meanwhile, has no monopoly on equal treatment -- to say the least. Quite to the
contrary, states have more incentives to discriminate against particular groups, as state
prerogatives often depend on discrimination. Consider the treatment of the Japanese and Germans
in America during World War II, or the treatment of Middle Easterners after 9/11. (Notice how
discrimination against Middle Easterners morphed into the consternation about "Islamophobia"
when the prerogatives of the state shifted from "the war on terror" under George W. Bush to the
incorporation of Islamic immigrants into the electorate under Barack Obama.)
Thus, we should be quite skeptical when states impose the opinion of minorities on the
majority through special programs in schools and elsewhere. Such programs likely involve
"positive discrimination" against particular groups, consistent with state objectives.
In fact, discrimination is precisely what is involved in the teaching of critical race
theory in schools, the military, the intelligence agencies, and in other government agencies
today. Critical race theory is a minority opinion that even most blacks do not agree with. It
is being foisted on the majority to establish discrimination against "whites," in order to
destroy a political contingent deemed inimical to the Democratic Party–run state. It is a
means for marginalizing oppositional elements and driving others into the voting ranks of the
Democratic Party by means of ideology. The state imposition of minority opinion does not serve
minorities.
Sounds like a great book for Tucker to recommend to that Army Chief of Staff!
Notable quotes:
"... I call it ROLE -- The Racism Of Low Expectations. This phenomenon has done ten times more to damage Black lives than can be attributed to CRT or institutionalized racism. ..."
"... A subset of ROLE is MVT. This is Manufactured Victimhood Theory. This comes about from influential Black "leaders" who, instead of teaching Blacks the truth about how to live good lives (work hard, develop skills, etc.), they told them to apply as their life strategy "say you are a victim." ..."
Recently the Joint Chiefs of Staff remarked that the US military should teach CTR to our
military essentially because they shoild teach all theories.
That doesn't make sense to me but I would like to put another theory into the public
sphere. I call it ROLE -- The Racism Of Low Expectations. This phenomenon has done ten times
more to damage Black lives than can be attributed to CRT or institutionalized racism.
A subset of ROLE is MVT. This is Manufactured Victimhood Theory. This comes about from
influential Black "leaders" who, instead of teaching Blacks the truth about how to live good
lives (work hard, develop skills, etc.), they told them to apply as their life strategy "say
you are a victim."
I am hoping that ROLE and MVT will become part of all aspects of American life -- all
levels of education, the military, businesses, the media, etc.
If the goal really is to improve Black lives, ROLE and MVT should be the rage over the
next few years.
Tom F
John Callahan 4 hours ago
Corporate America 'makes money critiquing itself.' The rest of us pay the price in
diminished freedom.
Wokeism is fascism dressed up in new clothes- the censorship, demonization of
groups and individuals and the physical violence against people and property remain the same.
Corporate America has one overriding interest- making money. Paying the left (and yes,
fascism is of the left) through critiquing itself and token monetary donations is a get out
of jail free card for Corporate America.
"Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily
subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it."
- Thomas Sowell
Dom Fried 4 hours ago
It will end the same. Almost, because there will be nobody to stop it.
Ed Baron 3 hours ago
Very well said, John. Fascism is a fundamental element or subset of Leftist or Marxist
thought. It demands conformity of the individual to the new "woke" state and it punishes any
who dissent. It's not incidental that American Leftists, including FDR, loved Mussolini prior
to WWII. That bromance has been washed clean, and attributed instead to the Right. Such a
typical transference technique used by Marxist.
Alex Guiness
I interpret your supposition 'White male global warming', as meaning White Males are
particularly flatulent hence are producing Green House Gases with their diets of greasy meats
(some on sticks), carnival funnel cakes, corn dogs, Philly cheese-steaks, Popeyes fried
chicken, all washed down with Bud Light. Would it kill them to have a salad now and then? How
can their spouses stand to be around them unless they are also consuming the same foods.
Imagine what it must be like at a sermon in a Lutheran Church, the whitest church of all.
They leave the doors open else a spark could set the whole place ablaze.
carol Perry
Thanks for today's chuckle Alex.
Alex Guiness
read my smurfs comment. i just posted it
Lynn Silton
Mr. Ramaswamy is right in every way! I don't belong to the Woke Church. I'll never join.
America is an inspirational country as is all it's written declarations. We, the people rule.
No religion can overrule it. We will not allow religious 'honor killings.' They are murder
here. We will not allow Wokism here it is the murder of our hopes and dreams which belong to
everybody regardless of appearance. I don't even know how appearance (of all things) became a
religion. The whole thing is so sick, people of all shades are speaking out and we will put
this crazy idea down. Here, we marry across all appearances. New people are often different
in appearance than parents. Woke will die of that alone. That's why we have an immigration
'problem' . People love our constitution and Declaration of Independence. People love that
they rule here, not the government. That's our creed and promise. Help protect it!!
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, responded sharply to questions
from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Wednesday about the examination of critical race theory in the
U.S. military.
"I've read Mao Zedong. I've read Karl Marx. I've read Lenin. That doesn't make me a
communist. So what is wrong with understanding" having some situational understanding about the
country for which we are here to defend?" Milley said.
He continued brusquely: "And I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United
States military, our general officers, our commissioned, noncommissioned officers of being,
quote, 'woke' or something else, because we're studying some theories that are out there."
C-SPAN captured Gaetz shaking his head while the Joint Chiefs chairman spoke.
The exchange came at a House Armed Services Committee hearing to discuss the 2022 Defense
Department budget.
Until recently, critical race theory was anything but a household phrase. Rather, it was
used to describe an approach to studying institutional racism, as NPR's
Barbara Sprunt has reported . But it has become a culture war issue, and the phrase has
been stretched well beyond its initial meaning, as conservatives in particular have used the
phrase to raise concerns about race in venues including state legislatures and local school
boards.
"... He defines "wokeism" as a creed that has arisen in America in response to the "moral vacuum" created by the ebbing from public life of faith, patriotism and "the identity we derived from hard work." He argues that notions like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion" and "sustainability" have come to take their place. ..."
"... "Our collective moral insecurities," Mr. Ramaswamy says, "have left us vulnerable" to the blandishments and propaganda of the new political and corporate elites, who are now locked in a cynical "arranged marriage, where each partner has contempt for the other." Each side is getting out of the "trade" something it "could not have gotten alone." ..."
"... Wokeness entered its union with capitalism in the years following the 2008 financial panic and recession. Mr. Ramaswamy believes that conditions were perfect for the match. "We were -- and are -- in the midst of the biggest intergenerational wealth transfer in history," he says. Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president. By the end of the crisis, Americans "were actually pretty jaded with respect to capitalism. Corporations were the bad guys. The old left wanted to take money from corporations and give it to poor people." ..."
"... The birth of wokeism was a godsend to corporations, Mr. Ramaswamy says. It helped defang the left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought, 'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials, birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr. Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself." ..."
"... Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of Salesforce , John Donahoe of Nike and Alan Jope of Unilever -- are its "cardinals." ..."
"... He describes this sort of corporate imposition -- "a market force supplanting open political debate to settle the essence of political questions" -- as one of the "defining challenges" America faces today. "If democracy means anything," he adds, "it means living in a one-person-one-vote system, not a one-dollar-one-vote system." Voters' voices "are unadjusted by the number of dollars we wield in the marketplace." Open debate in the public square is "our uniquely American mechanism" of settling political questions. He likens the woke-corporate silencing of debate as akin to the "old-world European model, where a small group of elites gets in a room and decides what's good for everyone else." ..."
"... The wokeism-capitalism embrace, Mr. Ramaswamy says, was replicated in Silicon Valley. Over the past few years, "Big Tech effectively agreed to censor -- or 'moderate' -- content that the woke movement didn't like. But they didn't do it for free." In return, the left "agreed to look the other way when it comes to leaving Silicon Valley's monopoly power intact." This arrangement is "working out masterfully" for both sides. ..."
"... Coca-Cola follows the same playbook, he says: "It's easier for them to issue statements about voting laws in Georgia, or to train their employees on how to 'be less white,' than it is to publicly reckon with its role in fueling a nationwide epidemic of diabetes and obesity -- including in the black communities they profess to care about so much." (In a statement, Coca-Cola apologized for the "be less white" admonition and said that while it was "accessible through our company training platform," it "was not a part of our training curriculum.") ..."
"... Nike finds it much easier to write checks to Black Lives Matter and condemn America's history of slavery, Mr. Ramaswamy says, even as it relies on "slave labor" today to sell "$250 sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can't afford to buy books for school." All the while, Black Lives Matter "neuters the police in a way that sacrifices even more black lives." (Nike has said in a statement that its code of conduct prohibits any use of forced labor and "we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains.") ..."
"... Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at New York University Law School's Classical Liberal Institute. ..."
"... Seems to me in a nutshell he is saying that these woke corporations are all hypocrites. No surprise there hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the woke left and you need to assume that characteristic yourself to be able to work within their bounds. ..."
"... Wokeists argue that theirs is not a religion because it doesn't center on a transcendent being. I see Wokeism as a religion that gathers multiple Secularist sects into a big tent. These sects include Environmentalism, Genderism, Anti-Racism, and more. ..."
"... One thing all religions share in common is the elevation of questionable premises to unassailable truths which they defend with religious zeal. Some questionable premises elevated to unassailable truths by Wokeism are that humans are making the Earth uninhabitable, gender is an individual choice, and race is the most important human characteristic. There are more. ..."
A self-made multimillionaire who founded a biotech company at 28, Vivek Ramaswamy is every
inch the precocious overachiever. He tells me he attended law school while he was in sixth
grade. He's joking, in his own earnest manner. His father, an aircraft engineer at General
Electric, had decided to get a law degree at night school. Vivek sat in on the classes with
him, so he could keep his dad company on the long car rides to campus and back -- a very Indian
filial act.
"I was probably the only person my age who'd heard of Antonin Scalia, " Mr. Ramaswamy, 35,
says in a Zoom call from his home in West Chester, Ohio. His father, a political liberal, would
often rage on the way home from class about "some Scalia opinion." Mr. Ramaswamy reckons that
this was when he began to form his own political ideas. A libertarian in high school, he
switched to being conservative at Harvard in "an act of rebellion" against the politics he
found there. That conservatism drove him to step down in January as CEO at Roivant Sciences --
the drug-development company that made him rich -- and write "Woke, Inc," a book that takes a
scathing look at "corporate America's social-justice scam." (It will be published in
August.)
Mr. Ramaswamy recently watched the movie "Spotlight," which tells the story of how reporters
at the Boston Globe exposed misconduct (specifically, sexual abuse) by Catholic priests in the
early 2000s. "My goal in 'Woke, Inc.' is to do the same thing with respect to the Church of
Wokeism." He defines "wokeism" as a creed that has arisen in America in response to the "moral
vacuum" created by the ebbing from public life of faith, patriotism and "the identity we
derived from hard work." He argues that notions like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion" and
"sustainability" have come to take their place.
"Our collective moral insecurities," Mr. Ramaswamy says, "have left us vulnerable" to the
blandishments and propaganda of the new political and corporate elites, who are now locked in a
cynical "arranged marriage, where each partner has contempt for the other." Each side is
getting out of the "trade" something it "could not have gotten alone."
Wokeness entered its union with capitalism in the years following the 2008 financial panic
and recession. Mr. Ramaswamy believes that conditions were perfect for the match. "We were --
and are -- in the midst of the biggest intergenerational wealth transfer in history," he says.
Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president. By the end of the crisis,
Americans "were actually pretty jaded with respect to capitalism. Corporations were the bad
guys. The old left wanted to take money from corporations and give it to poor people."
The birth of wokeism was a godsend to corporations, Mr. Ramaswamy says. It helped defang the
left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought,
'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and
minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in
Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials,
birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr.
Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself."
Mr. Ramaswamy regards Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, as the "patron saint of wokeism" for his relentless propagation of "stakeholder
capitalism" -- the view that the unspoken bargain in the grant to corporations of limited
liability is that they "must do social good on the side."
Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its
archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of
Salesforce , John
Donahoe of Nike and
Alan Jope of Unilever
-- are its "cardinals."
Mr. Ramaswamy says that "unlike the investigative 'Spotlight' team at the Boston Globe, I'm
a whistleblower, not a journalist. But the church analogy holds strong." He paraphrases a line
in the movie: "It takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a village to abuse one. In
the case of my book, the child I'm concerned about is American democracy."
In league with the woke left, corporate America "uses force" as a substitute for open
deliberation and debate, Mr. Ramaswamy says. "There's the sustainability accounting standards
board of BlackRock, which effectively demands that in order to win an investment from
BlackRock, the largest asset-manager in the world, you must abide by the standards of that
board."
Was the board put in place by the owners of the trillions of dollars of capital that Mr.
Fink manages? Of course not, Mr. Ramaswamy says. "And yet he's actually using his seat of
corporate power to sidestep debate about questions like environmentalism or diversity on
boards."
The irrepressible Mr. Ramaswamy presses on with another example. Goldman Sachs , he says with obvious relish,
"is a very Davos-fitting example." At the 2020 World Economic Forum, Goldman Sachs CEO David
Solomon "issued an edict from the mountaintops of Davos." Mr. Solomon announced his company
would refuse to take a company public if its board wasn't sufficiently diverse. "So Goldman
gets to define what counts as 'diverse,' " Mr. Ramaswamy says. "No doubt, they're referring to
skin-deep, genetically inherited attributes."
He describes this sort of corporate imposition -- "a market force supplanting open political
debate to settle the essence of political questions" -- as one of the "defining challenges"
America faces today. "If democracy means anything," he adds, "it means living in a
one-person-one-vote system, not a one-dollar-one-vote system." Voters' voices "are unadjusted
by the number of dollars we wield in the marketplace." Open debate in the public square is "our
uniquely American mechanism" of settling political questions. He likens the woke-corporate
silencing of debate as akin to the "old-world European model, where a small group of elites
gets in a room and decides what's good for everyone else."
The wokeism-capitalism embrace, Mr. Ramaswamy says, was replicated in Silicon Valley. Over
the past few years, "Big Tech effectively agreed to censor -- or 'moderate' -- content that the
woke movement didn't like. But they didn't do it for free." In return, the left "agreed to look
the other way when it comes to leaving Silicon Valley's monopoly power intact." This
arrangement is "working out masterfully" for both sides.
The rest of corporate America appears to be following suit. "There's a Big Pharma version,
too," Mr. Ramaswamy says. "Big Pharma had an epiphany in dealing with the left." It couldn't
beat them, so it joined them. "Rather than win the debate on drug pricing, they decided to just
change the subject instead. Who needs to win a debate if you can just avoid having it?" So we
see "big-time pharma CEOs musing about topics like racial justice and environmentalism, and
writing multibillion-dollar checks to fight climate change, while taking price hikes that
they'd previously paused when the public was angry about drug pricing."
Coca-Cola follows the same playbook, he says: "It's easier for them to issue statements
about voting laws in Georgia, or to train their employees on how to 'be less white,' than it is
to publicly reckon with its role in fueling a nationwide epidemic of diabetes and obesity --
including in the black communities they profess to care about so much." (In a statement,
Coca-Cola apologized
for the "be less white" admonition and said that while it was "accessible through our company
training platform," it "was not a part of our training curriculum.")
Nike finds it much easier to write checks to Black Lives Matter and condemn America's
history of slavery, Mr. Ramaswamy says, even as it relies on "slave labor" today to sell "$250
sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can't afford to buy books for school." All the
while, Black Lives Matter "neuters the police in a way that sacrifices even more black lives."
(Nike has said in a statement that its code of conduct prohibits any use of forced labor and
"we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions
that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains.")
... ... ...
Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
and at New York University Law School's Classical Liberal Institute.
Rod Drake 53 minutes ago
Seems to me in a nutshell he is saying that these woke corporations are all hypocrites. No
surprise there hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the woke left and you need to assume
that characteristic yourself to be able to work within their bounds.
In addition, I have been
saying for some time discrimination based on political belief desperately needs to be
included as a prohibited basis. Where are the Republicans, while the greatest civil rights
violation of our time is going on right under their noses?
Terry Overbey 1 hour ago
I love reading stories about people who are willing to take on the woke political class. For
most people, even if they strongly disagree, their only option is to bite their tongue and go
along. People aren't stupid. If you buck the system, you don't get promoted, you don't get
good grades, you don't get into elite schools, you don't get the government job.
Thank you Mr Ramaswany.
James Ransom 1 hour ago
Well. If nothing else, he just sold me a book. I think we should say that "Wokeism" tries to
"Act Like" a religion, not that it is one. Because of this fakery, we do not need to give it
"freedom" in the sense that we have "Freedom of Religion."
These misguided Americans perhaps need to be exposed to a real religion. Christianity and
Buddhism would be good choices; I don't know about Hinduism, but my point is that "Wokeism"
is more like a mental disorder. We should feel sorry for its victims, offer them treatment,
but not let them run anything.
marc goodman 1 hour ago
Wokeists argue that theirs is not a religion because it doesn't center on a transcendent
being. I see Wokeism as a religion that gathers multiple Secularist sects into a big tent.
These sects include Environmentalism, Genderism, Anti-Racism, and more.
One thing all religions share in common is the elevation of questionable premises to
unassailable truths which they defend with religious zeal. Some questionable premises
elevated to unassailable truths by Wokeism are that humans are making the Earth
uninhabitable, gender is an individual choice, and race is the most important human
characteristic. There are more.
Humans need to believe in something greater than themselves. We fulfill this need with
religion, and historically, the "greater something" has been a transcendent being. Wokeism
fulfills this need for its adherents but without a transcendent being. Ultimately, Wokeism
will fail as a religion because it can't nourish the soul like the belief in a transcendent
being does.
Grodney Ross 2 hours ago (Edited)
Judgement will be passed in November of 2022. I don't see this as a Democrat vs Republican
issue. I think it's a matter of who is paying attention vs. those who are not. We live in a
society where, generally, the most strident voices are on the left, along with the most
judgmental voices. When the "wokeless" engage in a manner that conflicts with views of the
woke, they are attacked, be you from the left or the right, so you keep your mouth shut and go
about your day.
I believe that this coming election will give voice to those who are fatigued and fed up
with the progressive lefts venom and vitriol. If not, we will survive, but without a meaningful
first amendment,14th amendment, or 2nd amendment.
Barbara Helton 2 hours ago (Edited)
Being woke, when practiced by the wealthy and influential, can be extremely similar to
bullying.
"... It helped defang the left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought, 'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials, birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr. Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself." ..."
"... Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of Salesforce , John Donahoe of Nike and Alan Jope of Unilever -- are its "cardinals." ..."
It helped defang the left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of
the big banks. They thought, 'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion,
appointed token female and minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact
of climate change." So, in Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a
bunch of millennials, birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for
adoption." Now, in Mr. Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing
itself."
Mr. Ramaswamy regards Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, as the "patron saint of wokeism" for his relentless propagation of "stakeholder
capitalism" -- the view that the unspoken bargain in the grant to corporations of limited
liability is that they "must do social good on the side."
Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of
BlackRock , are "its
archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of
Salesforce , John
Donahoe of Nike and
Alan Jope of Unilever
-- are its "cardinals."
That Leftist "wokeism" is the brainchild of a religious cult should've been obvious decades
ago. The purely religious belief in anthropogenic global warming, for example, which closely
mimics the spiritual rituals of ancient cultures by worshiping nature over man. The hierarchy
of color and gender as fetishes through which human relative value can be determined also
mimics the hierarchy of priests or shamans in other religions. Thus, a fairly vapid group
like BLM is exalted based purely on the melanin content of their skin, even though their
claims are ridiculously flawed (They "care" about the lives of 90 or so armed felons killed
by police, but call the 7,000+ black people killed by Blacks a "distraction"). Like many
religions that plagued humanity throughout history, they will torment and punish all
"deniers." Four years of the Trump Presidency made this clear. He faced the Grand Inquisition
because he refused to kneel.
It seems that the wokesters who claim that they are "anti-racists" still can't tolerate the
memory of a man who defeated history's most murderous racist. The Thursday defacing of a statue
in Canada is the latest effort to cancel Hitler's implacable foe.
A Downtown statue of Sir Winston Churchill has been vandalized after someone dumped red paint
all across the replica of the former British prime minister...
Churchill, who served as prime minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955, is
seen as a national hero for his leadership during the Second World War but held many views
that would be deemed racist.
Perhaps the 20th century's greatest adversary of communist and fascist dictatorships,
Churchill has of course been found wanting by today's dictators of political fashion. This
week's vandalism follows several such instances over the last year involving a U.K. statue of
Churchill in London's Parliament Square. In Canada, Mr. Labine reports:
Elisebeth Checkel, the president of the Sir Winston Churchill Society of Edmonton, said this
is the first instance of the statue being vandalized that she's heard of and was disappointed
to see it happen.
She said Churchill has a complicated legacy and believes it is important to look at him in a
balanced way.
"If we look at any historical figure, we will find the same thing," Checkel said. "If we look
at almost any person from the 1880s, we would find their views were if not repugnant to us
nowadays, we would find they were disagreeable for sure. If you look at Churchill's later
actions and life as he grew, as we all hope to do, his views did change. The balance should
be celebrated because without Churchill we would not even have the right to protest in this
country."
Licia Corbella
writes in the Calgary Herald that this week's vandalism of the statue is "another act of
woke totalitarianism." She adds:
Mark Milke, president of the Sir Winston Churchill Society of Calgary, says it's chilling to
contemplate what the world would be like now had Churchill not been there.
"Imagine if Churchill hadn't been there and the United Kingdom either did a peace treaty with
Hitler or fell during an invasion," said Milke...
"Nazi Germany would have controlled much of Europe... with the Soviet Union controlling the
other half and Imperial Japan raping Asia. Canada and the U.S. would have been pretty much
alone in the world..."
"Churchill is not a Civil War general from the South fighting to protect slavery. He's not
Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao or Adolf Hitler," continued Milke.
No he's not. In fact Churchill was a stalwart opponent of the ideologies promoted by all
three of the 20th century's most infamous mass murderers. "For the historically illiterate who
like to throw paint on statues," Ms. Corbella notes the bloody legacy of Churchill's enemies
and adds:
What never seems to get mentioned is these statues are works of art. This destruction is not
unlike the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan in 2001. These woke folk are
Talibanesque.
As for Churchill, Ms. Corbella asks: "If we allow his legacy to be torn down, whose, pray
tell, can stand?"
Fortunately Ms. Corbella is not standing alone. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney tweets :
People should continue to debate Churchill's complex legacy & record, but vandalizing
public property like this is shameful.
No member of the greatest generation can meet the standards of contemporary wokeness. But we
should still honour those who secured our peace and freedom.
Canadian Parliament member Pierre Poilievre adds :
Don't schools teach history anymore?
Now the woke warriors attack the statue of Winston Churchill--the greatest anti-fascist of
all time. He beat Hitler and Mussolini for crying out loud.
Do these vandals wish he had lost?
Coincidentally it was on this day 81 years ago when Churchill addressed the British House of
Commons after the German army had overrun France. Said
Churchill:
I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival
of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of
our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be
turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If
we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward
into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United
States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new
Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British
Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their
finest hour."
If wokesterism could last for a thousand years, would it ever result in a great
civilization?
"Stop indoctrinating our children. Stop teaching our children to hate the police. Stop
teaching our children that if they don't agree with the LGBT community that they're homophobic.
You have no idea each child's life," she said, adding "You don't know what their family
lifestyle consists of, you don't know the makeup of their life."
https://youtu.be/zxu3wdiXRF0
Ibrahim shut down school board members' objections several times - in between calling out
two teachers for posting their political beliefs online. When board members told her she wasn't
allowed to reference people by name, Ibrahim claimed those teachers called "for the death of a
former president," and that students who don't support Black Lives Matter should be "canceled
out."
"Why are we not allowed to say names? Why am I not allowed when they purposefully expose
themselves on social media, talking about calling for the death of a former president, or
saying that any child who doesn't believe in Black Lives Matter should be canceled out. Is this
what my tax dollars are paying for?" she asked.
"You're emotionally abusing our children and mentally abusing them," Ibrahim continued
RDinSC 1 hour ago
Never vote for anyone at any level of political office who does not openly and sincerely
oppose CRT and any and all woke indoctrination.
RedDog1 1 hour ago
I'm a super anti-racist. I'm especially against woke neo-racism.
BLOTTO 52 minutes ago (Edited)
Wait until she finds out that Drag Queen Roxy is reading 'The Hips on the DQ go swish
swish swish' to the kids at the local library.
Pooper Popper 1 hour ago
She Rocks!!!!!
Bang!!
high5mail 36 minutes ago
When I listen to this woman and look around me at all the fools who buy into the
"system" as it is, too scared to do what she is doing, it saddens me at the apathy and
cowardice of the general public which will sell their souls for protection on a non deadly
virus and take an unproved vaccine to virtue signal.
She is a modern day Joan of Arc. I would stand beside her in an instant. How many others
would do that or demand the same things she is demanding? Most are too busy trying to
figure out what gender they think they should be or trying on racist social agendas in the
"woke" category.
Some quotes by notable feminists, not all of whom are women:
The nuclear family must be destroyed Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of
families now is an objectively revolutionary process. Linda Gordon
I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth,
like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin
The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the
human race. Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is
Female
If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I
think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic
reduction of the population of males. Mary Daly
If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false [sexual assault] report, then victims of
real attacks will be less likely to report them. David Angier
Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.
Catherine Comins
Two GOP lawmakers this
week launched a campaign calling on whistleblowers in the military to come forward with their
experiences in training programs that promote critical race theory or "diversity, equity, and
inclusion."
"We won't let our military fall to woke ideology," Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a former
Navy SEAL, wrote in a tweet on Friday while
linking to a website
where informants can submit their accounts.
"With written permission, we will anonymously publish egregious complaints on social media
and tell the country what's happening in our military."
"For too long, progressive Pentagon staffers have been calling the shots for our
warfighters," said Crenshaw about the web page posted in conjunction with Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-Ark.), a former Army captain.
House Homeland Security Committee member Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) speaks during a hearing
in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Sept. 17, 2020. (Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images)
They hope that service members "will anonymously publish egregious complaints on social
media" in order to "tell the country what's happening in our military," according to
Crenshaw.
"Progressive Pentagon staffers have been calling the shots for our warfighters," the
lawmaker added, "and spineless military commanders have let it happen. Now we are going to
expose you."
Earlier this month, the U.S. Space Force confirmed it relieved Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier of
his duties after he alleged that Marxism and critical race theory -- which draws heavy
inspiration from Marxist critical theory -- are both being spread in the military via training
courses that are required by Department of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other high-level
officials.
"Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, Space Operations Command commander, relieved Lt. Col. Matthew
Lohmeier of command of the 11th Space Warning Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, May
14, due to loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead," the Space Force said in
mid-May, adding that Lohmeier's remarks in a podcast and in his self-published book
"constituted prohibited partisan political activity." The Space Force's statement didn't
provide an example.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) speaks during a hearing to examine United States Special Operations
Command and United States Cyber Command, on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 25, 2021.
(Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images)
Last week, Lohmeier met with Cotton, who tweeted after their meeting
that he's concerned "by what I heard" and promised to press "senior military leaders for
answers."
Critical race theory denounces U.S. and Western culture as a systematic form of oppression
that negatively impacts minority groups. Critics of the ideology -- which is sometimes referred
to as being "woke" -- have said its proponents apply the Marxist tactic of "class struggle" to
divide people along lines of race, gender, and ethnicity to label them "oppressors" and the
"oppressed."
At the state level, legislatures and governors have taken action against critical race
theory as well as The New York Times' "1619 Project," by barring them from being promoted in
schools and in government institutions.
The governors of Tennessee, Idaho, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have already signed anti-critical
race theory bills. In Texas, Arizona, and Iowa, similar measures have been proposed,
according to an analysis .
DonGenaro PREMIUM 2 hours ago
Crenshaw is a neocon *****.
I have more respect for Leftists - at least one knows where they stand.
Rid'n Dirty 2 hours ago
I'm glad to get help from anywhere it comes from but Cotton is a tool of Paul Singer the
greatest vulture capitalist in America. Singer destroyed Cabelas and their employees of 40
years to force a buyout by BassPro. Singer walked off with over $100 million for doing
nothing.
Cotton never saw any part of the illegal surveillance state that he wouldn't vote for,
eagerly. The guy with the eye patch is controlled by the same NeoCons. Who represents
us?
Giant Meteor 2 hours ago
Generally speaking this is called controlled opposition, or as I like to call it, really
fake **** ...
Rashomon 2 hours ago (Edited)
The level of absurdity here is astounding. The fact that so called representatives are
having to ask military personnel to snitch on "wokeness" is proof in and of itself that we
are in clown world. Nevermind that wokeness is even a thing.
vasilievich 1 hour ago (Edited)
BTW, not all Catholics are monsters out of the Inquisition. My wife and I are regular
attenders at Mass, readers at morning Mass a day every other week. One of our relatives has
been a missionary priest in Brazil for a missionary order. I have no reason to believe that
they're not very good and self-giving people. We know the faults of some members of the
Church, including priests. We don't worship them, idealize them. We should pray for their
reform, as I was just reading last night in Matthew, and we won't leave God in His
Sacraments because of them.
Krink26 2 hours ago
Obama more than decimated the flag officer ranks and replaced them with his yes men. It
has come home to roost. This isn't something that just appeared with the new admin, it's
just gone hypersonic. One of my closest friends retired about three years ago a highly
decorated Navy pilot in JSOC. I clearly remember him talk a lot about this in 2013-14 - the
start of Obama's second term. (The same time I witnessed my corporate environment become a
woke hell) I stayed with him earlier in the month and he told me that he knew two seals
that are leaving because of this crap. One with 14 years and the other with 17 years in.
That's talent, grit and experience you don't want to lose because of inclusivity.
PhilLeotardo 1 hour ago
Crenshaw carries water for Israel. That's all you need to know about this clown.
taglady 2 hours ago
Crenshaw pushed red flag laws and censoring of college students on the Israel issue.
"... The Black Liberation Movement has made millionaires out of their grifter leaders and enabled the left to remain in power in every city in which rioting occurred. Their local opposition has been cleansed or cowed into submission. The movement continues its success as seen by its adoption by corporations seeking to reduce the power and influence of middle class Americans and by politicians seeking to entrence their power electorally. ..."
The continuing hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter was displayed vividly over the past
weekend– BLM
declared solidarity with Hamas but said nothing about a slew of murders and shootings
targeting black
communities .
There were at least 11 mass shootings in the country over the weekend that combined left
at least 17 people dead and 35 more wounded, according to CNN reporting and an analysis of
data from Gun Violence Archive (GVA),
local media and police reports.
I found it curious that none of the reporting made any mention about the race of the victims
or the perpetrators. Left me wondering so I did some digging. It appears that the majority of
these mass shootings involved black Americans as perpetrators or victims.
At least 55 people were shot across Chicago over the weekend, 12 of them fatally,
including a 15-year-old boy who
was shot in the head on the front porch of a home in Lawndale, and three double
homicides.
These shootings took place in predominantly black neighborhoods.
Of course. Much political and social capital has been squandered in recent years, all in
an attempt to adumbrate the singular reality that the deeply engrained social pathologies
in the "black community" have more to do with their failure to thrive than white systemic
racism does. We, meaning white America, cannot help them with this no matter how much self
abnegation we indulge in. Black America needs to adopt standards of belief and behavior
that are socially, culturally, and economically functional and they need to teach their
children those values. I have seen this happen with a certain fragment of that demographic,
but it needs to happen more widely. This may be offensive to some readers, but there is
truth in it.
Reply
Do blacks themselves need to be uniquely empowered (and protected) to speak up against
black on black violence? What has prevented the peace-seeking black community members from
taking charge of their own neighborhoods.
What Reign of Terror are they living under that those of us outside these communities do
not understand.
Latino gangs terrorize latino communities as well. The violent tyranny of the few
against the decent lives of the many is very, very wrong and should not exist in our
country. But it is a daily reality in our rapidly devolving inner city neighborhoods.
Reply
These minority neighborhoods can't have it both ways:
They can't object to successful methods like stop and frisk and then complain
about crime. "Snitches get stiches" is another "cute" saying encouraging crime.
After a time trying to help people who won't help themselves and are often openly
hostile, the cops grow cynical and less proactive; can you blame them?
Because it's "racist" to criticize any form of minority behavior, there can not be an
honest discussion about solutions to this problem and the beat goes on.
People (including the self-hating, phony "guilty" white liberals, BTW) who can live in
segregated neighborhoods continue to live in segregated neighborhoods.
I used to live in CT – very liberal blue state – totally segregated; BLM
signs on the "right" lawns.
Reply
TV
Yes here in Mpls the same blue haired tattooed
Nose ring wokes make up a large majority of
The BLM protests. The obligatory signs festoon
Whole neighborhoods. Do they march or picket
The areas where the majority of the shootings occur
And whose victims are all black? Ha! Too dangerous.
The near North side aka Nomi has had continuous
Gunfire for near 1200 days. Now they have running
Gun battles with "Ak" type fully automatic weapons.
It's become a tragedy writ large. Not a virtue
Signal to be seen.
Reply
Yes, it's hard to believe that so many are taken in by the rhetoric of Black Lives
Matter when there's evidence on a near-daily basis of black-on-black violence and murder.
It's truly a crime that so-called leaders don't decry it and demand a call to action for it
to stop, a crime that there's so little public discourse about underclass blacks basically
exterminating each other with impunity. It's a taboo subject, and can't be broached without
accusations of racism. We only hear righteous outrage when a member of the black underclass
is killed by a cop.
Reply
Why does the charge of "racism" cause so many to immediately recoil and retreat? It is
just a word, yet it has risen to weaponized effectiveness.
What does this word trigger in so many people who will immediately back down and
retreat. Pretty powerful tool -until more don't blink and don't stand down at its mere
mention.
Always felt there was an implied threat of "black violence' that accompanied every one
of Obama's political moves. We need to cleanse that threat out of our own psyches or else
this nation will be held hostage by a mere word.
Reply
Isn't this an interesting bit of Democrat deja vu, including charges of rigged
voting machines in 2008 the GOP would use to prevent Obama from winning and thereby
triggering a Second Civil War -- "the streets will run with blood .if Obama loses
.."
Thanks to two great political pundits – Erica Jong and Jane Fonda. They did
capture the zeitgeist of the times however, and continue to do so. The threat of black
violence, if you don't do what we went.
Fast forward to 2020 – and the world yet again feared "the streets would run
with blood", but this if Trump won re-election and Democrat Biden did not win.
But this time it bloody well appears it was the Democrats who rigged the voting
processes. Yet again it appears it is the Democrats accusing the GOP of what they were
already doing themselves.
Reply
The Black Liberation Movement has made millionaires out of their grifter leaders and
enabled the left to remain in power in every city in which rioting occurred. Their local
opposition has been cleansed or cowed into submission. The movement continues its success
as seen by its adoption by corporations seeking to reduce the power and influence of middle
class Americans and by politicians seeking to entrence their power electorally.
Some people who were black were shot by others who were black? Quit saying that, you,
you, what's the word: racist!; as none of that has been proved in court. Did any of these
'leaders' care about all those shootings in the Sanctuary City of Chicago when President
Hope and Change was in charge? (2016)
Total shootings 4379 Shot and wounded 3664 Shot and killed: 715
Assailant race by percentage
Whoa: you're saying the left behaves hypocritically and is willing to take losses in
order to get what they want?
Such insight!
Ethnic hypocrisy is the ancient problem here, but this focus on contemporary black
antics obscures the issue and is simply another avoidance strategy.
The recent missile duel in the eastern Mediterranean has shown that white conservatives
are more willing to stand up for the safety of non- or dual-citizens overseas than they are
for safety of their own white constituents, whom they refuse even to name.
There is nothing wrong with Obama with his financial success to buy in predominantly
white Martha's Vineyard. The question that blacks should ask however is are those leaders
who use racism and race to gain political power doing much to alleviate the social and
economic issues they face?
There are many successful blacks in all walks of life. Why aren't they celebrated and
used as role models instead of someone like George Floyd?
Reply
When you first went on the "BLM website" you immediately were linked to ActBlue
– a fund-raising arm of the Democrat party. There was no independent or "private"
donation link for BLM. Calling BLM "private" in this case would be a stretch for me
after that initial experience with BLM.
So the bigger question is, why is the State Dept etc pushing an arm of the Democrat
Party fund-raising machine within government operations? Did BLM formally dissociate
completely with ActBlue?
Reply
Because the State Dept., like the rest of the Democrat party, has accelerated
faster and faster to the left.
They've been selling out America for decades and now, like the rest of the Democrat
party, the last mask has dropped.
Reply
Having grown up in Chicago and still living nearby I would say "predominantly black"
neighborhoods is a media fiction, part of the narrative to displace the blame onto others
than black. I assure you these are black neighborhoods, once white now ruined for
generations. I have sympathy for blacks, so much so that I suggest we organize to supply as
much ammo as possible to help them rid the hood of evil doers. Mostly 9mm, drop off crates
in front of playgrounds and street corners so they can be easily found.
Reply
Larry's point that BLM doesn't care about Black lives is graphically shown and described
by this Officer Tatum podcast (it's short) of local newscasts, not shown by national news,
of Black children murdered by Blacks.
"You can never be woke enough, that's the problem," Rogan stated in a recent conversation with stand-up comedian Joe List about
the effect cancel culture is having on comedy.
"It keeps going. It keeps going further and further and further down the line, and if you get to the point where you capitulate,
where you agree to all these demands, it'll eventually get to straight white men are not allowed to talk ," he added.
"Because it's your privilege to express yourself when other people of colour have been silenced throughout history," Rogan continued,
emphasising the justification of woke proponents.
"It will be, you're not allowed to go outside. Because so many people were imprisoned," Rogan continued, adding "I'm not joking,
it really will get there. It's that crazy."
"We just gotta be nice to each other, man. And there's a lot of people that are taking advantage of this weirdness in our culture,
and then that becomes their thing. Their thing is calling people out for their privilege, calling people out for their position.
You know, so, it's f***ing crazy times."
The topic is a continuation of a conversation Rogan had
last
week with Dave Chappelle , who said he hopes 'we all survive' cancel culture.
The host was immediately proven on point by the woke mob on Twitter who took issue with Rogan believing it's a bad thing that
straight white men are being silenced, and some failing to be able to hold more than one thought in their head at once:
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter
here . Support our sponsor –
Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Also, we urgently need your financial support here
.
The Biden Administration has gone out of its way to show itself as absolutely
"woke-compatible" and even as a champion of "wokeness" (Foggy Bottom has just allowed US
embassies and consulates to fly the "gay pride" flag next to the Stars and Stripes. I bet you
they won't do that in Riyadh!). According to the hyper-politically correct Wikipedia , "woke" refers to the "
awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice ". This definition
is, however, misleading because, for example, it clearly is not intended to cover, say, social
injustice meted out to poor whites. In other words, wokeness is a one way street. What wokeness
does mandate is for my son (who is studying biology) to be told in his class that he is the
carrier of "white guilt" even though his ancestors never interacted with blacks, let alone
blacks in the USA.
As I have mentioned in the past, I do not consider categories such as "black" or "white" as
analytically helpful since they are not properly defined. That, however, does not mean that I
am not willing to use them in a specific context where the parties to an ideological dispute
refer to themselves, or to others, as black or white. By the way, "Asian" is another useless
category as, depending on whom you ask, it would include Pakistanis (who sure ain't yellow) and
lump them together with (brown) Indonesians and (yellow) Japanese people. The fact that these
categories are used in the western political discourse means that I cannot ignore them solely
because I find them ambiguous and misleading. Furthermore, the category "African" whether used
with "American" or not, is not helpful either since it would include people otherwise
considered white; say Elon Musk, even though nobody thinks of Musk as African-American.
Finally, the category black might include Tamils or Australian aborigines, but it is rarely, if
ever, used in that sense. Thus, when I will use the words black or white below, it will be in
the largely accepted US meaning of "descendants of African slaves" and "descendents of white
colonists" even though I am acutely aware of the reality of interbreeding (by rape or by mutual
consent) between these two groups and even though the woke ideology blames *all* so-called
"whites" for their putative racism and their supposedly "privileged" position in the US society
due to its alleged "systemic racism", even when they are new immigrants to the USA.
I don't think that I have tackled the issues of race or racism before, mostly because I am
horrified by all the nonsense one can hear as soon as these topics are mentioned. It is,
however, indisputable that the woke ideology is the main ideology of the Biden Administration
and this is why it cannot simply be ignored. Of course, other ideological trends of the US
ruling class (messianism, imperialism, self-worship, capitalism, etc.) have not been abandoned;
instead, they have been "wokified" in the sense that the woke ideology is now used to give
these traditional US ideologies some kind of politically-correct imprimatur , a kind of
"when we do that in the name of wokeness we are doing something morally right" label placed on
an otherwise deeply discredited set of "western values".
Of course, there is an apparent paradox here: how can the woke ideology be used to try to
give a semblance of respectability to a set of western ideologies when the woke ideology is
also rabidly anti-western?! The woke ideology is most definitely anti-western, and not in the
sense of condemning the West's thousand years of bloody wars and imperialism, that would at
least make some sense, but it is anti-western in the sense that it places an equal sign
between, say, J.S. Bach and the rapper "Ice Cube" with a "logic" along the following line: "
hey, who are you to say that Bach was more talented than the rapperIce Cube?! That is
racist!!! " Even mathematics are now considered "racist "! And
anybody disputing that is, of course, a racist.
What is missing here is the element of proof. Some kind of rules of evidence which could be
appealed to; let's use the modern term to "˜fact check' most of the assumptions made by
the supporters of the woke ideology.
For example, in my Swiss high school we had a huge mural declaring that "all races are
equal". No evidence for that statement was ever given. In fact, during my entire academic life
(1 undergrad and 2 graduate degrees) I have never seen any real evidence for this thesis. (I
have seen plenty of evidence disputing this, beginning with US Army IQ tests). By the way, that
does not at all mean that I affirm the opposite (that races are somehow unequal), only that in
a dogmatic statement like "all races are equal" even the term "equal" is extremely ambiguous
and, frankly, meaningless. Let's compare this statement to another famous one by Saint Paul
(Galatian 3:26-28 KJV):
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus . For as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ . There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise .".
Unlike the vapid "all races are equal", Saint Paul clearly states that all humans are "
children of God " and he further explains how this happens when he says " by faith in
Christ Jesus ". He then clarifies that " all are one in Christ Jesus " (being "
one " in Christ is unambiguous, unlike being " equal "). And Saint Paul concludes
by explaining that through Christ there is a new generation of mankind " ye Abraham's seed,
and heirs according to the promise ". Unlike the woke ideology, Christianity does
truly unite all human beings, and Christianity does so without ever denying or
obfuscating the very real differences which makes all humans very much un equal to each
other, including a total equality in rights and privileges inside the Christian religion.
First, Saint Paul mentions our common filiation as children of God through Adam, to which he
immediately adds a further common filiation of those who have "put on Christ" by means of
baptism. The evidence here, the proof of the statement, is clear: baptism. One can, of course,
disagree with Saint Paul, but not accuse him of ambiguity (especially in the light of all the
other Apostolic and Patristic statements providing contextual support for this!).
Compare that with the woke ideology which categorically splits mankind into two groups: the
oppressed "minorities" and the (always) "white" oppressors, which even contradicts the actual
history of Africa which was invaded and colonized by (non-White) Arabs before the Europeans got
involved (something which the US blacks who take on Islamic names either don't know or try hard
to ignore).
The woke ideology also completely ignores racism internal to the so-called "Blacks". A good
friend of mine is a (very dark skinned) lady from Mali who traveled all over our planet and
told me one day that the worst anti-African racism she was ever subjected to was in Ethiopia
(whose population is just as dark skinned as my lady friend). I also knew a medical doctor from
Soweto who told me that there was plenty of hatred between South African blacks which he called
"racist hate". Of course, most US blacks know close to nothing about the history of Africa,
past or current (Arabs and black Africans still fight each other in many regions of Africa!)
and yet they think of themselves as "Africans" which makes absolutely no sense (especially from
the point of view of actual Africans, Arab, black or white).
I just used one example (racial equality), but the woke ideology has failed to prove pretty
much every one of its key dogmas. "Systemic racism" is another good one which appears to be
proven by none, accepted by (almost?) all.
Of course, none of the above proves any single aspect of the woke ideology wrong, but I
hasten to add that the burden of proof is upon the party proclaiming a thesis, and not upon
those this thesis is being forced upon. Likewise, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of
racism in the United States (including numerous cases of black on white and black on Asian
racial violence!), but irrespective of the actual figure of such incidents, the sum of these
incidents, however large, does not somehow automatically become evidence of things like
"systemic racism" or "white supremacy" (correlation does not imply causation).
Yet, somehow, the proponents of wokeness immediately get offended when their beliefs are
challenged and simply accuse any naysayers of "racism". One example: in the new woke-reality, "
twerking " is
a delightful form of "culture" which cannot be criticized, especially so by whites. To call it
a vulgar display of objectified women accompanied by noise which does not rise to any
imaginable definition of "music" is, of course, totally crimethink!
Apparently, for the woke-freaks, "diversity" does not include diversity of ideas, of
opinions. As Orwell astutely noticed, "some are more equal than others". Wokeness does not even
deny that! Hence its "Cancel culture" aspect, along with the violence of the BLM/Antifa
mobs.
For some, this is just a big money-making scheme for corporate "America" which is now
flooding all its advertisements with the "correct" races in total disregard to that race's real
percentage of the population and small money-making scheme for those who hope to get their
hands on some free money. As for the US homo-lobby, this is a surefire way to achieve power and
influence which they could not otherwise even dream about. In other words, Wokism is about
money and power, not justice.
Some might think that this is no big deal, that anti-racism is by definition good, as is the
notion that homosexuals should not be deprived of their civil rights on account of their sexual
dysfunction. But wokeness has already gone way further than these initial demands and it has
now turned into an obligatory form of virtue signaling !
By now most of us have seen new woke-compatible CIA recruitment ads. Frankly, when I saw it
I sincerely rejoiced, as a woke-CIA will be far less effective than the one which considered
homosexuality a major security risk (blackmail and comorbid psychopathology). But wokeness
submission is not just a CIA thing, check out this comparison of recruiting videos (thanks to
American Kulak for sending me all the videos below!!!):
Truth be told, I am not exactly heartbroken about the condition of the US armed forces as
such, but when I think of the many decent and honorable US officers I had the chance to meet in
my life, I do feel sorry for them as I can, I think, imagine their sadness and disgust.
Finally, I have to admit, to my great sadness, that this does not affect only the USA.
Pretty much the same form of collective insanity has clearly taken over the EU (with a few
countries still trying to resist). Wokism has become a global phenomenon.
Yes, the West went from the genius of Baroque to the insipid vulgarity of YouTube.
And so here is my question: why is there so little pushback?!
Yes, there is the accusation of racism. I get it. But the more people this accusation is
applied to, the more meaningless it becomes (the same goes for that old "anti-Semitism"
canard!). And, besides, nobody can live an honorable life without ever becoming the target of a
false and ugly accusation. All we can do is 1) ignore it 2) flush our mental toilet and 3)
resume the struggle.
I also understand that woke-compatibility is a "must" for new hires (you gotta love that
"corporate America"!). But what about all those of us who already have a career and who won't
be fired just because we push back against an ideology which not only is based on absolutely
nothing (it has zero empirical evidence to back its key tenets) but which destroys competence
(the famous US meritocracy) and replaces it with what I can only call an extremely intolerant
pseudo-diversity which is every bit as intolerant as the major totalitarian ideologies of the
20th century! Why are we silent?
Most of us know about the hidden scandal of the (apparently, neverending) lowering of
competency criteria in many professions (ask a firefighter!). But this is now even affecting
airlines ! I dread the day when a "diverse" crew will smash an airliner into the
ground because "mathematics is racist!". I am sure the skies will still be friendly, but will
they be safe?!
I wonder what it would take to finally get some serious reaction to this collective
insanity.
So what can we do? I submit that Alexander Solzhenitsyn's advice to the
Russian people living under the Soviet system could also be taken as a model by those
in the West who don't want their countries to be turned into some wannabe Wakanda:
When violence bursts onto the peaceful human condition, its face is flush with
self-assurance, it displays on its banner and proclaims: "I am Violence! Make way, step
aside, I will crush you!" But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass""and it is no longer
sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its
ally""Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist
through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down
its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in
deceit""and this suffices as our fealty.
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our
liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even
if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not
through me!
And this is the way to break out of the imaginary encirclement of our inertness, the
easiest way for us and the most devastating for the lies. For when people renounce lies, lies
simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.
We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out
loud what we think""this is scary, we are not ready. But let us at least refuse to say what
we do not think! ("¦) Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies!
Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)""step back from
that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather
back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how
swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will
be exposed as such to the world.
This method of not allowing lies to survive through oneself is absolutely legal, non-violent
and does not require any organization or money. Most importantly, this method does not require
any unifying ideology. In other words, this method is a moral/ethical defense against any
totalitarian ideology. Best of all, it requires no money or power, and it is immediately
liberating to anybody using it. It is even compatible with the modern idea of "be the change
you want to see in the world".
The alternative is much scarier. As with any totalitarian ideology Wokism can also trigger a
strong blowback reaction and there is a very real risk of such a pushback reaction that it
could result in the birth of a new form of Fascism which could be even worse than Wokism. And
this is why I think that doing nothing and hoping that this will all somehow magically go away
is dangerously delusional.
Totalitarian ideologies must be confronted openly and frontally. Nothing else will do and
everything else is nothing but surrender.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. If the entire US military is moving toward
robotics and missiles, what difference does it make that the operator is a trans-gender
mental lunatic? In fact, some of these depraved folks may perfectly fit the bill for
committing massive war crimes. There is no conscience in their mental depravity to begin
with.
Because woke culture warriors are no threat to men with money. Men with money fear
macho economic socialists in the Joe Stalin mode, and these people no longer exist. This is
what so many people on the conservative/nationalist right don't get. There is no push back
because rich whites have nothing to fear from theatrical woke BS.
The only victims are working and lower middle whites, who have no awareness of class
politics, are more interested in fixing their cars or riding around on dirt bikes..
And so here is my question: why is there so little pushback?!
American, like most humans, have to eat. Keep a roof over their heads. Etc.
As far back is the 1950s Europeans considered Americans deeply conformist. Even when they
went into non-conforming mode (eg, the beatniks in that decade) they all conformed to the
pack.
But now is not then: Jobs for mavericks are now scarce. Lighthouses are automated, no need
for lighthouse keepers. The old merchant ships have been replaced by container ships that
need few hands on deck or anywhere else. Have a good job, you also have to keep it. And it
often takes effort.
All the people from Jimmy the Greek in the last century on are rarely prosecuted. They are
almost always fired or forced to resign. Individual economics warns against being the nail
that sticks out.
This MIGHT be why Antifa, BLM etc has no problem getting a mob together: Torching a few
buildings, blocking traffic, getting white cops fired, is a great way to relieve stress and
burn off frustration.
BUT that only works for one side. Others must tread carefully and not push if they can't
afford to fall.
@anonymous
serve openly in the US Military"¦.And you can thank Admiral Mike Mullins for this.
Mullins knew exactly what he was doing:social engineering the larger American Society-and he
enjoyed being interviewed in his US Navy Uniform on the front covers of magazines that serve
the interests of the homosexual community. Yes, I am very suspicious that Admiral Mike
Mullins is a homosexual who has no problem with Public Libraries allowing Satanic looking
Tranny Freaks reading children's books to very young children. This is what Admiral Mike
Mullins has unleashed upon American Society. Admiral Mike Mullins would tell Conservative
Christian Chaplains who had issues with homosexuals serving openly in the US
Military:""˜YOU NEED TO PURSUE ANOTHER CAREER PATH""¦..
I've observed these white people, overwhelmingly female, display an incomprehensibly
religious fervor for BLM. I've never seen anything like this in my long lifetime.
These people are worshipping negroes, while at the same time, negroes are slaughtering
them.
After c.1980, the West, already showing the signs of crumbling due to economic implosion
and social, moral and intellectual decay, was led up two garden paths to the certain end
about to engulf it.
One was neo-conservatism, a project of formerly Trotsykite Judeofascist supremacists, many
former acolytes of the sinister Leo Strauss, who saw the USA as a puppet to destroy their
enemies, ie the Soviet, the Arab world and, as Jabotinsky said, "˜"¦anyone who
gets in our way'. This was the PNAC crowd who predicted the "˜New Pearl Harbor' of 9/11
because their friends in MOSSAD no doubt told them it was finally in the works, after years
of planning and "˜predictive programing' of the US public.This mob thought that the
world was theirs to do with as they pleased, after Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but they had not
bargained on Putin and on China's meteoric rise, hence their psychopathic loathing of
both.
The other dead end was neo-liberal capitalism, another predominately Jewish enterprise, from
the University of Chicago yeshiva and Milton Friedman et al. That created the great upward
transfer of wealth to the elites, in which Jews were and are massively over-represented, and
the steady immiseration of the vast bulk of US citizens, and those in puppet regimes in the
UK, the EU and other countries subjected to the economic shock therapy of the economic
hit-men of the "˜Washington Consensus'.
After forty years of these twin terrors the USA and much of the West are more unequal than
ever, more heavily indebted than ever, their industries defunct and economic activity
concentrated on the FIRE parasite rackets, and other forms of rentier extraction, millennial
pursuits of various Jewish elites. Israel itself is terminally belligerent and insatiably
cruel, and riven by inequality and political and religious fanaticism, but at least they can
be united by hatred and blood-lust, as we see today. The USA, in contrast, must rely on
"˜Divide and Rule' tactics, of which the deranged wokeism is the latest manifestation,
growing out of that other divisive strategy, Identity Politics. Wokeism simply pits the
downtrodden against other downtrodden, to the elites' delight. One faction, the Demoncrazy
Deep Statists, pits the wokebots against the Reptilian MAGAbots, while both are excited to a
racist frenzy by the prospect of annihilation in the Great Clash of Civilizations war with
Russia and/or China. All so the plutocrats can keep piling up their loot ad astra.
Foggy Bottom has just allowed US embassies and consulates to fly the "gay pride" flag
next to the stars and stripes. I bet you they won´t do that in Riyadh!
Au contraire
It is precisely intended to be flown in Riyadh, Warszaw, Moscow and Urumqi;
no different from siccing dogs and activist womxyn on the Muzzie helots,
sending incompetent Jews as ambassadors to Germany and Austria
or corporate heavyweights to South America.
The parallels to wokism and Orwell are obvious ""
the more shameless, stupid and obvious the lies they force us to repeat ("2+2=5"),
the better to break our will with.
"" Sending the Soros Barbie to harangue Erdogan was in the same vein,
and it backfired gloriously (I´m a bit conflicted re: Recep
Tayyip´s
passive-aggressiveness, but it has something deeply satisfying;
clearly that´s the way to go "¦ it is not coincidence Charles Boycott
was
a rent enforcer in Ireland "" maybe we cannot fight, but we can refuse to cooperate.
Tell them what you think of them "" so what if it makes their hair fall out ).
What kind of "˜pushback' do you expect when it's the political and mainstream
media establishments doing the "˜pushing'?
There is "˜pushback' by groups and individuals, as well as in alternative media, but
this is subject to censorship due to arbitrary ToS (e.g. no "˜misgendering' on Twitter)
and by platform providers (with no warning or justification, WordPress deleted the very
popular "˜Chateau Heartiste'; he can now be found on Gab ).
When you can lose your job by saying "˜White lives matter', or even "˜All
lives matter', people notice.
Because deep down inside everybody is some kind of cop, and we're scared.
We're scared of the bigger cop: The fed, the judge, death comes from above, the media, our
boss, our marriage, or getting disappeared""and for WHAT? Some clueless idiot who thinks
freedom is free?? Poor-bastard real life cops have to get up on stage and show how scared
they really are when it comes to doing what is right. Like walking around naked in public
with a target on their back. That's why the cops get crazy when you suggest they could do a
better job of the scam known as no good deed goes unpunished. Sanity? Got it. The woke public
"education systems" are full of queers and demons having rights to your children 8 hours a
day enforced by the fed and the judge and the media, and who at the least successfully
indoctrinate your child with hopelessness. The chaos is ascendant, overwhelming and
despressing in nature Okay people! Everybody on 3 push back "¦one "¦ two. Hello
"¦can you hear me in the back ?
The liberals are crazy with unworldy power""shock and awe crazy""but the right wing is
crazier to believe that the left wokeness can be overcome on worldy terms. The right wants to
think they can pushback, but they are scared because deep down inside, they know the liberals
are driven and enforced by powers much bigger than any earthly principal. A dark battlefield
saying used to go, "If they've got thermal, we're fucked." Indeed, the liberal left and their
enforcers can now see you wherever and whoever you are, and what's worse, you know it. Oh,
but let's go out and die. Mission? Sanity? For what?
That's why all the erstwhile tough guys don't push back, and the ones who do, get hated on
"¦ "stop it man, you're causing trouble." As for the rest of the poseurs, they have it
easy. Without having to actually walk the walk, they get to sit around and criticize the
ones who could , but won't push back.
On the plus side, explicitly left wing governments tend to have a short shelf life.
Probably the worst kind of left wing governments are those which are kinda right wing.
Tony Blair got Britain into a pointless war in Iraq and bought in massive numbers of
economic migrants. Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA which resulted in a huge surge of Hispanic
immigration. However, conservative voters didn't even notice what was happening because they
assumed these guys were sensible middle-of the-road politicians. In contrast Biden's and
company's in your face woke politics will galvanize the American right and probably achieve
little of long term consequence.
@Anonymous
ollective guilt for all the world's problems and no right to self determination.
An absurd, barbaric standard which is never applied to any other group.
Little Victoria Rose Smith was beaten and tortured to death by a fat racist black woman
spewing BLM propaganda on Twitter. Cannon Hinnant was executed while riding his bicycle in
his front yard.
But of course vermin like you don't care about the innocent victims.
You will just dismiss it or pretend it's not happening while venerating slime like the
rapist Jacob Blake or home invader George Floyd.
My entire lifetime the USA has thought that it would win wars with military
technology"¦and then subsequently was dragged into 20 year long savage guerilla
warfare.
"We can just airstrike them" was a common refrain when the Afghanistan war was announced
in 2001.
Twenty years later, Biden pulls the last troops out.
"I cannot shoot him"¦he's too gorgeous"
For that matter the thugs that took over USA cities have an IQ of 90 & have zero
education. But they have more primitive moral courage.
Technology is far more advanced now than 1992 during the LA Riots"¦and yet the
riots were worse.
@Anonymous
I only partially agree. White people in general do not personally hate other races. However,
they do like to self segregate into their own white communities as you yourself have just
pointed out.
In my native UK, you have a lot of "secret segregation" whereby native white Brits live in
their own towns and villages away from the ever growing multi-kulti cities. Its quite amazing
to actually leave a white British town or village and venture into the cities. It basically
feels like living on an Indian reservation in America!
Dont get me started on how segregated all the various groups are in the cities too!
So whilst white people pay lip service to the cult of diversity, they very rarely actually
practice it.
Machiavelli explained how wokeist phenomena can serve the powerful in 1513, "One of the
great secrets of the day is to know how to take possession of popular prejudices and
passions, in such a way as to introduce a confusion of principles which makes impossible all
understanding between those who speak the same language and have the same interests."
What we are seeing today is the latest installment of the never-ending story called
"divide and conquer." The traditional goals of progressives are ending militarism, empowering
working people, providing a decent social safety net, and most of all, building a functional,
genuinely democratic government committed to limiting the corrupting power of great wealth.
These goals are race and gender neutral; they are basic human rights for all. They are
passionately opposed by society's worst predators, always have been, always will be, until
the influence of the predator class has been neutralized, and they are called to account for
their crimes.
Today's campaigns of moral absolutism widen the gaps among America's diverse peoples and
classes because such division is crucial to maintaining the power of the elites by deflecting
attention from their far more dangerous, institutionalized abuses of power. Boutique activism
converts ordinary people into partners in advancing those interests, in a dangerous form of
psychologically manipulative narrative control.
But "woke", not being based in objective reality, has no legs and will not endure.
Universities and other organizations are making a good faith effort to conform, the same way
they once excluded women and blacks when discrimination was fashionable. Ultimately the
demands of their donors and consumers will prevail, and change, and change again.
@Trinity
sianic militarism. When, especially during the Occupy movement, I saw that there were young
libertarians who seemed to share many of the same concerns and join in with the lefty
Occupiers, it seemed like a positive development that promised a unification, beyond
ideology, of intelligent concerned citizens who wanted to clear the air of the rampant
criminality of officialdom.
And then, all of a sudden, the SJW phenomenon burst on the scene and it all became about
Blacks and trannies and women. What happened?
It has been my feeling all along that the term "woke" was hijacked and applied to these
clueless narcissistic Gen-Z-types, who themselves had been infiltrated and manipulated. Who
did this? It smells like a psy-op to me.
It's a fool's errand trying to make sense of Applied Woke. Most Americans are ill-equipped
to do so because we grew up schooled in American common sense.
Say what you will, until recently the US of A got decent grades, impressive ones if
grading on a curve, for avoiding last century's bright ideas (e.g. communism; fascism).
That filtered down to the family and individual level, even for immigrants, under the
rubric of Assimilation.
Yet as the American Republic (and empire) has hit some rough sledding, coincident
unfortunately with the rise of CCP China, there's some bad modeling going on at the
moment.
The American ruling, governing and business classes like China's secret sauce. What's not
to like as long as you're sitting in the right place or willing to do or say anything to put
yourself and your family there.
This author is right to bring up Russia and Christianity. Though, as I've mentioned
before, I simply don't understand why those in the best position to inform about the lessons
we should be learning from post-Soviet Union Russia don't do so even though the rhythming is
so glaringly obvious it's almost a joke at this point.
At best "Biden" is a Yeltsin 1996-99. In other words, as if that isn't bad enough, it
doesn't account for his double and technical sleights of hand in the show. What you
characterize as "woke-compatible" is Antifa/BLM Brown Shirts integrated into the
Democrat/Deep State mix.
The salient struggle at the moment is taking place within these factions over whether,
after having succeeded in a monumental election steal, to govern as if 2020 was a "˜One
and Done' or that they will have to compete to win in 2022 and 2024.
Official, government and corporate, handling and messaging concerning Woke ideology and
the freaks themselves is one of the better indicators because there is simply no way a party
competing to win the consent of the governed can engage in a loud and proud endorsement or
even acquiescence to their madness.
This MIGHT be why Antifa, BLM etc has no problem getting a mob together: Torching a few
buildings, blocking traffic, getting white cops fired, is a great way to relieve stress and
burn off frustration.
That may explain the mass protest movements, but the police records out of Portland show
Antifa as a roughly even mix of children of the upper class, low level DNC wonks and drug
addicts. The three categories often overlap, of course.
Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said Friday that he opposes teaching critical race theory
in the state's public schools, calling the ideas pushed by its advocates as "based on false
history" and "teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other."
DeSantis made the remarks at a Friday press
conference in Pensacola, where he announced the
signing of a bill temporarily establishing several statewide tax-free periods on items like
storm supplies and back-to-school products.
"It's offensive to the taxpayer that they would be asked to fund critical race theory,
that they would be asked to fund teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other,"
DeSantis said.
Floridа Gov. Ron DeSantis is seen during a meeting at the governor's office in
Tallahassee, Fla., on April 1, 2021. (The Epoch Times)
In a
recent interview on NTD's "Focus Talk," Yiatin Chu, an Asian mother of two and co-chair of
the New York chapter of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), described
critical race theory as pushing the idea that disparate outcomes, such as academic competency
scores, can be reduced to a single variable""race.
Advocates of the theory, which she said is increasingly being taught at pre-college levels,
push the socialist notion of equality of outcome, and blame differences in outcomes on
entrenched privilege while dividing people into "oppressors" and their victims, the
"oppressed."
Republicans across the nation are trying to prevent the teaching of critical race theory in
classrooms.
Recently, South Dakota's Republican Gov. Kristi Noem took aim at both the "1619 Project" and
critical race theory and, like DeSantis, voiced opposition to their incorporation in school
curriculums.
"The 1619 Project relies upon the concept of Critical Race Theory to further divide
students based on the color of their skin," Noem wrote in a series of tweets
Friday.
"This is inappropriate and un-American. It has no place in South Dakota, and it certainly
has no place in South Dakota classrooms."
In this screenshot from the RNC's livestream of the 2020 Republican National Convention,
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem addresses the virtual convention on Aug. 26, 2020. (Courtesy of
the Committee on Arrangements for the 2020 Republican National Committee via Getty Images)
The "1619 Project," inaugurated with a special issue of The New York Times Magazine,
attempts to cast the Atlantic slave trade as the dominant factor in the founding of America
instead of ideals such as individual liberty and natural rights. The initiative has been widely
panned by historians and political scientists, with some critics calling it a bid to rewrite
U.S. history through a left-wing lens.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, responded to the GOP criticism
of the project during an interview with MSNBC on May 3, saying the 1619 curriculum being
allowed in schools is a matter of free speech.
"This isn't a project about trying to teach children that our country is evil, but it is a
project trying to teach children the truth about what our country was based upon, and it's
only in really confronting that truth""slavery was foundational to the United States, we,
after the slavery, experienced 100 years of legalized discrimination against black
Americans," said Hannah-Jones.
"Mitch McConnell and others like him want for our children to get a propagandistic,
nationalistic understanding of history that is not about facts, but it is about how they
would want to pretend that our country is."
Proponents of critical race theory
have argued that it's needed to demonstrate what they say is "pervasive systemic racism"
and facilitate rooting it out.
Critics draw parallels between critical race theory and Marxism, arguing that the concept
advocates for the destruction of institutions, such as the Western justice system, free-market
economy, and orthodox religions, while demanding that they be replaced with institutions
compliant with the critical race theory ideology.
Criminals who repeatedly targeted an auto shop in Spring Lake, North Carolina by leaving
racist graffiti referencing the KKK and Nazis turned out to be two African-American men after
the owner caught them on camera.
Business owner Dwyane Haynesworth (who is black) took action after having a car stole off
his lot and then discovering the racist graffiti, which included a drawing of a swastika.
After setting up the security cameras, that same night the criminals returned and broke into
more vehicles before smashing windows and attempting to hot wire one of the cars.
The footage revealed the culprits to be two black men.
"By now, police must know to narrow down their list of suspects whenever racist graffiti
is left at the scene of a crime. That doesn't fit the modus operandi of Caucasians,"
writes Dave Blount
.
"Leftists who demonize and attempt to defund or otherwise hamstring the police are not
siding against whites in favor of blacks, despite the way the liberal establishment frames
it. They are siding against Dwyane Haynesworth in favor of punks who pointlessly destroy
other people's property."
While the criminals in this instance clearly weaponized the racist graffiti in a bid to
deceive authorities, fake hate crimes have become an all too common occurrence in America over
the last five years.
Back in 2019, we
highlighted the case of Amari Allen, a 12-year-old African-American girl who claimed a
group of white boys cutting off her dreadlocks.
The entirety of the mainstream media, as well as lawmakers like Rashida Tlaib, fell for and
amplified the story before Allen admitted she made it all up.
The gunman in Boulder who killed 10 people at a supermarket back in March also routinely
threatened his classmates with threats of filing fake hate crime charges after violently
attacking them, eyewitnesses told the media.
"... If you find it useful that some counties are leaving Oregon and joining Idaho, or the conflict between the left and the right, democrats vs republicans, or whites vs blacks, or whites vs muslims, or vs lations is meaningful, you are simply doing the bidding of the masters, who thrive on pitting communites against each other, and are responsible for destroying the whole country. The easiest and the most fruitful way to bring about a real, benficial change to America would require bringing the American people, regardless of their color or creed together, to easily get rid of their overbearing masters. Regardless of what you claim to be, the fact that you embrace and advance the destructive strategy of pitting the American people agianst one another, and also spew so much hatred of Muslims, exposes your real agenda! ..."
"... The United States doesn't have "rulers" in as much as it has "owners". Consider ..."
One of the most promising movements, " Greater Idaho ," just won a huge
victory. Five counties
voted to leave Oregon and join Idaho. More counties in eastern Oregon may
join . Idaho Governor Brad Little admits creating a new state may be difficult but
says , "They're
looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values. That doesn't surprise
me one bit."
This should be just the beginning. Frederick County in western Virginia could join West
Virginia. West Virginia State Senator Charles Trump
supports the idea. It could also be a compromise to the DC statehood question. Northern
Virginia is a cancerous outgrowth of federal employees. Booting it
out of real Virginia and tying it to a DC state would mean greater self-government for both
regions.
... ... ...
Existing institutions can be the basis for reform and revolution. From the Parliament that
challenged the king in the English Civil War, the Continental Congress that made the American
Revolution, and the state legislatures that voted for secession, we see a clear pattern in the
way we Anglos operate. We are legalistic, even when it comes to revolution. We don't have the
French tradition of mass protests to topple governments. Our revolutions are according to
Robert's Rules of Order. Even the January 6 protesters who marched into the Capitol did so
because they thought they were saving democracy.
I can understand the frustrations and rage of certain folks.
If you're a worker on an oil rig, a truck driver, a policeman, or some such jobs, there's
bound to be moments when you're angry as hell. So, even though such people say crazy things
once a while, I can understand where they're coming from. They need to blow off steam.
But the professor class? These lowlife parasites sit on their asses and talk shi*. They
produce nothing and make a living by spreading nonsense. And yet, they act like they are
soooooooooo angry with the way of the world. If they really care about the world, why hide in
their academic enclaves?
Academia needs a cultural revolution, a real kind, not the bogus "˜woke' kind made up
of teachers' pets.
Hopefully we can reform into a nice looking North American Federation once this mess hits
a bloody climax of some sort or another. Greater Idaho sounds wildly fun. I still wish we
formed the States Cascadia and Arcadia, personally.
The empire WILL become weaker if it promotes incompetents to positions of high
responsibility and authority and enlists women into the armed forces. An empire cannot
sustain itself with sub standard soldiers, administrators, leaders and law makers. This woke
crap will destroy itself. Historians in the future will look back and say "what the hell were
they thinking?".
If the IQ of officer candidates drops below 110 (it's 120 on average currently for the
Marine Corps and has been declining for 40 years) then the positions will be left vacant.
Dumb people can't do the job.
Since Cromwell and even more so the overthrow of James 2 by the invader Dutch William 3
the Amsterdam Jew banker puppet Britain has been nothing more than a Jewish banking
headquarters.
If you find it useful that some counties are leaving Oregon and joining Idaho, or the
conflict between the left and the right, democrats vs republicans, or whites vs blacks, or
whites vs muslims, or vs lations is meaningful, you are simply doing the bidding of the
masters, who thrive on pitting communites against each other, and are responsible for
destroying the whole country. The easiest and the most fruitful way to bring about a real,
benficial change to America would require bringing the American people, regardless of their
color or creed together, to easily get rid of their overbearing masters. Regardless of what
you claim to be, the fact that you embrace and advance the destructive strategy of pitting
the American people agianst one another, and also spew so much hatred of Muslims, exposes
your real agenda!
Dear Mr. Hood, anything undertaken to change a nation's political organization will always
lead to violence. If there is one thing history shows, it is precisely that. If you are
trying to change Idaho's state borders, that qualifies as a drastic change in the US
political organization, if only because if successful, it would set an example that would
find many, many followers, as you are implying yourself.
What the US promotes and condones abroad (secession of Panama from Colombia in 1903,
occupation of Cyprus by Turkey in 1980, occupation of the Western Sahara by Morocco in 1976,
secession of Kosovo, creation of Southern Sudan, etc., etc.) it does not want to see at home.
Of course you are also aware that in the 1860s, Secession has been met with brutal
violence.
In this respect, it comes as a relief lo learn that the Deep State is busy trying to turn
the US Army and the CIA into open psychiatry wards.
Very interesting that video ad on the girl "raised by two moms." Poor thing: knowing only
two dykes (her father must certainly be Hans Brinker), all her life she has been yearning to
meet real men. Apparently, she did not find them in college, where the boys are being
terrorized by feminists and forced to become faggots. Thus only the army remains as a place
where one might still find a few real men, the kind that one sees so finely portrayed in the
Russian army ad.
(Come to think of it, that US army ad may also be an attempt at subversion of prevailing
policy!)
America is in danger, not because of some external threat, but because our rulers
are the Republic's greatest enemies.
The United States doesn't have "rulers" in as much as it has "owners". Consider
it private property to put things in proper perspective "" then! Stake your claim. Forget the
law(they own that too) and the idea of a republic "" owners don't like to share. The banking,
tax code, and debt have got you by the balls, and they'll always keep you thumbed under.
Psaki was always a walking joke, the spokeswoman with the hidden goal to discredit any
administration she serves. Gaffes are her trademark: "Psaki is the only person on the face of the
earth that makes Biden look intelligent." Logically after her statement Psaki should resign to
make way for a minority candidate, preferably to certified descendant of a former slave. Anything
less is merely virtue signaling.
Like is the case with pornography normal person sense racism when he sees it. 1619 project
does not pass this test. It looks more like "political gangsterism" of some clique, quite similar
to Mao's "cultural revolution"
It is interesting to read the list of corporations which finance this "Cultural revolution
2.0" in the USA as an attempt to save neoliberalism and political power of financial
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... It's actually a brilliant strategy. They have their own voters completely ignoring everything you mentioned, and they have divided the country over these other problems that are created out of thin air. The two Teams want everyone focused on climate change and racism while they loot the country ... ..."
"... 1619 drivel has one purpose--to divide and sow discord. ..."
"... The Spanish were pouring slaves into the Americas a hundred-plus years - before 1619. And, the United States wasn't even a country until 1789. ..."
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday said it is responsible for colleges to
teach the idea that racism is embedded in the American system, dismissing criticism that such
teaching aims at indoctrinating American youth.
In a
White House press briefing , Psaki was asked about a proposed legislation by Sen. Tom
Cotton (R-Ark.) that would place an one percent tax on the value of the endowments of the
country's wealthiest private colleges, and use that money to support vocational education and
training.
The reporter noted that Cotton's proposal would affect institutions that teach "un-American
ideas" such as those of critical race theory and the New
York Times's "1619 Project," which argue the United States was founded as, and remains, a
racist nation.
An outspoken critic of the 1619 Project, Cotton last year introduced the "Saving American History
Act of 2020" that would reduce federal funding to public schools where the highly
controversial narrative is taught as actual U.S. history. The bill is currently in
consideration in the Senate Education and Labor Committee.
Kreditanstalt 4 hours ago (Edited)
I've never understood why, faced with military aggression, raging income inequality,
asset-price manipulation, rigged "markets", rigged wages, rigged prices, soaring price
inflation, falling living standards, massive debts, public & private...in the last few
years the pseudo-non-issues of "man-made climate change" and "racism" have suddenly been
pushed and pushed...
It beggars belief.
Pdunne 2 hours ago remove link
1619 certainly presents a different perspective. I suspect some of it is incorrect but
that is why people should review it and understand at least the basics of this in American
History.
Bringing Africans to American fundamentally changed the country, that is something to be
understood.
StephenHopkins 2 hours ago
Irish were slaves, **** were slaves there are slaves for sale right now in Libya. Do
something.
Politinaut 2 hours ago
Fundamentally changed? You mean destroyed it. Complete cancer. Our ancestors screwed up,
then paid the toll of correction with 650k soldiers and untold white civilian lives lost. One
dead white man or woman for every 3 slaves to right our ship.
And yet, the retards on the left want to egg this dead conflict on to line their pockets
and destroy the system. I think not.
LetThemEatRand 4 hours ago
It's actually a brilliant strategy. They have their own voters completely ignoring
everything you mentioned, and they have divided the country over these other problems that
are created out of thin air. The two Teams want everyone focused on climate change and racism
while they loot the country ...
TightLiner 3 hours ago
I doubt this woman has ever driven down an MLK Blvd.
GreatUncle 2 hours ago
The woman is a f^7king twat ... critical race theory in itself is indoctrination let alone
all the other stuff.
Plus Size Model 3 hours ago
An important part of indoctrination is rewriting the past. Most people just don't know how
pervasive slavery has been throughout history. First off, it's not easy to define and life
was very very rough up until about the 20th century. Indentured servitude also comes to mind,
child labor is terrible and was also prevalent until the 20th century, primitive factory work
as well as mining was dangerous and lots were permanently injured or killed, there were press
gangs for war, etc.
Completely overlooking antiquity and the east, slavery was ubiquitous almost everywhere up
until the 19th century . THIS INCLUDES ALL RACES, NATIONALITIES AND CREEDS .
Here's just a few instances of slavery that have been written out of the history books
most here are familiar with.
The Barbary slave trade refers to slave markets on the Barbary Coast of North Africa,
which included the Ottoman provinces of Algeria, Tunisia and Tripolitania and the independent
sultanate of Morocco, between the 16th and middle of the 18th century. The Ottoman provinces
in North Africa were nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, but in reality they were mostly
autonomous.
European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on
coastal towns from Italy to the Netherlands, Ireland and the southwest of Britain, as far
north as Iceland and into the eastern Mediterranean.
The Ottoman eastern Mediterranean was the scene of intense piracy. As late as the 18th
century, piracy continued to be a "consistent threat to maritime traffic in the Aegean."
For over three centuries, the military of the Crimean Khanate and the Nogai Horde
conducted slave raids primarily in lands controlled by Russia and Poland-Lithuania as well as
other territories.
Their main purpose was the capture of slaves, most of whom were exported to the Ottoman
slave markets in Constantinople or elsewhere in the Middle East. Genoese and Venetians
merchants controlled the slave trade from Crimea to Western Europe. The raids were a drain of
the human and economic resources of eastern Europe . They largely inhabited the "Wild Fields"
"" the steppe and forest-steppe land which extends from a hundred or so miles south of Moscow
to the Black Sea and which now contains most of the Russian and Ukrainian population . The
campaigns also played an important role in the development of the Cossacks.
Here's a video of British miners from 1901. Tell me they don't look like slaves. Lots of
them won't even make it to middle age. I'd argue that the majority of them have lung disease.
You can see some men are obviously malnourished.
If you are against racism don't build your self-esteem based on your race; be an
individual.
AlfieDolittle 3 hours ago
It's utter garbage anyway, the Africans who arrived in 1619 weren't slaves, they were
indentured labourers who signed up for 7 years after which they were given a plot of land.
This was a common way of working at the time, even for whites.
It was one of their fellow blacks, Anthony Johnson, who challenged indenture in the courts
as he wanted to hold on to them for life..
Shouldn't it be the previous year, 1618? Namely when Africans captured and sold their
fellow blacks for dirty lucre and a bottle of wine?
Giant Meteor 3 hours ago
Politicians white and black have successfully used all this race baiting to deflect
attention away from their own grifting, and glaring failures, of the people they claimed they
were helping, for the last 50 plus years.. Today we see the resulting train wreck, and of
course the doubling down on the latest insanity ....
On the other hand there is Jen, and her ilk .. the new breed. They are so dumb, they don't
even know they're dumb .. This is the promise and legacy of "public education."
The film "Idiocracy" .. was not suppose to be a documentary ..
Giant Meteor 3 hours ago (Edited)
During an interview with conservative Mark Levin, Robert L. Woodson Sr., president and
founder of the Woodson Center, said that what is happening today is a "perversion of the
civil rights movement," and that claims of "institutional racism" are a "ruse," a "lie" to
deflect attention from certain black leaders who have failed to help their communities
because they pushed policies that do not work.
Woodson, whose organization works directly with people and groups in neighborhoods
nationwide, also denounced the idea that the "legacy of slavery and discrimination" is
responsible for problems in some black communities, such as unemployment, crime, and
out-of-wedlock births. "That's another lie," he said.
"I don't know what systemic racism is. Maybe someone can explain what that means," Robert
Woodson
Woodson, who left the civil rights movement goes on to state ..
"In the past 50 years, $22 trillion has been spent on poverty programs. Seventy percent
goes not to the poor but those who serve poor people," he said.
"So many of those people taking office use this money to create a class of people who are
running these cities, and now after 50 years of liberal Democrats running the inner cities,
where we have all of these inequities that we have, race is being used as a ruse, as a means
of deflecting attention away from critical questions such as why are poor blacks failing in
systems run by their own people?"
Robert L. Woodson, Sr. founded the Woodson Center in 1981 to help residents of low-income
neighborhoods address the problems of their communities. A former civil rights activist, he
has headed the National Urban League Department of Criminal Justice, and has been a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Foundation for Public Policy Research. Referred to by many
as "godfather" of the neighborhood empowerment movement, for more than four decades, Woodson
has had a special concern for the problems of youth. In response to an epidemic of youth
violence that has afflicted urban, rural and suburban neighborhoods alike, Woodson has
focused much of the Woodson Center's activities on an initiative to establish Violence-Free
Zones in troubled schools and neighborhoods throughout the nation. He is an early MacArthur
"genius" awardee and the recipient of the 2008 Bradley Prize, the Presidential Citizens
Award, and a 2008 Social Entrepreneurship Award from the Manhattan Institute.
Teach that ...
wellwaddyaknow 3 hours ago remove link
1619 drivel has one purpose--to divide and sow discord.
2021: Current Secret "Buzz" words. Remember "multi-culturalism"? This dangerous thinking
has mutated to "critical race theory"
mabuhay1 3 hours ago
1619 is a hoax and a sham and needs to be banned from ANY level of education, except as an
example of just how far stupid people will attempt to fool others and push their
ideology.
Brazillionaire 2 hours ago
Hoax and sham yes. They are not stupid. They're evil.
nsurf9 4 hours ago (Edited)
The Spanish were pouring slaves into the Americas a hundred-plus years - before 1619.
And, the United States wasn't even a country until 1789. And, before that, North America
was occupied as Spanish, French and British colonies - with a lot of Native Indians.
END 60+ YEARS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION - NOW !!!!
WorkingClassMan 2 hours ago remove link
EVERY country that was ever founded was built on or with "racism," in mind. That is one of
the benefits of a monoracial society--you don't have competing racial factions tearing the
unity of a nation apart.
That said, the 13% are really narcissists to think they are important enough to have
fought at least two wars over. Overpriced farm equipment that should have been RTS'd from the
get-go.
Nik-ole Hanna (or is it Jones?) is an overpaid antiwhite who doesn't know how to check her
black privilege. In her paradise of Africa, a country--for example--named Rwanda had two
BLACK ethnic groups. To outsiders they just looked the same--black.
But to each other, they were VERY different. And, a few years ago, the Hutus (or is it the
Tutsis? I don't care) decided to slaughter the other group. Hundreds of thousands died
officially, likely many more. And they had NO racist crackas to get involved.
She should go to Rwanda or Liberia or Somalia or Sudan where slavery still exists! No
racist crackas.
Rep. Maxine Waters of California, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, joined
demonstrations this weekend in Minnesota. She told supporters that if the Chauvin trial
verdict goes the wrong way, "we've got to not only stay in the street but we've got to fight
for justice."
You may recall a president got pilloried a while ago for urging his supporters to "fight"
for their desired outcome. It was noted then that the term is a well-worn rhetorical phrase
that doesn't necessarily amount to a literal incitement to violence. But there can't be much
doubt about the import of what Ms. Waters said. She made her remarks in Brooklyn Center, a few
miles from the barricaded Minneapolis courthouse where the Chauvin trial is taking place and
the site of the killing last weekend of a black man by a police officer. The place has been
aflame for the past week in an orgy of rioting.
The Handler standard, or the Maxine maxim "the idea that we don't really need a trial to
know whether someone is guilty of a heinous crime" has always had its adherents. There have
surely been miscarriages of justice "acquittals of guilty people and convictions of innocent
ones" throughout history. The jury system is never perfect.
But what's frighteningly new about our current climate is that the rejection of apparently
unwelcome trial outcomes is now part of the dominant progressive critique of our longstanding
political and civic order. If U.S. institutions are the product of white-supremacist
exploitation "as is essentially the consensus of the people who run the government, most
corporations, and leading cultural institutions" then the judicial system itself is inherently
and systemically unjust. If the principle of equality before the law is to be supplanted by the
objective of "equity" in outcome, then only outcomes that serve the higher objective of
collective racial justice can be considered legitimate.
So trials that produce the "wrong" verdict are not just miscarriages of justice. They are an
indictment of the entire system.
The ascendancy of this new progressive radicalism adds a frightening element to the unease
the nation feels this week as the jury deliberates in Minneapolis. By all accounts the trial of
Mr. Chauvin has been rigorous, methodical and fair. The prosecution seemed to make a strong
case that Mr. Floyd died at least in part as a result of the officer's actions. The defense may
have sowed some doubts about whether Mr. Chavin's intent rose to the level of culpability
required of the most serious charges.
But under our new rules, the jury's verdict will be tolerated only if it goes the "right"
way.
This rejection of the legitimacy of the judicial process is rooted in the same neo-Marxist
ideology""a race- and identity-based interpretation of structuralism""that holds sway over the
minds of much of our ruling class.
To the old Marxists, the capitalists were the exploiters. In "The ABC of Communism,"
published in 1920, Bolshevik leaders Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky used language
that sounds strikingly familiar today. They denounced the courts as instruments of "bourgeois
justice," which was "carried on under the guidance of laws passed in the interests of the
exploiting class," and recommended instead the establishment of "proletarian courts."
In one of the more savage ironies of history, some two decades later the authors themselves
were tried by such courts under Josef Stalin and sentenced to death.
Yet even Stalin thought some kind of judicial proceeding was necessary. Our modern
revolutionaries would dispense even with show trials.
E
Eli Hauser SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago (Edited)
Red Queen Rules. Sentence. Verdict. Accusation. Admission of Guilt.
Mark Robbins SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
Liberals have no need for trials with an assumption of innocence. At all times, they KNOW
what is right.
Chris Madison SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
We are living through a "throw the baby out with the bath" moment. Extremists are labeling
anything which doesn't go their way as "systemically racist." If there is no jurisprudence
and due process, no system of laws addressing a variety of crimes, but only the cry for
"justice now" without defining what justice looks like according to law, then anarchy has
taken the place of justice. Ms. Handler is entitled to her opinion. I am glad she is not in a
position of leadership. Congresswoman Maxine Waters likes to make statements which "stir the
pot," potentially raising the "rage level" across our nation. She should know better, but
doesn't. Our nation is on the cusp of a moment when we must intentionally decide who we are
legally, morally, and Constitutionally. Emotions are insufficient for this moment.
Christopher Jones SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
This essay would have tremendous weight if there was not a video of the murder. Absent that
it is stupefyingly ignorant. "The prosecution seemed to make a strong case that Mr. Floyd
died at least in part as a result of the officer's actions." Really, sir? A video literally
showing the officer kneeling on Mr. Floyd's neck until he passed out and later died. Are you
suggesting that he would have died on his own had the officer not done this?
You are attempting to seem reasonable with your pleas for due process, but you just come
across as obtuse. A video of a man murdering another man and your like, no I don't believe
it. There has to be another explanation.
Tad Story SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
So your saying Mr. Floyd's use of a Highly addictive and equally deadly narcotic on top of
already severe heart condition to which your camera did not display played no role as to the
outcome? Considering the use of Fentanyl is 900 times more deadly than crack-cocaine I feel
it needed to be discussed and weighed, to which it was but the mob had their torches ready
and that carried as much or even more weight, Maxine made sure of that..
beryl silver SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago (Edited)
The article failed to mention the words protesters need "to get more confrontational" Maxine
Waters used.
Michael Lapolla SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
It has been obvious to us that the state of Minnesota offered Derek Chauvin as a sacrifice on
the altar of expediency. Witness the immediate and joyous victory laps by the state AG. It
just took a while and a show trial. It is obvious that the jury had no stomach for another
outcome. This is what you vote for - this is what you get.
And we have a Capitol police person murdering an unarmed trespasser, but our DOJ sees and
hears no evil and utters not a word.
What a national embarrassment. Go back to sleep Minnesota.
FRANK HERMAN SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
He wasn't on his neck. Even the prosecution witness admitted, that when looked at from other
angles, that the cop was on his shoulder blade.
Tim Taylor SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Something to think about in the current culture of policing:
Most dangerous jobs in U.S. 1. Logging 2. Aircraft pilots/flight engineers 3. Derrick
operators 4. Roofers 5. Garbage collectors 6. Iron workers. 7. Delivery drivers 8. Farmers.
9. Firefighting supervisors 10. Power linemen 11. Agricultural workers 12. Crossing guards
13. Crane operators 14. Construction helpers. 15. Landscaping supervisors 16. Highway
maintenance workers. 17. Cement masons 18. Small engine mechanics. 19. Supervisors of
mechanics 20. Heavy equipment mechanics. 21. Grounds maintenance workers 22. Police
Officers.
What Maxine does not seem to understand is that demonizing the police works against gun
control efforts.
The more that the citizenry believes the police cannot be trusted to protect them, the
more citizens will seek to protect themselves, including purchasing and carrying
firearms.
Kenneth Gimbel SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Whew. I guess Minneapolis won't be torched tonight. Or, maybe, just a little bit to satisfy
the mob.
Verne Thibodeaux SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
There are a lot of "undocumented shoppers" who are very disappointed today.
Michael Havey SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
As I've been saying since the first day of the trial, only the dumbest, most gullible, least
informed Americans believed that Derek Chauvin was innocent.
DK Brand SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
All that without due process being applied? See, you are the problem when the vast majority
of people who saw the video were horrified and felt the officer was guilty of his death. But
we have a system of laws and due process protects everyone, even the seemingly obviously
guilty. There are people who are caught red handed every day who receive the same due
process. So stop crowing about your imaginary opponents and accept that our system has worked
as designed.
William Coburn SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
innocent
He did not need to be found innocent, just not guilty.
Nidge M SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
Talk about dark comedy ........
IF Chauvin is convicted the seemingly not very legally au fait Maxine Waters just handed
his team perfect grounds to appeal against any conviction.
The whole situation is peturbing at a frightening number of levels 'though.
What will US cities do if 10%, 20% even 70% their Cops quit?
What will they do even if they don't quit but 'work to the letter of the rules' and slow all
action to a crawl?
Its not too unthinkable given the record of violence the very large man Chauvin was
kneeling on in the course of the arrest.
And add to that the somewhat inept but from the video plausible Police woman now
incacerated for shooting instead of tasering another career criminal .......... Which from
this distance appears to be a based on political rather than legal considerations.
Would you be a cop?
Meanwhile politicians from both main US parties appear to be giving their blessing to
those who wish to userp the rule of law .......... That's viable is it?
Nidge M SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
No, Floyd was not resisting arrest actively & constantly for 9 minutes.
But
Floyd was a very large male with a record of extream violence, drug abuse and
unpredictability.
Its hardly novel for an aprehended person to fake placidity, then when their restrainers
relax to explode into extream violence.
I am not asserting what Chauvin did was right or wrong ........ But I do think its a
reaction which anyone who has had to deal with violent offenders would regard as a pretty
understandable reaction.
I also wonder might those who are so ready to jump on the bandwagon, grandstanding &
howling in condemnation precipitate something far beyond their expectations.
I wonder too what would happen if the majority of those so quick to condemn were handed
responsibility for doing the policing job people like Chauvin have to do.
How would you do it?
Lori Crossley SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
I don't think anyone wants policing like Chauvin did it. It led to the death of a man. There
were a lot of potential outcomes to this arrest. I would not blame any officer for being
overly cautious based on Floyd's arrest record - and yes, it does count.
But Chauvin was not alone in making this arrest. He had assistance which was not utilized.
Do people fake injury to get away from police officers? I am sure they do.
But there were 9 long minutes when that was not happening. There are thousands of police
officers who leave their homes each day to walk into potentially violent situations. And they
do their job and go home at night (with little thanks) and did not make the same choice
Chauvin did. His trial was fair and the verdict is in. The process worked for Chauvin - not
so much for Floyd.
Mark Allen SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
I grew up on the block where the police station is located, in an apartment often captured in
the footage of the rioting. And while it did make the local papers, the national news has
failed to report that the folks living in those apartments cannot sleep (due to the rioters)
and have to put wet towels over their windows to keep out the teargas (due to the police).
And the irony in this is that the overwhelming majority of those apartment dwellers are
working-poor, persons of color.
Let that sink in.
Scott Mote SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
For the regressives and BLMers, those apartment dwellers are just collateral damage. Maybe
BLM will move them into a BLM mansion.
John Smith SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Great insights Mr. Baker.
Strange how video evidence clearly convicts the subject in the minds of leftists. They
appear to be able to assign motive and punishment based on their emotional appraisal. We have
a sitting California Congresswoman stating this on video tape.
Well, we are not to believe every video tape. Remember Jussie Smollett? They did the same
to the unnamed racists, who assaulted Mr. Smollett - according to his version of events. All
muscular non black males were guilty, until individually cleared. The usual leftists in
politics, media, and entertainment joined Jussie.
Unfortunately, Jussie's version of events was false. He hired two black men to "assault"
him, then put together his soap opera version of the script. Since both stories could not be
true, no one went to jail. This is what politicians with law degrees have contributed to our
Republic.
Yes, he still faces felony charges. But it is more than two years hence. Speedy trial?
Paul Stroud SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
For all of most of our lives we've been able to rely on a civil society that recognized its'
faults, if even after a period of time, and took hard steps to correct them. This is now at
risk as acceptable "civil disobedience" becomes "violent disobedience". We can no longer look
at other parts of the world that are continually wrenched apart by violent, factional
conflict and destruction and think, "oh, at least it can't happen here". It is happening
here, and it is escalating. I hope I am wrong, but I fear for our children and grandchildren.
"... The Global Financial Syndicate will use all kind of distractions to mask the MONETARY power and divide the populace to continue its control & dominance through monetary imperialism. The world is a playground for "evil spirits." ..."
One need to understand the STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT correctly, clearly, and comprehensively
to live & light our world. What is your strategic construct of the national and
international control system?
The Global Financial Syndicate will use all kind of distractions to mask the MONETARY
power and divide the populace to continue its control & dominance through monetary
imperialism. The world is a playground for "evil spirits."
How does the Financial Empire increase its control & POWER over a region? It likes
turning each region into its suzerainty and an Animal Farm (Top-Down Control Structure -
Democracy/Republic/...) internally by controlling its money supply through the
central-private banking system.
Global Financial Empire's strategy:
– Capture LANDS
– Constitutionalize to control the suzerainty & LIVES
– Create LOANS through private creation of money by the private banking system
(Credit/Debt) & give preferential access-terms to kleptocrats (Kleptocrats/Finance --
> Business/Media -- > Politicians/Bureaucrats -- > people)
– Conserve control & power through Consumerism - lifestyles (Labor &
Leisure)
Monetary Power = Lands x Lives x Loans. The key CONTROL elements of the Financial Empire
within a suzerainty are:
– credit/debt - LOANS
– consumerism/desires - LIFESTYLE
– circuses/distractions. - LOST & trivial
When it comes to the international realm it seeks following freedoms:
– freedom of capital movement,
– freedom of trade,
– freedom to provide services, particularly financial
– freedom for warfare
The Global Financial Syndicate controls, finances and corrupts policies such as those in
the U$A administration by its financing the substitution of national leaders with employees
of the Financial Syndicate, such as Biden, Draghi, Yellen, Juncker, Macron,... Globalization
is meant to establish the global financial syndicate's rule everywhere, hierarchically from
top to bottom, in contrast to the democratic right of citizens to self-determination and the
responsibility of governments towards their citizens.
Who wants to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt?
"... My life story is very similar to yours -- blue collar upbringing, worked graveyard shift in factories during college, made it all the way to Wall Street --- and I completely agree with you. The Democratic Party might have been the party of the working-class families many years ago, but it's absolutely not that now. ..."
"... The most interesting aspect of party realignment in almost every country is the movement of the Anglo-Saxon elites to the parties of leftist authoritarianism, whether in the UK, US, or Canada. Since elites have always had “fluid” political values, one can only assume that they see tyranny as our destiny. ..."
I am a retired attorney but was reared in a blue collar home. I have not lost the values I
learned where my father returned home from work six days a week as a railroad brakeman.
Thanks to my pre-law curriculum I am well read in history and literature. My undergrad major
was history and my minor literature.
Having acquired a love for reading in college I have read both all my life but it has not
changed me from the son my father reared. I worked construction and general labor jobs to
help pay for college and law school and am very aware of how hard those jobs are and I have a
healthy respect for the men and women who provide us with the essential goods and services we
all need.
I therefore have no use for attitude of most on the left and some on the right who have no
respect for average working people and small business.
It seems many in Britain have the same outlook. My Dad was very proud I became a lawyer
but I am just as proud of the job he performed to give me that chance.
SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
I therefore have no use for attitude of most on the left and some on the right who have no
respect for average working people and small business. It seems many in Britain have the same
outlook.
My life story is very similar to yours -- blue collar upbringing, worked graveyard
shift in factories during college, made it all the way to Wall Street --- and I completely
agree with you. The Democratic Party might have been the party of the working-class families
many years ago, but it's absolutely not that now.
SUBSCRIBER 4 hours ago
Most democrat leaders are career politicians like Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Schumer. They
never had a real job and paid any taxes. They love raising taxes for big government and dole
out. Can’t wait for midterm election and take back the congress. R
SUBSCRIBER 14 hours ago
The most interesting aspect of party realignment in almost every country is the
movement of the Anglo-Saxon elites to the parties of leftist authoritarianism, whether in the
UK, US, or Canada. Since elites have always had “fluid” political values,
one can only assume that they see tyranny as our destiny.
A US Space Force commander was reportedly
relieved as commander of the 11th Space
Warning Squadron
"due to loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead," after he appeared on a podcast to
promote
his
book
which claims that the US military has been infiltrated by a neo-Marxist agenda which is transforming military culture
and policy.
"Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, Space Operations Command commander,
relieved Lt. Col.
Matthew Lohmeier of command
of the 11th Space Warning Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, May 14, due to loss
of trust and confidence in his ability to lead," the Space Force told the
Washington
Examiner
in a statement.
"This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast. Lt. Gen. Whiting has initiated a
Command Directed Investigation (CDI) on whether these comments constituted prohibited partisan political activity."
Lohmeier
self-published
Irresistible
Revolution: Marxism's Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military
this
week.
The book, according to the description, explores the "impact of a neo-Marxist
agenda" and the manner in which the "
Black
Lives Matter
movement, anti-racism, postmodernism, [and] political correctness" affect the national security of the
United States.
Lohmeier said
that he had informed his superiors, public affairs staff, and lawyers for the military about the book prior to publication
,
but it was not subject to a pre-publication review.
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 prohibits active-duty personnel from engaging in
"partisan political activities."
Service members are, however, permitted to express
their personal opinions on political candidates and issues in their personal capacity and when
not
in uniform
. Lohmeier denied intending to participate in partisan politics. -Washington Examiner
"My intent never has been to engage in partisan politics. I have written a book about a particular political ideology
(Marxism) in the hope that our Defense Department might return to being politically nonpartisan in the future as it has
honorably done throughout history," Lohmeier, and Air Force Academy graduate, told
Military.com
.
The demotion comes after Lohmeier criticized Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's diversity
and inclusion "agenda."
"I don't demonize the man, but I want to make it clear to both him and every service member this agenda -- it will divide us.
It will not unify us," he said, after Austin imposed a 60-day force-wide extremism "
stand-down
"
to determine how to rid the military of extremism following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
Lohmeier says
he was asked to give his troops extremism training and was given a
"70-page" booklet of "talking points."
The booklet reportedly began with an overview of the Capitol riot, and
included examples of "white nationalists that have been caught at some point in the last decade and punished for it and kicked
out of the military, or a radical Islamic terrorist."
"The diversity, inclusion and equity industry and the trainings we are receiving in the military ... is rooted in critical
race theory, which is rooted in Marxism," said Lohmeier, who also knocked the Defense Department for saying that the military
has "too many white pilots" during a pilot shortage.
Citing a diversity initiative in which service members read So You Want to Talk About
Race by Ijeoma Oluo, in which the U.S. is referred to as a "white supremacist nation," Lohmeier told the Information
Operation podcast that the young service members are inundated by a "hyperpoliticized work environment where diversity and
inclusion initiatives are being pushed constantly."
Lohmeier added that conservatives in the military who are willing to voice their
opinions are painted as "extremists."
-Washington Examiner
"What you see happening in the U.S. military at the moment is that if you're a conservative, then you're lumped into a group
of people who are labeled extremists, if you're willing to voice your views. And
if
you're aligned with the Left, then it's OK to be an activist online because no one's gonna hold you accountable
," he
added.
According to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, "There were members, sadly, of the active-duty force participating and espousing
these radical beliefs," adding "We don't know the full breadth and depth of it."
Of note,
Lohmeier's book is currently the #1 seller in Amazon's Military Policy, as
well as Communism & Socialism sections
.
BarnacleBill
1 hour ago
Yes. America's state of
permanent warfare
pits
its weapons against the dwellers in mud huts everywhere. While the generals and colonels pretend to prepare to defend
the country against the latest bogeyman (Russia, the Taliban, North Korea), the lower ranks are ordered to kill
hut-dwellers wherever they can find them. Increasingly, this has meant a war against women and children - as
practised by Israel this past week, as we see. I noted this new (and safe) war in my personal online journal nearly
ten years ago. It's not Pulitzer Prize stuff, but it reports the situation very fairly. Hit the link for the whole
two-minute read. I wrote there about today's "grunts",
They
are sociopaths, pretty much by definition, and we should be very afraid of them. They will be our children's and
grandchildren's guardians and torturers
.
https://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-war-against-women.html
techengineer
7 minutes ago
Lohmeier is exactly right.. The are pushing the liberal/marxist dog**** on everyone and the young men and
women are eating it up.. And the managers are although don't believe the liberal dog**** don't want to lose
their jobs so they play along..
It's disgusting!
GunnerySgtHartman
2 hours ago
remove
link
This is Obama's politicization of the military bearing fruit. The military appointments made by Obama were
purely on ideological grounds; those appointments are now in positions of authority in the Pentagon and are
now spreading their evil gospel.
Virgil Krenshaw
PREMIUM
2 hours ago
That's why coups (or, in this case, counter coups) are typically executed by colonels not generals.
RedDog1
2 hours ago
The Obama regime finished what the Clinton regime began.
Virgil Krenshaw
PREMIUM
2 hours ago
(Edited)
When you're criticizing wokism, you're engaging in partisan politics. When you're promoting wokism, you're
not being partisan at all.
Marcuse argues that "the realization of the objective of tolerance" requires "intolerance toward
prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and
opinions which are outlawed or suppressed." He makes the case for "liberating tolerance", which would
consist of intolerance to right-wing movements and toleration of left-wing movements.
[5]
Marxists have been working towards this for
decades
American Dissident
2 hours ago
remove
link
Fun Fact: He knew The System would destroy his career for dissent, but he spoke up anyway. It will take men
like this for us to win. Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier deserves to be honored.
overbet
2 hours ago
(Edited)
Buying his book is a good start. Support him and encourage others. Gift it to a liberal.
An
Outstanding Rebuttal to CRT from a Frontline U.S. Military Officer
5.0 out of 5 stars
An
Outstanding Rebuttal to CRT from a Frontline U.S. Military Officer
Reviewed in the United States on May 14, 2021
Verified Purchase
Critical Race Theory (CRT), the fraudulent spawn of another failed ideology – Marxism
– is a mind-cancer invading American society. It has metastasized to the point it is now being taught in the nation's
military academies, effectively a "new gospel" of how the world should work. At base, however, it is simply the latest spin
on an utterly-failed theory under which over 100 million people – as a conservative estimate – were slaughtered trying to
make Marxism "work". And that's in the 20th century, alone. Our children don't know this because our schools don't teach
this.
Lt Col Lohmeier demonstrates he, at least, is well aware of Marxism's dangers, no matter how they are disguised and
re-gift-wrapped. A clear scholar of Marxism's history and failures, in his outstanding work Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier exposés
this "new" ideology, CRT, a mind-virus of the type evolutionary psychologist Gad Saad refers to as "The Parasitic Mind", in
the psychologist's book of the same title. Lohmeier recounts how Marxism has morphed from a class-warfare "struggle" –
really, a man-made conflict set up to cause differing societal classes to wage war on one another – into the race-based
"struggle", CRT. This "new" ideology comes complete with its "intersectionalism" add-on, just to make sure everyone is
covered by *some* "oppressed" "group" of one flavor or another. So the Boogey Man is everywhere. Racism is everywhere. Just
because you can't see it directly, you know it's there: It's "institutional racism", after all.
Lt Col Lohmeier analyzes such false claims under the searing light of the truth, showing the actual damage caused to
today's military and the potential for far worse damages to both our military and our society, if this movement is not
stopped dead in its tracks. And Lohmeier has the credibility and facts to back up his analysis: A highly-decorated,
current-active-duty, "fast-burner" (early selection to ranks) squadron commander who commands a premier, frontline U.S.
Space Force squadron, Lt Col Lohmeier provides a "boots-on-the-ground" look at what's happening to the U.S. military as a
result of CRT's brainwashing agenda.
Lt Col Lohmeier has taken the extraordinary step of publishing the book while on active duty, fully aware of the risks such
publication might raise. But the message is too critical to wait. Lohmeier "gets" that, knowing the stakes nonetheless.
This book is a wakeup call. Every American should read it – certainly every U.S. military servicemember, at the very least:
Forewarned is forearmed. Get this book. Read it. And learn about the fight to come: the fight to save our nation from this
Marxist cancer.
>
5.0 out of 5 stars
I
lived in the USSR
Reviewed in the United States on May 11, 2021
Verified Purchase
WAKE UP!!! I lived in the USSR. What is taking place in the United States RIGHT NOW is
textbook Marxist/communism. The history explained by the author in this book is unimpeachable and accurate. This book will
help anyone who reads it quickly and easily gain a clear understanding of what is currently happening in America; and why.
The warning at the end of the book is chilling and true to history.
As for Apple, let's start with the statement that most Apple product are overrated and
overpriced. Despite price, they are more of a fashion statement then technology marvels. Owning
Apple is a lot like using Chanel por Dolche and Gabbana perfume. This is a statement that you are
special.
Now by adopting "woke bolshevism" Apple will inevitably slide deeper into mediocrity.
I'm biased, because I know Antonio Garcia-Martinez and something like the same thing once
happened to me, but the decision by Apple to bend to a posse of internal complainers and
fire him
over a passage in a five-year-old book is ridiculous hypocrisy. Hypocrisy by the complainers,
and defamatory cowardice by the bosses -- about right for the Invasion of the Body Snatchers
-style era of timorous conformity and duncecap monoculture the woke mobs at these places are
trying to build as their new Jerusalem.
Garcia-Martinez is a brilliant, funny, multi-talented Cuban-American whose confessional
memoir Chaos Monkeys
is to big tech what Michael Lewis's Liar's Poker was to finance. A onetime high-level Facebook
executive -- he ran Facebook Ads -- Antonio's book shows the House of Zuckerberg to be a cult
full of on-the-spectrum zealots who talked like justice activists while possessing the business
ethics of Vlad the Impaler:
Facebook is full of true believers who really, really, really are not doing it for the
money, and really, really will not stop until every man, woman, and child on earth is staring
into a blue-framed window with a Facebook logo.
When I read Chaos Monkeys the first time I was annoyed, because this was Antonio's third
career at least -- he'd also worked at Goldman, Sachs -- and he tossed off a memorable
bestseller like it was nothing. Nearly all autobiographies fail because the genre requires
total honesty, and not only do few writers have the stomach for turning the razor on
themselves, most still have one eye on future job offers or circles of friends, and so keep the
bulk of their interesting thoughts sidelined -- you're usually reading a résumé,
not a book .
Chaos Monkeys is not that. Garcia-Martinez is an immediately relatable narrator because in
one breath he tells you exactly what he thinks of former colleagues ("A week before my last
day, I had lunch with the only senior person at Goldman Sachs who was not an inveterate
asshole") and in the next explains, but does not excuse, the psychic quirks that have him
chasing rings in some of the world's most rapacious corporations. "Whenever membership in some
exclusive club is up for grabs, I viciously fight to win it, even if only to reject membership
when offered," he wrote. "After all, echoing the eminent philosopher G. Marx: How good can a
club be if it's willing to have lowly me as a member?"
... ... ...
At one point, as a means of comparing the broad-shouldered British DIY expert favorably to
other women he'd known, he wrote this:
Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of
worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism,
and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or
foreign invasion, they'd become precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box
of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
Out of context, you could, I guess, read this as bloviating from a would-be macho man
beating his chest about how modern "entitlement feminism" would be unmasked as a chattering
fraud in a Mad Max scenario. In context, he's obviously not much of a shotgun-wielder himself
and is actually explaining why he fell for a strong woman, as the next passage reveals:
British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in
that postapocalypse, doing whatever work -- be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun
blast to someone's back -- required doing.
Again, this is not a passage about women working in tech. It's a throwaway line in a comedic
recount of a romance that juxtaposes the woman he loves with the inadequate set of all others,
a literary convention as old as writing itself. The only way to turn this into a commentary on
the ability of women to work in Silicon Valley is if you do what Twitter naturally does and
did, i.e. isolate the quote and surround it with mounds of James Damore references. More on
this in a moment.
After trying the writer's life, Antonio went back to work for Apple. When he entered the
change on his LinkedIn page, Business Insider did a short, uncontroversial
writeup . Then a little site called 9to5Mac picked up on
the story and did the kind of thing that passes for journalism these days, poring through
someone's life in search of objectionable passages and calling for immediate disappearance of
said person down a cultural salt mine. Writer Zac Hall quoted from Apple's Inclusion and
Diversity page:
Across Apple, we've strengthened our long-standing commitment to making our company more
inclusive and the world more just. Where every great idea can be heard. And everybody
belongs.
Hall then added, plaintively, "This isn't just PR speak for Apple. The company releases
annual
updates on its efforts to hire diversely, and it puts its money where its mouth is with
programs
intended to give voice to women and people of color in technology. So why is Apple giving
Garcia Martinez a great big pass?"
From there the usual press pile-on took place, with heroes at places like The Verge sticking
to the playbook. "Silicon Valley has consistently had a white, male workforce," they wrote,
apparently not bothered by Antonio's not-whiteness. "There are some in the Valley, such as
notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color
lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech ."
Needless to say, Antonio never wrote anything like that, but the next step in the drama was
similarly predictable: a group letter by Apple employees claiming, in seriousness, to fear for
their safety. "Given Mr. García Martínez's history of publishing overtly racist
and sexist remarks," the letter read, "we are concerned that his presence at Apple will
contribute to an unsafe working environment for our colleagues who are at risk of public
harassment and private bullying." All of this without even a hint that there's ever been
anything like such a problem at any of his workplaces.
Within about a nanosecond, the same people at Apple who hired Antonio, clearly having read
his book, now fired him, issuing the following statement:
At Apple, we have always strived to create an inclusive, welcoming workplace where
everyone is respected and accepted. Behavior that demeans or discriminates against people for
who they are has no place here.
The Verge triumphantly reported on Apple's move using the
headline , "'Misogynistic' Apple hire is out hours after employees call for investigation."
Other companies followed suit with the same formulation. CNN : "Apple
parts ways with newly hired ex-Facebook employee after workers cite 'misogynistic' writing."
CNET : "Apple reportedly cuts ties with employee amid uproar over misogynistic
writing."
Apple by this point not only issued a statement declaring that Antonio's "behavior" was
demeaning and discriminatory, but by essentially endorsing the complaints of their
letter-writing employees, poured jet fuel on headline descriptions of him as a misogynist. It's
cowardly, defamatory, and probably renders him unhirable in the industry, but this is far from
the most absurd aspect of the story.
I'm a fan of Dr. Dre's music and have been since the N.W.A. days. It's not any of my
business if he wants to make $3 billion
selling Beats by Dre to Apple , earning himself a place on the board in the process. But if
2,000 Apple employees are going to insist that they feel literally unsafe working alongside a
man who wrote a love letter to a woman who towers over him in heels, I'd like to hear their
take on serving under, and massively profiting from, partnership with the author of such
classics as "Bitches Ain't Shit" and "Lyrical Gangbang," who is also the subject of such
articles
as "Here's What's Missing from Straight Outta Compton: Me and the Other Women Dr. Dre Beat
Up."
It's easy to get someone like Antonio Garcia Martinez fired. Going after a board member
who's reportedly
sitting on hundreds of millions in Apple stock is a different matter. A letter making such
a demand is likely to be returned to sender, and the writer of it will likely spend every
evaluation period looking over his or her shoulder. Why? Because going after Dre would mean
forcing the company to denounce one of its more profitable investments -- Beats and Beats Music
were big factors in helping Apple turn
music streaming into a major profit center . The firm made $4.1 billion in that
area last year alone.
Speaking of profits: selling iPhones is a pretty good business. It
made Apple $47.9 billion last year, good for 53% of the company's total revenue. Part of
what makes the iPhone such a delightfully profitable product is its low production cost, which
reportedly comes from Apple's use of a smorgasbord of suppliers with a penchant for forced
labor -- Uighurs said to be shipped in by the thousand to help make
iPhone glass (Apple denies this), temporary "dispatch workers" sent in above
legal limits , workers in "iPhone city"
clocking excessive overtime to meet launch dates, etc. Apple also has a storied history of
tax avoidance, offshoring over a hundred billion in revenues, using Ireland as a corporate
address despite no physical presence there, and so on.
Maybe the signatories to the Apple letter can have a Chaos Monkeys book-burning outside the
Chinese facility where iPhone glass is made -- keep those Uighur workers warm! Or they can have
one in Dublin, to celebrate the €13bn tax bill a court recently ruled Apple didn't have to pay.
It's all a sham. The would-be progressives denouncing Garcia-Martinez don't seem to mind
working for a company that a Democrat-led congressional committee ripped for using " monopoly
power " to extract rents via a host of atrocious anti-competitive practices. Whacking an
author is just a form of performative "activism" that doesn't hurt their bottom lines or their
careers.
Meanwhile, the bosses who give in to their demands are all too happy to look like they're
steeped in social concern, especially if they can con some virtue-signaling dink at a trade
website into saying Apple's mechanically platitudinous "Shared Values" page "isn't just PR
speak." You'd fire a couple of valuable employees to get that sort of P.R.
When I was caught up in my own cancelation episode, I was devastated, above all to see the
effect it had on my family. Unlike Garcia-Martinez, I had past writings genuinely worth being
embarrassed by, and I felt that it was important, morally and for my own mental health, to
apologize in public. I didn't fight for my career and reputation, and threw myself on the mercy
of the court of public opinion.
I now know this is a mistake. The people who launch campaigns like this don't believe in
concepts like redemption or growth. An apology is just another thing they'd like to get, like
the removal of competition for advancement. These people aren't idealists. They're just
ordinary greedy Americans trying to get ahead, using the tactics available to them, and it's
time to stop thinking of stories like this through any other lens.
nobaloney 4 hours ago
[neo]Liberal white women are the worst. The death of America.
Nicholi_Hel 2 hours ago remove link
The main thing that " is on it's way out" are all of your "smart" schizophrenic liberal
hags. They are fleeing the big cities (especially CA) in droves because their psychopathic
politics turned their states into crime ridden, dangerous ****holes with costs of living they
can no longer afford.
Unfortunately they are flooding into red states like Texas bringing with them stale
Marxism, tired feminism, couched slogans, sad cliches and of course their anti depressants
and genital herpes.
gregga777 4 hours ago
Au contraire, mon ami! Look at how wondrously successful they've made US corporations like
General Motors and The Boeing Company! /obviously sarcasm
SummerSausage PREMIUM 3 hours ago
Let's not forget the wonderous leadership of Carly Fiorina (HP), Elizabeth Holmes
(Theranos) and Marissa Mayer (Yahoo)
McGantic 4 hours ago (Edited)
I completely disagree.
I find liberal women of certain other races to be far more offensive.
Nothing is worse than loud, uncouth jogger women with their in-your-face screaming and
howling.
The definition of unsophisticated and to be avoided at all costs.
These liberal white women at least have some semblance of manners and intelligence.
espirit 3 hours ago
Just different tribes of howler monkeys...
rawhedgehog 4 hours ago
precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box of shotgun shells
I think that covers about 90% of the surface population currently, not just Bay Area
fems.
Agent Smith 3 hours ago
Not sure how many you'd get in exchange for an obese whining vaccine damaged genetic
mutant. Maybe you could tout them as self propelled food?
Fool's Gold 3 hours ago
Made me laugh 😅
Notenoughtoys 4 hours ago
Matt Taibbi is brilliant - Wish all the ZH articles were as well written as this !
Seriously_confused 3 hours ago
Taibbi is half and half. He wants to tell the truth, but he wants to keep his woke friends
so he often whimps and whiffs. He can write, but he has his head up his behind in much of his
thinking. Every once in a while he comes up for air and writes something like this. The rest
is wankerific
rawhedgehog 4 hours ago (Edited)
The company releases annual updates on its
efforts to hire diversely
Yet where is their annual report on their use of slave labor in China and how that makes
for a more inclusive and bright world. **** THIS CULTURE OF MORONS AND THOUGHT PUPPETS!
Matt, I enjoyed this article of yours but you need to make more noise exposing how slavery
and the commoditization of human lives is the bedrock of modern tech.
"They're just ordinary greedy Americans trying to get ahead, using the tactics available
to them, and it's time to stop thinking of stories like these through any other lens."
That about sums it up.
Calculus99 3 hours ago
What a miserable place Apple must be to work in, always having to watch yourself for fear
of the mob (even if you're part of that mob).
The internal moral in these giant corps must be shot to pieces.
skippy dinner 2 hours ago
Lots of other corporations sell cool gear. There is no need to buy Apple stuff.
It's only because of conformist acquiescence to peer-group pressures that people buy
it.
The problem is the ahoLes who buy sht from that fing company - AppleFaceBookGoogle.
It is so easy to dump thEm - it is literally no effort.
Problems is there are a lot of people who dont care - about anything.
Nicholi_Hel 3 hours ago
I have no sympathy for the peter puffers that worked or work for Goldman Sachs, Facebook
and or Apple.
This pickle smoocher worked for all three, now we are supposed to break out the tissues
and violins because a group of vicious, screeching Bolsheviks ankle bit one of their own.
"Inside BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors' million-dollar real-estate buying binge.
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors has gone on a real-estate buying binge in
recent years, snagging four high-end homes for $3.2 million in the US alone, according to
property records.":
Actor and Grammy Award winning musician Donald Glover says that television shows and movies
are becoming increasingly boring because "people are afraid of getting cancelled."
ZeroHedge
The Who legend Roger Daltrey says the 'woke' generation is creating a miserable world that
serves to stifle the kind of creative freedom he enjoyed in the 60s.
The iconic frontman made the comments during a recent appearance on Zane Lowe's Apple Music
1 podcast.
"I don't know, we might get somewhere because it's becoming so absurd now with AI, all the
tricks it can do, and the woke generation," said Daltrey.
"It's terrifying, the miserable world they're going to create for themselves. I mean, anyone
who's lived a life and you see what they're doing, you just know that it's a route to nowhere,"
he added.
The singer noted how he was lucky to have lived through an era where freedom of speech was
encouraged, not silenced.
"Especially when you've lived through the periods of a life that we've had the privilege to.
I mean, we've had the golden era. There's no doubt about that," he said.
No doubt the US/UK deep state, now more than ever, are busy trying to sow conflict and
division in Eurasia, to divide-and-rule Mackinder's "World Island" and hence the world.
The phenomenon of "cancel culture" is a toxic one metastasizing into a woke revolution war
empowered by Big Tech and Big Business. Those unfamiliar with being canceled involve publicly
shaming others and boycotting celebrities and companies. However, the art of canceling has
progressed well beyond canceling public figures and is now used to garget average folks. The
result can be devastating for ordinary people who may face the consequences of losing their
jobs, losing friends and family, or having their social media accounts terminated.
Comedian Dave Chappelle partook in a video interview with Joe Rogan on "The Joe Rogan
Experience" podcast about cancel culture. He told Rogan that he recognizes the change people
are attempting to bring through activism and accountability for prominent folks but denounced
cancel culture:
"I'm very lucky to be able to see people who are great at things up close," Chappelle said.
"Even on this podcast ... it's one of the joys of my life getting to know these people and
knowing and seeing them be human."
Chappelle said, "I hope we all survive it," while referring to the cancel culture storm
gripping society. "That's why that cancel culture shit bothers me. I'm not even opposed to the
ideas behind some of these cancelations. I get it."
Rogan said, "the inclination, all of it, is to make the world a better place." He said
social media and public shaming have "gotten abused and misused by the wrong people and bad
actors, but at the end of the day, the thing they think they're trying to do is eliminate bad
aspects of our culture."
Last year, Chappelle criticized cancel culture, saying audiences have become "too brittle,"
adding that "everything you say upsets somebody."
Chappelle hasn't been the only well-known person to speak out against cancel culture, Curtis
Jackson, known as "50 Cent," recently said cancel culture is "
unfair " and "targeting straight men" who "don't have any organizations to back them
up."
Jackson said he wouldn't get canceled because "hip-hop culture loves things that are
damaged. It loves people who are already broken from experience."
A study by a top education think tank, Civitas,
found that free speech at the world's leading universities is being eroded at a rapid rate
due to "cancel culture."
Cancel culture may have had good intentions to hold people accountable for things they did
or say. Instead, it has backfired and produced a toxic environment that limits freedom of
speech and alienates anyone with opposing views. Society can't move forward if liberals cancel
anyone they don't like - there needs to be an open forum where all voices are heard.
"... No, people get their belief systems (religious, political, economic, cultural) from their identity groups. **Then** (if called upon) they apply the intellect to rationalize the beliefs that they **already** hold. ..."
"... Rationalizing the Russiagate nonsense was seemingly inevitable with the 24/7 help of the MSM, and the continuous chirping of Democrat politicians. The intellect was not a lighthouse beacon that led intelligent Democrats through the fog of 24/7/52 issued propaganda, rather; the intellect was the tool that solidified vaporous forms into false-reality. ..."
My two cents. People are mimics. It is fascinating when you realize this.
People don't muse, contemplate and chew over the circumstances and issues in their environment and then resolve - "aha! I have
got it." That is not where people get their belief systems. For example, a million and more people didn't all independently study
the Bible and then realize that their interpretation was fully consistent with those of the Roman Catholics and therefore they
should go join the Catholic Church.
No, people get their belief systems (religious, political, economic, cultural) from their identity groups. **Then** (if
called upon) they apply the intellect to rationalize the beliefs that they **already** hold.
The epiphany came to me when I observed intelligent people falling for Russiagate. WTF !! I thought intelligent people
would get it. Russiagate would be a flash-in-the-pan that would disappear in a few days (or less!). Boy was I wrong. The intellect
does not rule, group identity does. Those that identified Democrat (generalizing here, of course) fell in step with the beliefs
common to Democrats, including Russiagate.
Rationalizing the Russiagate nonsense was seemingly inevitable with the 24/7 help of the MSM, and the continuous chirping
of Democrat politicians. The intellect was not a lighthouse beacon that led intelligent Democrats through the fog of 24/7/52 issued
propaganda, rather; the intellect was the tool that solidified vaporous forms into false-reality.
To find one's identity in groups is deeply human. People are dominated by their need to be group-accepted. It is unsurprising
that group acceptance and group identity produce what we call fashion - fashion in style, fashion in vocabulary, fashion in beliefs.
This applies to Wokism. People are mimics.
For years, I and others have argued for body camera (and police interrogation cameras) to be
used in every jurisdiction. Despite the obvious value of such cameras, jurisdictions like Los
Angeles County have resisted and still do not have this basic protection for both officers and
citizens alike. Likewise, prosecutors in cities like Chicago
long opposed the filming of officers by citizens .
The recent controversy over a traffic stop in L.A. shows the importance of such body
cameras. In the video, an officer pulls over a self-described teacher for using her cellphone
while driving and is met with a barrage of racist slurs. The officer was only able to show his
side in the encounter because he paid for his own camera. It is absurd that Los Angeles County
forces officers to pay for their own cameras to guarantee a record of such encounters. In LA
County, it is bring your own camera (BYOC) or engage in policing at your own risk.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.453.0_en.html#goog_1736936555
NOW PLAYING
Wall Street Bounces, After Selloff Fed Boosts Liquidity
SoftBank Said to Plan $14 Billion Sale of Alibaba Shares
China’s Companies Have Worst Quarter on Record, Beige Book Says
U.S.-Saudi Oil Alliance Under Consideration, Brouillette Says
ETF Volumes Surge in Current Market Environment
Investors Have Given Up on a V-Shaped Recovery, BNY's Young Cautions
The African-American teacher is shown in the video immediately attacking the hispanic
officer with a litany of racist slurs and insults from repeatedly calling him a
“murdererâ€...
"Yes, I started to record because you're a murderer," she says.
"You're threatening to kill me and my son," she says at one point in the encounter.
...and then it escalated as the woman is heard telling the deputy,
"You're always going to be a Mexican. You'll never be white, you know that, right?"
"You'll never be white, which is what you really want to be," she says after signing a
citation. "You want to be white."
Police say the woman is well known for bringing baseless charges against officers.
Here is the body cam video of the April 23 incident in San Dimas:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jwy9lB2q8YE
The officer remains calm despite the litany of insults.
My anger at the video was not just over the racist slurs but the fact that this officer had
to equip himself in Los Angeles.
As many of us have argued for 20 years, these cameras
protect officers and the public alike . If this officer did not have this videotape, this
could have been an incident where there are two wildly different accounts between the driver
and the officer. If a harassment claim is filed, the matter would likely be treated as unproven
rather than untrue. It would remain on the officer’s record that he was
accused for racism and harassment.
While many politicians are now calling for body cams, it was not long ago that they remained
silent on the issue or failed to object (or
joined ) as
police departments demanded delays in the release of such records. In April 2018, the LAPD
began releasing body
cam footage to the public from officer-involved shootings.
One of the issues delaying such deployment has been the insistence of officers to have
greater control in turning on and off cameras. There should be no such debate in terms of the
cameras operating as all times in public movements and encounters
play_arrow
GeneKelly 2 hours ago
She does NOT have the right to say : "You're threatening to kill me and my son," except to
the extent that she is prepared to face civil and criminal penalties for slander and false
accusations.
Unknown 5 hours ago
The Neoliberal brainwashing worked as planned to divide Americans.
This one-to-one replay of Red Guards - Wikipedia but with quite
different sponsors ;-) "Hóng Wèibīng was a mass student-led paramilitary social movement mobilized and guided by Chairman Mao
Zedong in 1966 through 1967, during the first phase of the Chinese Cultural Revolution
Notable quotes:
"... there is an on-going effort to create fads/movements in which the public becomes caught-up and distracts the from reality. ..."
"... The more binary and controversial the better. Red/Blue. I used to be a big fan of sports but have the opinion it is a pointless waste of time and my life is better for that realization. ..."
"... Characteristics of the Woke: They always attack, especially with insults, like "paranoia nonsense". They never address the actual point made, instead they reinterpret the point to make it appear pure evil. Which allows them to attribute the worst possible motivations on the person they are attacking. Naturally they invent things the other person hadn't even mentioned, like climate change. ..."
"... Again the whole woke 'identity' culture that cancels dissent and promotes 'minorities' in positions of power is simply woke fascism. Just as military recruitment is about turning violent video games real for young men, so too is CIA recruitment about inviting the 'woke' for murder and mayhem in the name 'freedom' without which the woke could not wake. ..."
I think that there is an on-going effort to create fads/movements in which the public
becomes caught-up and distracts the from reality.
The more binary and controversial the
better. Red/Blue. I used to be a big fan of sports but have the opinion it is a pointless
waste of time and my life is better for that realization.
Additionally/tangentially, I feel there is a habit in the English language in particular
to create new words to describe things these words are not well define and generate a lot of
discussion and heat about things that nobody knows what they are actually talking about and
end up arguing the meaning of the words.
People who don't know the new words must try to catch
up or be left out of the discussion. I don't direct this at your discussion. I just wonder how
we might see things if we were constrained to a limited vocabulary - as I am as a programmer
of sorts.
Characteristics of the Woke: They always attack, especially with insults, like "paranoia
nonsense". They never address the actual point made, instead they reinterpret the point to
make it appear pure evil. Which allows them to attribute the worst possible motivations on
the person they are attacking. Naturally they invent things the other person hadn't even
mentioned, like climate change.
Again the whole woke 'identity' culture that cancels dissent and promotes 'minorities' in
positions of power is simply woke fascism. Just as military recruitment is about turning
violent video games real for young men, so too is CIA recruitment about inviting the 'woke'
for murder and mayhem in the name 'freedom' without which the woke could not wake.
I will believe that any of this is worth a shit when Snowden wades in with his
opinion...until then its just another distraction
The CIA is why we can't have "wokeism" about the right issue like global private/public
finance.....where is Occupy 2.0?
The current wokeism is like the pet rocks of old days.....would want folks to focus that
woke on the inherited class structure of the private property West, would we?
"... you make the best point: you have to have something seriously "wrong" with your mind to want a job with these spooks in the first place. you can't spell "sociopath" without "c-i-a". ..."
I asked Google (and thus Wikipedia) what cisgender means?
cisgender /sɪsˈdʒɛndə/ adjective
Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender
corresponds with their birth sex. "this new-found attention to the plight of black trans folks by primarily cisgender allies
is timely and necessary"
On the same page as the search result is a teaser headline:
"How An (the) Ad About Cisgender Backfired Spectacularly"
I've formed the opinion that the BIC (the Billionaires In Charge) want societies atomised
to reduce the likelihood of a revolution involving rope, and nooses. So guess how surprised
I'm not that the BIC's loyal servants/savants, the CIA, are attempting to popularise such
vacuous tosh as yet another addition to the LBGTQUERTY "landscape?"
you make the best point: you have to have something seriously "wrong" with your mind to
want a job with these spooks in the first place. you can't spell "sociopath" without
"c-i-a".
both the bold - and to a lesser extent the italics - are terms people use to sound
interesting when they're not. especially the tendency toward self-diagnosis that westerners
have; "i'm not dumb with no attention span ...i have " ADHD " or "i don't have
low self esteem or work-related anxiety based on the inner knowldge of how inept i am...i
have " imposter syndrome ".
the woke types tend to be this kind of malleable and empty vessel...which is what the
"company" wants.
Thanks for bringing this issue to the main page in a brief article, b. I linked to
this
article, "CIA & The Woke Totalitarian Generation" , on the Week in Review thread, but
it generated no additional comment despite its being one of several recent essays on the
issue of the contrived Wokeism "culture" that Alastair Crooke's written about on several
occasions over the past months and Pepe Escobar made the focus of his most recent essay.
Crooke argues that Wokeism is the peculiar and singular outcome of the American Malaise
prominently exposed by Christopher Lasch in his 1994 Revolt of the Elites , which
we've seen in the trenches as the war being waged against the State and citizenry by the
Neoliberal Rentier Class that was explained well in this Renegade Inc
interview from last year .
The Outlaw US Empire is clearly trying hard to get its
Neoliberal vassals to adopt the Woke insanity, which proves beyond doubt Putin's assertion
that the Liberalism of the West has died or worse evolved into something profane and
loathsome.
'The Who' legend Roger Daltrey says the 'woke' generation is creating a miserable world that
serves to stifle the kind of creative freedom he enjoyed in the 60s.
The iconic frontman made the comments during a recent appearance on Zane Lowe's Apple Music
1 podcast.
"I don't know, we might get somewhere because it's becoming so absurd now with AI, all the
tricks it can do, and the woke generation, " said Daltrey.
" It's terrifying, the miserable world they're going to create for themselves. I mean,
anyone who's lived a life and you see what they're doing, you just know that it's a route to
nowhere, " he added.
The singer noted how he was lucky to have lived through an era where freedom of speech was
encouraged, not silenced.
"Especially when you've lived through the periods of a life that we've had the privilege to.
I mean, we've had the golden era. There's no doubt about that," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q-ONJ8UuvhU
Daltrey also slammed the negative impact that social media has had on the world, saying it
has undermined truth.
"It's just getting harder to disseminate the truth. It's almost like, now we should
turn the whole thing off. Go back to newsprint, go back to word of mouth and start to read
books again," he said.
While Daltrey's comments may not be mind-blowing, any celebrity speaking out against the mob
that has cannibalized culture is something to be applauded.
Once again, this only tends to happen with older celebrities who have already passed their
peak of fame and entered icon status. They are beyond cancellation.
For any up and coming celebrity, or even one who is at the top of their game, to question
'generation woke' is career suicide.
Which makes it all the more ludicrous to continue to see identitarians, notably the LGBT
movement, continue to claim they are 'fighting oppression' when their mantras are echoed by
every cultural institution, media outlet and corporate entity in the west, while anyone who
utters a whimper of dissent is swiftly cancelled.
A controversial new law in California requires
publicly traded companies headquartered in the state to include at least one woman on their
board of directors. Supporters of those types of laws even contend that gender quotas could
boost firm profitability. However, the literature indicates that gender quotas are unlikely to
enhance firm performance. What is also shocking is that research argues that quotas may
actually be damaging to the presumed goal of increasing the role of women on corporate
boards.
No Help for Corporate Profits
According to a 2014 study titled " Women on Boards and Firm Financial
Performance: A Meta-analysis " published in the Academy of Management Journal the
relationship between female board representation and market performance is nearly zero.
Similarly, a later study featured in the journal PLOS One complements the previous
conclusion by submitting that a "higher representation of females on corporate boards is
neither related to a decrease, nor to an increase in financial performance, confirming findings
from a similar meta-analysis on this topic."
Moreover, using a quota system to elevate women, unfortunately, fuels perceptions of
tokenism. "Such females might be perceived as "tokens'' to meet society's expectations or those
of important stakeholders, and could therefore be marginalized and not be taken seriously on
the board, which might subsequently hinder their and the entire board's performance, '' the
authors note. Further, Noland, Moran, and Kotschwar (2016) in a shrewd assessment of gender quotas
conclude that the "results find no impact of board quotas on firm performance, but they suggest
that the payoffs of policies that facilitate women rising through the corporate ranks more
broadly could be significant."
The effects of gender quotas appear to be nugatory and, in some cases, expensive. Economic
research reveals that in Norway , gender quotas
reduced firm performance because female directors were on average younger and less experienced.
Although some studies link stronger firm performance to female management, deeper analyses show
that these results are driven by the propensity of high-quality firms to appoint competent women.
Furthermore, because gender quotas are often instituted as a response to demands for
diversity, after complying, companies lose interest in pursuing initiatives to cultivate a
nurturing environment for women. As Kathleen A. Farrel and Philip L. Hersch (2005) observe
," Rather than the demand for women directors being performance-based, our results suggest
corporations responding to either internal or external calls for diversity . Consequently, as
firms satisfied minimal expectations, they no longer actively sought greater diversity . We
fail to find convincing evidence that gender diversity in the corporate boardroom, on average,
is a value enhancing strategy."
No Help for Junior-Level Employees
In fact, though elites advocate gender quotas, the literature implicates them for failing to
uplift low-level female employees. Discussing the inability of gender quotas to improve
prospects for junior staff, the
Economist writes: "Perhaps the most puzzling shortcoming of the quotas is that they have
had no discernible beneficial effect on women at lower levels of the corporate hierarchy."
Neither do quotas increase the representation of women in senior management in firms where the
policy is standard practice.
Another strike against gender quotas is that the evidence refutes the assumption that quotas
are beneficial since women bosses are likely to invest in female employees. The truth is that
women are not more likely to promote other women, hence expecting gender quotas to induce
favorable outcomes for female employees is questionable. In the research article " Meet the New Boss Same as
the Old Boss? Female Supervisors and Subordinate Career Prospects ," David J. Maume
demonstrates the futility of expecting female bosses to make a difference. If an organization
selects for people with masculine traits, then the women who are promoted will perpetuate the
existing culture. "The cog in the machine perspective emphasizes that organizational
structures, cultures, and policies remain pervasively male-oriented, and that careerist female
managers will have to conform to organizational preferences to promote the careers of male
subordinates . The results are consistent with the notion that female managers are cogs in the
machine, in that female supervisors have little or no effect on the career prospects of female
subordinates, and instead foster men's career prospects," Maume explains.
Interestingly, research duly informs us that gender quotas can erect barriers to female
employment. Research led by Pierre Deschamps illuminates the
unintended consequences of institutionalizing quotas. According to Deschamps, hiring committees
affected by quotas are considerably less likely to employ women. Deschamps asserts that quotas
may have reduced the incentive to recruit women by fostering a false semblance of gender
equity.
Legislation like California's board mandates for female board members is being pushed on the
grounds that it fundamentally shifts the balance in corporate America in favor of female
employees and managers. Moreover, many even justified the change on the grounds these laws
would improve corporate governance and profitability. Yet, there is no evidence such legal
changes have accomplished any of these goals. Rather, new mandates only serve to further
politicize the selection of board members while doing nothing to enrich these firms' customers
or employees.
23 play_arrow 1
Macho Latte 3 hours ago (Edited)
My comment about the 1964 Civil Rights Act not applying to white men was deleted because I
used a quote from LBJ that included the slang for the Spanish word for black. I guess some
snowflake or Karen was triggered.
"I'll have them n------s voting DemonRat for the next 200 years"
B52Minot 5 hours ago
And then the next demanded disclosure is what everyone is paid to be on the Board and why
are the "women" not getting the same pay?? No doubt the Board will increase their male
members by one to off-set this woman's vote if deemed by "management" to be the wrong
decision....
ted41776 4 hours ago
don't get me wrong, i have worked with many incredible and very talented people... women,
men, all different races and ethnicities, straight, gay, trans, etc etc. but unless you come
to an interview with as much if not more talent than every other candidate, you need to just
stay home
my point is, hiring should be based purely on talent. the very moment you introduce other
factors, it actually begins to harm people. as an organization, purely driven by profit, are
you better off hiring someone who is 80% talent and 20% "other" attributes or someone who is
100% talent which brings in revenue and leads to success? if any other company out there is
looking for 100% talent, yours is pretty much guaranteed to be out of business unless you
play some corrupt political games and keep a thumb on the competition
and as an individual, imagine being the person knowing full well that a more talented
person didn't get the job and you did because of your "other" attributes. if that were me, it
would make me not want the job and make me feel like a worthless pos. but that's just me
Boondocker 4 hours ago
funny, used to be you couldn't get a security clearance with you were a trans, now the CIA
is recruiting them (of course, our enemies are licking their chops over the number of easily
compromised individuals). Mental health thing.....
Fat Beaver 4 hours ago (Edited)
Whenever i see a woman ceo or a woman at the helm of anything, i know for certain that
company or country is on it's last legs...women are good at a lot of things but administering
leadership is definitely not one of them...and naturally should not be...
They make great dr's, nurses...even surgeons...but if they run the hospital...say goodbye
to the hospital...likewise for most industries and the government...
Drink Feck Arse Girls @ edifice 4 hours ago
Yes, I can confirm this. Spent nearly 20 years in healthcare business and IT. Wherever
women ran things, it was a mess. I can't even count how many times consultants were brought
in to clean up after them.
natashav 4 hours ago
I totally agree and I am a woman.
Maybe there is a woman out there who did a good job, but I can't think of any off the top
of my head? Queen Elizabeth? She never seemed like a whiny bit-ch.
Huxley's Ghost 3 hours ago
Agreed but female doctors/clinicians in my experience were ok until you challenge or
question them, especially if you are another woman. Insecurity runs deep.
Zorch 3 hours ago
I had as a surgeon the female chief resident at a first class teaching hospital. She was
stellar in all respects including management of her team.
But I'd guess she was an exception. It was an exceptional institution.
Jack Offelday 5 hours ago
Women and minorities should be deeply offended. Lowering the bar to meet "quotas" is the
definition of discrimination.
ThenegativeSpeculator 4 hours ago
It also means that once the quota is filled. There will NEVER be another one added.
TacoNasty 4 hours ago
US Military had to dramatically lower the bar to allow women to pass combat fitness
tests.
I kind of wish the US would get in a difficult dismounted-combat war, draft women, and
have millions of women KIA.
That would stop all this equality BS and women thinking they are equal faster than a
finger snap.
Zorch 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to worry about getting in a nasty dismounted-combat war. What we
should hope for is that it happens soon, while we still have people who can diagnose the
stupidity and lead the rebuilding.
TaiwanRealChina 4 hours ago (Edited)
The solution is easy: men on the board should just put on wigs, claim they're women, and
go about their day. If they say otherwise, call them transphobic.
One day I'm going to do this with a SBA woman owned license.
phillyla 4 hours ago
^^THIS^^ Do it!!!
I interviewed for a SBA woman owned business back in 2003. The 'owners' weren't involved
in the business at all. Two guys ran the business their wives were the owners. they were also
capitalizing on locating their business in an economic development zone and they wanted to
hire me because I lived in an economic development zone *** code so they would get extra
government funding.
Unfortunately my husband had a massive stroke and I was unable to work so I don't know how
it turned out.
TacoNasty 4 hours ago
I used to work for a defense contracting company that did this. US gov't decided they
would only hire businesses owned by women. So, the guy that built and ran the business
appointed his wife CEO and "sold" her the company.
It worked like gangbusters for years. Everyone was so impressed with a "woman owned"
business being competent for a change. Then she divorced him and screwed him over on the
business because she had ownership and a "paper trail". He lost everything and she became
suddenly rich. Then, with in a year, it was bankrupt and she lost everything. US Gov't tried
to go after her for incompetence/criminal negligence she screwed up some of the contracts so
bad after she forced him out.
Mile High Perv 41 minutes ago
Excellent example of the Cobra effect
high5mail 5 hours ago
Simple. Just identify as a female on the job application. That is all that is
required.
B52Minot 5 hours ago
And show up either wearing a pants suit or dress....and there you have it ...you are a
woman even if you have a beard....but do not tell anyone you really are a man off
duty....just call me Mrs.....and then wonder who my partner is?
fauxhammer 4 hours ago
Far fewer board meetings is what happens.
Miniminer1 4 hours ago
The boards will hire the quietest or the best looking woman. A yes sir girl and they'll
keep her out of decisions, an 'expense' for the board .
Riprake 4 hours ago
Yep; you don't even have to look like a woman, wear a woman's clothes, or have a
feminine-sounding name. Just identify as one, and according to the tranny panderers' rules,
no one is allowed to question your identity .
Budnacho 4 hours ago
10 years from now you will see most women back at home raising kids and out of the
workforce. The last 100 year experiment has failed....and it's becoming quite obvious to
those with eyes.
natashav 4 hours ago
AGREE.
I am a woman and you are spot on.
My life was stunted because of the CIA and their f-cking feminist revolution.
My life is halfway over so hope the next generation has a better quality of life.
TacoNasty 4 hours ago
The only people that will do in the coming social collapse are going to be people that
stuck with the old ways... like the Amish and other religious "fanatics".
A farm, a wife, and a healthy son, and you can survive anything.
Single and renting a (((tribe))) owned apartment while you fall into debt in a diverse
city with no land to grow anything, no where to fish, no where to hunt, and no family or gun?
You're done for when the SHTF.
Eventually, all of America will look like Bosnia during its collapse. The only question is
when.
Huxley's Ghost 3 hours ago
Budnacho--Yup, it's shocking how many YOUNG guys are forgoing the harpies fembots; guys in
general shutting down long term (30+yrs) marriages with wives who abandoned them after she
got the kids, houses and toys--spending hubbies money like water but treating them like
whipped dogs.
Mile High Perv 36 minutes ago
The silver lining of the economic implosion caused by the stupid lockdowns in response to
a fake virus by the incompetent people in charge.
Most 'soft' jobs will be gone and likely replaced by automation. Women employment will
take a disproportionate hit.
krda 20 minutes ago
Trudeau has apparently been complaining that the Covid recession has hit women hardest
because most of their jobs are non-essential.
Odin McHaggis 5 hours ago
What happens is the work place turns into a hen house and nobody focuses on the task at
hand.
Walter Melon 5 hours ago
It will look a lot like America in 2021
MattyIce 4 hours ago
Most elementary schools are like this
TacoNasty 4 hours ago
This happened where I work... all women all the way to the top.
They focus on stuff like Social Justice and "checks in" zoom calls to see how everyone is
feeling. First thing that happened was all the women stopped doing real work. Next thing that
happened was all the competent men stopped doing work.. because why should they carry
unproductive employees?
liberty_mind 5 hours ago
Diversity quota results in more qualified candidates being rejected just to meet the
numbers
eatapeach 5 hours ago (Edited)
More noise and less good jokes at the meetings!
2banana 4 hours ago
What happens when you don't hire the best?
It should be law that democrats are forced to use affirmation action doctors and lawyers
and pilots...
NotaSheep 5 hours ago
Moreover, using a quota system to elevate women, unfortunately, fuels perceptions of
tokenism.
That would be because it IS tokenism. 100%.
radical-extremist 4 hours ago
Carly Fiorina single handedly destroyed Hewlett-Packard, to the point it barely survived
the acquisition of Compaq Computer. She thought buying a PC company in 2002 would be her
legacy...LOL. HP's daughters on the BOD really pushed for a female CEO at the time. Woke
before woke was a thing.
espirit 4 hours ago
Thank God GM has Mary Barra...
/s
Taffer 4 hours ago
Imagine being stupid enough to be a white man in the military right now helping to keep
this anti-white man crap going?
TheAntiGov 4 hours ago
After serving an illegal gets more benefits.
natashav 4 hours ago
Young men must shift focus to building their families and communities.
Create local defensive units. Train.
Create new supply chains and barter clubs.
Everything is local now.
Back to basics.
Back to focusing on destroying Agenda 2030.
The focus is on destroying companies like Monsanto, Amazon, and Pfizer.
Destroy the EPA. Cripple them.
These are the real enemies of humanity.
Ratch 5 hours ago
"Although some studies link stronger firm performance to female management, deeper
analyses show that these results are driven by the propensity of high-quality firms to
appoint competent women"
This is the key point for all those people who say diversity makes a company more
successful. Diversity does not drive success, these companies are already successful enough
that they can afford Diversity, and they only hire diversity because it will make them look
good. They know full well the people they are bringing on are deadwight.
CovidFloozy 5 hours ago
Go look at the C-Suites of all of these so-called "progressive" companies and then tell me
how much they care about "diversity".
natashav 4 hours ago
I am a woman and I HATE working with other women.
There was only one woman I adored working for back when I was a teenager and interned at a
police department. She was one of the guys. I suppose that's why I liked her so much.
She treated me so well.
Haven't had that experience since.
There are a few of us out here who aren't obsessive nasty c-nts,
so don't write all of us off.
radical-extremist 4 hours ago
I found if you disagree with a decision a woman makes, they take it personally as
"mansplaining" and get very nasty.
espirit 4 hours ago
Only if you're a man.
Otherwise it's wo-mansplaining.
...or bi-splaining, etc...
Pernicious Gold Phallusy 4 hours ago
For years I've been asking women in the workplace whether they would prefer working in an
office where they were the only woman among men, or in a mixed-sex office. So far the answers
are 100% what you would expect.
Mile High Perv 33 minutes ago
Hey .... that resembles my wife
krda 1 hour ago
Pretty much every woman I know hates working for female managers.
So does the business, which rapidly goes downhill when females are made managers.
Von Hayek 5 hours ago
A controversial new law in California requires publicly traded companies headquartered in
the state to include at least one woman on their board of directors.
Most corps are headquartered in Delaware, Nevada for non-vaginal reasons.
And now, for vaginal and other reasons, all corps will be headquartered in Delaware or
Nevada.
A very simple fix.
Chairman Xi the Pooh 5 hours ago
Find the hottest one possible if your being forced to hire a woman.
Postal PREMIUM 4 hours ago
So she can clean you out with claims of sexual harassment? No thanks. Hire a middle-aged,
slightly overweight MILF: Not butt ugly, but not likey to attract attention, either.
cuomostouch 3 hours ago
It's funny how that backfires on feminists. Now when you see a woman in a higher position,
you will think the same thing as when you see a black or some minority: that they didn't earn
it, they're just a quota hire.
chiquita 3 hours ago
The bigger backfire there is right in the article--the assumption that women at higher
management levels will give women at lower levels more opportunities, but the data shows they
don't. There are a lot of reasons for that, including the fear of not being the only one at
the top, which is a pretty powerful feeling and that pesky imposter syndrome, which must be
pretty overwhelming for anyone who is placed in a position that isn't earned.
krda 1 hour ago
Women hate other women, because they treat life as a zero-sum game. If they can't have the
alpha, at least they can do their best to ensure no-one else does.
chiquita 3 hours ago
In a conversation between two former NFL players about transgenders in women's sports,
they digressed into how in the NFL if you couldn't keep up or run fast enough, you were out.
Period. There was a line of guys who were good enough waiting to take your spot. This appears
to be true in all of professional sports, no? This is the way all jobs should be--no quotas,
no affirmative action, no nepotism (well okay, in family owned/family run private businesses,
the family gets to work there), no good old boys/school ties--the best, brightest, most
qualified should get the jobs. If they can't keep up, the next in line comes in. Private
industry shouldn't have to put up with mandates about who they hire into what jobs.
yerfej 4 hours ago
How about an easier fix. Why don't women start women's companies and only hire women and
pack the board with women nad celebrate women by being effective women.
Yippie21 4 hours ago
Like why isn't Mary Kay Cosmetics brought up more often? Pink Caddies for everyone!
Pausebreak 2 hours ago
It works well for Avon now.../s
Kim Jong Un IV 2 hours ago
There was an all women company in Florida that built bridges / overpasses.
krda 1 hour ago (Edited)
I forget the details, but some chick tried that with an all-female software company some
years ago. When it all collapsed, she was on the Internet talking about how she'd never hire
another woman.
ThenegativeSpeculator 4 hours ago
I used to believe that people could make it to the top on their merits. Now unfortunately,
every singe woman or minority I see in a management position or position of authority is
viewed as an incompetent diversity hire.
I hate it, but it is how it is now. Think black female police chief.
milo_hoffman212 4 hours ago
That is because 99.999% of the time they would NEVER get to where they are if they did not
help push up the fake diversity numbers for the company. I have known far more who were
incompetent and obviously got massive diversity 'benefits', than ones who were actually equal
in ability to others in the same position.
krda 1 hour ago
I love it when they whine about their 'imposter syndrome', believing that they're not
really good enough for the job.
Well, duh. That's because they weren't hired for competence.
Stuck on Zero 5 hours ago
I want Elizabeth Holmes on my board.
leefool 4 hours ago
you call it a board?
Savvy 4 hours ago
Now that's funny. LOL
Frank Booth 4 hours ago
ill take marissa mayer
TacoNasty 4 hours ago
She was super hot when she was young. But, dude, she's like 70 now.
mtl4 5 hours ago
If you want to compete in men's sports you need to up your game not slow it down to empty
the bench.
Nimby 4 hours ago
Fortunately, Bob from accounting identifies as a woman, so we're good.
Educated_Redneck 4 hours ago
The board can identify as women. Problem solved. If the CA government does not like that,
then sue for transgender discrimination. Even better!
TrustbutVerify 3 hours ago
Yes, with an all male board the board members could just identity as female 3 days a week!
Problem solved.
hanekhw 5 hours ago
Easy. Select Caitlin Jenner.
One Moment Please 4 hours ago
Nikki Haley is on the Board of Directors of the Boeing Corporation.
That's all you need to know.
And she knows phucqueall about airplanes besides flying First Class.
Obamaroid Ointment 4 hours ago
I'm no fan of Nikki but she did resign from the Boeing board when they went begging to
government for ChinaFlu-19 handouts.
One Moment Please 4 hours ago
Thank you.
I may have painted too harsh a picture of the lady.
Obamaroid Ointment 3 hours ago
Your intincts are correct, Nikki is a backstabbing GOPe Swamp RINO not to be trusted and
should only be seen in a harshest of light. But on the topic Boeing she deserves a little
credit and no blame. Although she was SC governor at the time it was the SC Boeing workers
kicking out the union who deserve all the kudos for bringing the 787 Dreamliner production
from the Seattle ****hole to North Charleston.
B52Minot 4 hours ago remove link
Sooner or later....likely very much later unfortunately...women will realize all this
"liberal"...??Progressive?? approach and diatribe supporting "women's rights" is a
fraud/sham..nothing but a convenient method to look pro-women to the gullible but in reality
the Dems/"radicals" are just providing a false-front of "support" to women which does exactly
the opposite for their true needs/desires for more independence/freedoms/rights/equality. Too
bad so many women are going to find out the hard way when they are 40-50 that what the Dems
"plans" for their rights/equality are the scam that keep the Dem radical in position and they
are on the outside looking in...without anything to support them but social security into the
future.......
milo_hoffman212 4 hours ago (Edited)
>What happens?
Easy, all men in the company should file a complaint with the US Federal EEOC, and charge
the company with violating -- 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2 Title IV.
EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any
way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Time for white men to start filling legal complaints for violation of sex and racial
discrimination, and stop pretending like it is not happening. Either the law applies to all,
or it is no law.
Cardinal Fang 4 hours ago remove link
It's funny that the fact that women can be just as incompetent as men had been completely
left out of the equation.
As always, it's just a numbers game.
Yippie21 4 hours ago remove link
Why isn't there a city anywhere with a all-female fire department? Why not for justice??!!
How about 50% garbage truck drivers? Why isn't that the goal? How about all-female Police
department? What electricity company is being forced to hire 50% female line-persons?
Ok, how about the cities streets departments that are 50% female for fixing potholes and
streets? How about the 50% females mandated for the IT department? Security guards?
Landscaper crews? Tree trimmers? How about linking farm subsidies for corporate farms to 50%
farm-hands being female?
Women and their beta enablers only want avenues and mandates for the top jobs... when
they'll poo-poo the menial or men-dominated jobs that women want nothing to do with and no
one will ever demand they help even out the diversity. Nope. They just want the top tier
stuff and will laugh in your face for what I just laid out above.
BagOfChips 4 hours ago
At present, I report to a woman, to another woman, to a diverse woman, to a diverse man to
the CEO. Not one level is adequately qualified for their role until you get to the CEO, and
his abilities are questionable given the team he has underneath him.
Yippie21 4 hours ago
That reflects my entire career working for the Government, except after about 1990, every
top manager was Female/Diversity. Every spot beneath where a white male was, was always
filled with a diversity after that person retired.
HowardBeale 4 hours ago
"What Happens When Governments Force Corporate Boards To Appoint More Women?"
More blowjobs?
Drink Feck Arse Girls @ edifice 4 hours ago
I've slept with a couple of my female bosses. Don't recommend. I was on my out of the
company anyways. My recommendation would be to not talk to anyone at work unless it is
strictly business related. And even then, use non gendered words and keep it as generic and
simple as possible.
TacoNasty 4 hours ago
A lot of people don't realize that situations like that can be a civil count matter in the
US.
So, you don't get a pass just by getting fired or quitting your job. She can come back
decades later (even if she instigated or asked for the relationship) and sue you for
everything you have.
She can even claim it was "rape" and get a criminal case brought against you.
Drink Feck Arse Girls @ edifice 3 hours ago remove link
Yes, I regret doing it. I'd kick myself in the balls if I could go back in time. And tell
myself to invest in AAPL.
krda 1 hour ago remove link
One company I was interviewed for the female boss wanted to hire me because she thought I
was hot. I ended up taking a job somewhere else, but I sometimes wonder what my life would
have been like if I'd gone for that one.
Detective Miller 4 hours ago remove link
What always happens when you FORCE people to do things to satisfy a sick, degenerate
ideology? That's what happens with this.
Yippie21 4 hours ago remove link
Huh. Nothing in the article about the effect on men. You know, who by merit, may just have
landed those jobs but are held down or not hired? Talk about a purposely toxic environment
that institutionalizes women-hate and actual anger.
This is good news for corporate leaders. Now they can hire their moms, daughters, girl
friends, strippers, and any other hot chick that strikes their fancy and not be bothered with
****ling questions about qualifications and competence.
Pausebreak 3 hours ago
Niki Haley was on the board at Boeing and look how well that turned out.
HabitualLineStepper 9 minutes ago
Same for HP and Yahoo.
Vizzini 4 hours ago
Same thing that always happens. Every quota beneficiary will be assumed to be an
incompetent quota-filler. That assumption will be mostly correct.
Nelbev 5 hours ago
California should force corporations to appoint blacks and other ethnicities
proportionately, same by religion, then LBGT, then mentally disabled people to boards so
there is more equity. It is woke. It is fair. Do same with police, state legislatures, all
jobs. What could go wrong?
Serapis 4 hours ago
Powerful and self-respecting people tend to react better to persuasion than coercion.
The heavy hand of state coercion almost always creates resistance even where people would
otherwise be sympathetic to the cause.
People don't like to be told what to do any more than my dog likes being scolded for his
canine treacheries.
NoPasaran 4 hours ago
"In fact, though elites advocate gender quotas, the literature implicates them for failing
to uplift low-level female employees." - that is EXACTLY how it is in financial industry!
Catullus 4 hours ago (Edited)
I work with and for extremely successful women in a sales role, and my wife is a VP at a
hospital. To a person, what they've said to me when I ask them why they don't want a higher
title and pay is that they don't want that. There is a huge fear that the trade-off for those
jobs is your personal time and relationships with your family. And so what you attract are
people in those roles that weighed it and chose the title and pay.
radical-extremist 4 hours ago
BOD's don't run companies. Aside from maybe one or two members they have very little power
to do anything. Which goes to show how ignorant and naive feminists are to begin with
regarding how corporations actually work.
I worked at a large company that hired a young attractive, sharp-dressed woman and put her
in a fancy corner office visible from the lobby. After a few weeks she started venturing out
and talking to people. We asked her what she was supposed to be doing and she said she didn't
know, no one had told her yet. Eventually she bought several large plants to put in front of
the window. Within 4 months she quit out of frustration and boredom. We used to call these
tokens "Director of Special Projects".
Merit and character should be the only factors in leadership roles. Fvck diversity.
It's not anyone's fault that men, probably 95+% of the time are better leaders. Women have
their own talents that they are better at than men (not trying to make misogynist jokes
here.....yet).
This "i need to prove how good of a man I can be, even though I'm a woman, so that my
daddy who worked too much will show me attention" ideology needs to end. Girls need to stop
being raised to think that being a shiity man is what they are supposed to do. Double down on
the things you're good at, stop trying to fix what you're not good at.
Yippie21 4 hours ago
A lot of women I used to work with HATED working for other women. The chance for the
workplace to go toxic is incredibly high when the women start fighting with one another ...
and they don't let grudges go.
fleur de lis 3 hours ago remove link
Absolutely correct.
Estrogen poisoning starts cat fights that never end.
The people tearing down statues and being "woke" at every little thing seem to wander
about and flop around in a state of perpetual confusion. They have no guiding principles or
the hand of righteousness to steady them. They are hollow ! Every waking hour of their lives
is consumed with all this nonsense.
They want to smash everything without really knowing why. They are happiest when all is
ruin and then look around in dismay at what they have done and what they will now have to
live with. This fills their emptiness because there is nothing else to do so. Folks like this
burn out either destroyed by others, frequently destroying themselves, first the soul, then
the body. What kind of a jackass torches his own neighbourhood, in effect shits in his soup
bowl ?
The woke and cancel culture do ! It must be fun for them but after the laughter comes
those tears.
In 2020, we saw the enshrinement of techno-feudalism – one of the overarching themes
of my latest book,
Raging Twenties .
In lightning speed, the techno-feudalism virus is metastasizing into an even more lethal,
wilderness of mirrors variant, where cancel culture is enforced by Big Tech all across the
spectrum, science is routinely debased as fake news in social media, and the average citizen is
discombobulated to the point of lobotomy.
Top political analyst Alastair Crooke has attempted a
sharp breakdown of the broader configuration.
Geopoliticallly, the Hegemon would even resort to 5G war to maintain its primacy, while
seeking moral legitimization via the woke revolution, duly exported to its Western
satrapies.
The woke revolution is a culture war – in symbiosis with Big Tech and Big Business
– that has smashed the real thing: class war. The atomized working classes, struggling to
barely survive, have been left to wallow in anomie.
The great panacea, actually the ultimate "opportunity" offered by Covid-19, is the
Great Reset advanced by Herr Schwab of Davos: essentially the replacement of a dwindling
manufacturing base by automation, in tandem with a reset of the financial
system .
The concomitant wishful thinking envisages a world economy that will "move closer to a
cleaner capitalist model". One of its features is a delightfully benign Council for Inclusive Capitalism in partnership
with the Catholic Church.
As much as the pandemic – the "opportunity" for the Reset – was somewhat
rehearsed by Event
201 in October 2019, additional strategies are already in place for the next steps, such as
Cyber Polygon ,
which warns against the "key risks of digitalization". Don't miss their "technical exercise" on
July 9 th , when "participants will hone their practical skills in mitigating a
targeted supply chain attack on a corporate ecosystem in real time."
A New Concert of Powers?
Sovereignty is a lethal threat to the ongoing cultural revolution. That concerns the role of
the European Union institutions – especially the European Commission – going no
holds barred to dissolve the national interests of nation states. And that largely explains the
weaponizing, in varying degrees, of Russophobia, Sinophobia and Iranophobia.
The anchoring essay in Raging Twenties analyzes the stakes in Eurasia exactly in terms of
the Hegemon pitted against the Three Sovereigns – which are Russia, China and Iran.
It's under this framework, for instance, that a massive, 270-plus page bill, the Strategic
Competition Act , has been recently passed at the US Senate. That goes way beyond
geopolitical competition, charting a road map to fight China across the full spectrum. It's
bound to become law, as Sinophobia is a bipartisan sport in D.C.
Hegemon oracles such as the perennial Henry Kissinger at least are taking a pause from their
customary Divide and Rule shenanigans to
warn that the escalation of "endless" competition may derail into hot war –
especially considering AI and the latest generations of smart weapons.
On the incandescent US-Russia front, where Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sees the lack of
mutual trust, no to mention respect, as much worse than during the Cold War, analyst Glenn
Diesen
notes how the Hegemon "strives to convert the security dependence of the Europeans into
geoeconomic loyalty".
That's at the heart of a make-or-break saga: Nord Stream 2. The Hegemon uses every weapon
– including cultural war, where convicted crook Navalny is a major pawn – to derail
an energy deal that is essential for Germany's industrial interests. Simultaneously, pressure
increases against Europe buying Chinese technology.
Meanwhile, NATO – which lords over the EU – keeps being built up as a global
Robocop, via the
NATO 2030 project – even after turning Libya into a militia-ridden wasteland and
having its collective behind humiliatingly spanked in Afghanistan.
For all the sound and fury of sanction hysteria and declinations of cultural war, the
Hegemon establishment is not exactly blind to the West "losing not only its material dominance
but also its ideological sway".
So the Council on Foreign Relations – in a sort of Bismarckian hangover – is now
proposing a
New Concert of Powers to deal with "angry populism" and "illiberal temptations", conducted
of course by those malign actors such as "pugnacious Russia" who dare to "challenge the West's
authority".
As much as this geopolitical proposal may be couched in benign rhetoric, the endgame remains
the same: to "restore US leadership", under US terms. Damn those "illiberals" Russia, China and
Iran.
Crooke evokes exactly a Russian and a Chinese example to illustrate where the woke cultural
revolution may lead to.
In the case of the Chinese cultural revolution, the end result was chaos, fomented by the
Red Guards, which started to wreak their own particular havoc independent of the Communist
Party leadership.
And then there's Dostoevsky in The Possessed , which showed how the secular Russian
liberals of the 1840s created the conditions for the emergence of the 1860s generation:
ideological radicals bent on burning down the house.
No question: "revolutions" always eat their children. It usually starts with a ruling elite
imposing their newfound Platonic Forms on others. Remember Robespierre. He formulated his
politics in a very Platonic way – "the peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality, the
reign of eternal justice" with laws "engraved in the hearts of all men".
Well, when others disagreed with Robespierre's vision of Virtue, we all know what happened:
the Terror. Just like Plato, incidentally, recommended in Laws. So it's fair to expect that the children of the woke
revolution will eventually be eaten alive by their zeal.
Canceling freedom of speech
As it stands, it's fair to argue when the "West" started to go seriously wrong – in a
cancel culture sense. Allow me to offer the Cynic/Stoic point of view of a 21st century global
nomad.
If we need a date, let's start with Rome – the epitome of the West – in the
early 5th century. Follow the money. That's the time when income from properties owned by
temples were transferred to the Catholic Church – thus boosting its economic power. By
the end of the century, even gifts to temples were forbidden.
In parallel, a destruction overdrive was in progress – fueled by Christian iconoclasm,
ranging from crosses carved in pagan statues to bathhouses converted into churches. Bathing
naked? Quelle horreur!
The devastation was quite something. One of the very few survivors was the fabulous bronze
statue of Marcus Aurelius on horseback, in the Campidoglio/ Capitoline Hill (today it's housed
in the museum). The statue survived only because the pious mobs thought the emperor was
Constantine.
The very urban fabric of Rome was destroyed: rituals, the sense of community, singin' and
dancin'. We should remember that people still lower their voices when entering a church.
For centuries we did not hear the voices of the dispossessed. A glaring exception is to be
found in an early 6th century text by an Athenian philosopher, quoted by Ramsay MacMullen in
Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries .
The Greek philosopher wrote that Christians are "a race dissolved in every passion,
destroyed by controlled self-indulgence, cringing and womanish in its thinking, close to
cowardice, wallowing in all swinishness, debased, content with servitude in security."
If that sounds like a proto-definition of 21st century Western cancel culture, that's
because it is.
Things were also pretty bad in Alexandria. A Christian mob killed and dismembered the
alluring Hypatia, mathematician and philosopher. That de facto ended the era of great Greek
mathematics. No wonder Gibbon turned the assassination of Hypatia into a remarkable set piece in
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ("In the bloom of beauty, and in the maturity of
wisdom, the modest maid refused her lovers and instructed her disciples; the persons most
illustrious for their rank or merit were impatient to visit the female philosopher").
Under Justinian – emperor from 527 to 565 – cancel culture went after paganism
no holds barred. One of his laws ended imperial toleration of all religions, which was in
effect since Constantine in 313.
If you were a pagan, you'd better get ready for the death penalty. Pagan teachers –
especially philosophers – were banned. They lost their parrhesia : their license
to teach ( here is Foucault's
brilliant analysis).
Parrhesia – loosely translated as "frank criticism" – is a tremendously
serious issue: for no less than a thousand years, this was the definition of freedom of
speech (italics mine).
There you go: first half of the 6th century. This was when freedom of speech was canceled in
the West.
The last Egyptian temple – to Isis, in an island in southern Egypt – was shut
down in 526. The legendary Plato's Academy – with no less than 900 years of teaching in
its curriculum – was shut down in Athens in 529.
Guess where the Greek philosophers chose to go into exile: Persia.
Those were the days – in the early 2nd century – when the greatest Stoic,
Epictetus, a freed slave from Phrygia, admirer of both Socrates and Diogenes, was consulted by
an emperor, Hadrian; and became the role model of another emperor, Marcus Aurelius.
History tells us that the Greek intellectual tradition simply did not fade away in the West.
It was a target of cancel culture.
In lightning speed, the techno-feudalism virus is metastasizing into an even more
lethal, wilderness of mirrors variant, where cancel culture is enforced by Big Tech all
across the spectrum, science is routinely debased as fake news in social media, and the
average citizen is discombobulated to the point of lobotomy.
Those that can think for themselves are ahead of the curve.
"If we need a date, let's start with Rome – the epitome of the West – in the
early 5th century. Follow the money. That's the time when income from properties owned by
temples were transferred to the Catholic Church – thus boosting its economic
power."
Yes, then, as now, follow the money.
The current "woke" culture didn't naturally well-up from within the population.
This "thing" has been artificially engineered, manufactured and steered in the direction
"the money" forces want it to go.
From Covid to the French Revolution to Rome – all made to LOOK natural, as if they
just appeared out of the blue or were a natural progression that couldn't be stopped, but
when you pull back the curtain you see the hands of "the money" firmly on the steering
wheel.
Some people say the Bible was invented during this time in order to bring down Rome.
They're probably right.
History tells us that the Greek intellectual tradition simply did not fade away in the
West. It was a target of cancel culture.
Killed then misrepresented: In The Darkening Age , Catherine Nixey rolls out all
the details. Christianity's greatest crime was the rise of a level of superstition and fear
never before witnessed. Even stone atheists will cringe at the lies -- propagated at the top
-- that Church leaders pushed on their victims. It was worse than some of us suspected.
Nixey's book is not a fun read.
The Greek philosopher was spot on with his observation:
"a race dissolved in every passion cringing and womanish in its thinking, close to
cowardice, wallowing in all swinishness "
If by "womanish in its thinking" he was referring to nothing but emotional (and being
Greek it's likely) he was right on the money, then and now. From BLM to the selling of the
Covid death vaccinations, emotion has become the West's preferred form of discourse. What
killed the Elder Culture now destroys their late-era survivors with a mass nervous
breakdown.
Hey Pepe, study the Punic Wars and try to understand what Rome had against Carthage.
Because the Romans would never demonise their enemies would they? I mean who could imagine
that? The Romans were lovely people and would never do anything perverse or barbaric, no
honestly.
Repressive and non-repressive governments ,democratically elected governments and those
governments imposed from outside ,all have been cancelling messages that they do not like
"Who is "the money"?"
Pepe gives us the answer --
"The woke revolution is a culture war – in symbiosis with Big Tech and Big Business
– that has smashed the real thing: class war. The atomized working classes, struggling
to barely survive, have been left to wallow in anomie."
The "woke" are tools to fracture nations, a people, patriotism, social norms, families,
morality, the future & anything which could possibly hinder the progress of the 600 odd
(multi-billionaire) families who RULE this planet.
The woke revolution is a culture war – in symbiosis with Big Tech and Big
Business – that has smashed the real thing: class war.
this is why it's very important to be deliberately offensive. saying "nigger" is a
revolutionary act. but in the age of the beta male, revolutionaries are too few to succeed
and are punished.
"If they want to boycott us why don't we boycott them," Paul said during an appearance on
Fox News on Tuesday. "This is the only thing that will teach them a lesson. If Coca-Cola wants
to only operate in Democrat states and have only Democrats drink them, God love 'em. We'll see
how well they do when half the country quits drinking Coca-Cola."
"Let me be crystal clear and unequivocal, this legislation is unacceptable, it is a step
backward and it does not promote principles we have stood for in Georgia, around broad access
to voting, around voter convenience, about ensuring election integrity, and this is frankly
just a step backwards," Quincey said.
A slew of other companies followed, including Delta Air Lines, JP Morgan Chase and Major
League Baseball, which pulled its annual All-Star Game out of Atlanta over the bill's
passage.
Democrats have argued the bill makes it harder for many people, particularly minorities, to
vote. Republicans say the bill is needed to beef up election security amid a growing distrust
among conservatives with the electoral process following the 2020 elections.
Coca-Cola is headquartered in Atlanta.
Former President Trump last week called on his supporters not to support Coca-Cola and other
companies that have voiced opposition to the Georgia elections bill and similar measures being
proposed by Republicans around the country.
"For years the Radical Left Democrats have played dirty by boycotting products when anything
from that company is done or stated in any way that offends them. Now they are going big time
with the WOKE CANCEL CULTURE and our sacred elections," Trump
said in a statement over the weekend. "It is finally time for Republicans and Conservatives
to fight back- we have more people than they do- by far! Boycott Major League Baseball,
Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, ViacomCBS, Citigroup, Cisco, UPS and Merck. Don't go
back to their products until they relent. We can play a better game than them."
A group of GOP state lawmakers in Georgia wrote a letter to the CEO of the Georgia Beverage
Association asking their office no longer be stocked with Coca-Cola products.
"Given Coke's choice to cave to the pressure of an out of control cancel culture, we
respectfully request all Coca-Cola Company products be removed from our office suite
immediately,"
the letter reads . "Should Coke choose to read the bill, share its true intentions and
accept their role in the dissemination of mistruths, we would welcome a conversation to rebuild
a working relationship."
An anti-discrimination group is challenging Coca-Cola's attempt to impose racial quotas on
outside counsel.
Writing on behalf of the Project on Fair Representation, D.C. attorney Boyden Gray accused
Coca-Cola of violating the Civil Rights Act with a new rule, which would punish contracted law
firms unless a certain percentage of their billed associates are "diverse attorneys."
In
the letter , a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon , Gray
argues that policy violates federal law, which "prohibit[s] all forms of racial discrimination
in private contracting." Coca-Cola "appears to be following the view of 'antiracist' activist
Ibram X. Kendi," with their new requirement, Gray writes.
Former Coca-Cola counsel Bradley Gayton, who last week was appointed to serve as a strategic
consultant to the company's CEO, announced
in January that law firms partnering with Coca-Cola would face a 30 percent reduction in
payment unless 30 percent of the firm's billed associates and partners came from diverse
backgrounds. Half of those associates must also be black.
While the practice may have been implemented with good intentions, quotas "perpetuate"
racial categorization, Gray told the Free Beacon.
"Coke's outside counsel policy may be well-intentioned, but racial quotas and the notion of
group rights perpetuate pernicious racial categories and rest on a false, offensive, and racist
notion that blacks and other racial minorities cannot compete," Gray said. "Federal law
prohibits this kind of racially discriminatory balancing. It is not enough for Coke to pause
this policy; it needs to publicly revoke it. Coke should disavow race-based contracting,
period."
Gray is acting on behalf of the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit legal group that
fights racial and ethnic discrimination. The group's president, Edward Blum, told the Free
Beacon he believes the company must withdraw the rule immediately.
"It is obvious to all observers that Coca-Cola's recently enacted law firm contracting
policies are illegal. The company should publicly withdraw these racial quota requirements
immediately."
Blum helped organize Students for Fair Admissions' lawsuit against Harvard, which claims the
university discriminates against Asian-American applicants. The group recently
petitioned the Supreme Court to take up their case. Blum is also the architect of
Fisher v. University of Texas , the last case that mounted a frontal attack on
affirmative action before the High Court.
Federal law bans race discrimination in private contracting, as Gray's letter notes.
Lawsuits regarding contract discrimination go straight to federal court, unlike others that
first must go through a years-long agency process. And unlike other anti-discrimination laws,
there's no cap on monetary damages under the fair contracting. Coca-Cola could be on the hook
for a hefty financial penalty.
The soda company landed in hot water in February after leaked documents from an internal
diversity and inclusion training session
asked workers to "be less white." Coca-Cola did not respond to the Free Beacon 's
request for comment in time for publication.
The idea that someone can't succeed in America because of their skin color, gender,
whatever, is as stupid as it is bigoted. Weirdly, it seems to always be espoused by people
who've "somehow" beaten the odds. How many times have you seen a black Ivy League professor on
TV talking about "systemic racism"? How'd they get a tenured, high six-figure gig, book deals,
speaking engagements, and a cable news contributor contract in such a rigged system?
They never answer that question because the only people who'd ask it of them are their
colleagues on TV and they're on the same team. But the answer is obvious: they worked for it;
they earned it.
The woke crowd doesn't want minorities to realize that, and neither do racists. Both want to
keep people down because it serves their needs.
Racists want segregation; wokesters want segregation too. One in the name of bigotry, one in
the name of "tolerance." Does the motive really matter if the outcome is the same?
In fact, to listen to the demands of the leftists in the streets, you'd think they were the
Klan.
"Black people can't succeed without government help," "They can't get ahead without a
government program," "They'll only end up in jail if they don't get handouts." Again, seemingly
different motivations, but all those statements could've been uttered by either group.
The infantilizing of black people by the progressive left is actually worse than anything
the Klan is doing because the KKK is a non-entity in American life in the 21st century. In my
book, I wrote about the size of the KKK. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are
between 5,000-8,000 members of the KKK in 2016, down from about 4 million a century earlier.
That's a huge drop – to go from millions to a rounding error smaller than the average
attendance of a WNBA game as the population tripled should be cause for celebration. But
leftists will tell you racists are everywhere and running the show.
Boycott Nike Campaign : 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Share via E-mail More share options
On Monday, Nike rolled out a new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, the former 49ers quarterback who gained national attention
when he began taking the knee during the national anthem to protest racism and police brutality. Nike’s new ad features a black
and white photo of an unsmiling Kaepernick. The words written across his face read “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing
everything.â€
Kaepernick hasn’t played for the NFL since he became a free agent in 2017, but he continues to be in the public eye. Just last
week, a judge ruled
that Kaepernick’s lawsuit against the NFL for alleged collusion can go forward. Nike’s new ad campaign has garnered a lot of
attention, with people on both sides of the issue reacting intensely. Serena Williams, who also is a Nike spokesperson, tweeted that
she is now “prouder than ever†to be part of the “Nike family.â€
At the same time, many people, angry at what they see as Colin Kaepernick’s unpatriotic politics, have announced that they will
boycott Nike.
Looks like an attempt to redirect anger against neolibel elite into racial antimosity does nto work well. A least for this UNZ commentariant.
They are not folled by woke nonsense.
In any case it looks like the USA is a divided country.
Never underestimate the insanity of Zionists, be they full Jews, half-Jews, or soulless Jew-wannabes like Joe "I am a Zionist"
Biden. We're in unprecedented territory -- an empire run by Zoglodytes. They'll run it into the ground sooner or later, but just
how quickly and at what cost to the humanity is anyone's guess.
Of course, none of it would be possible but for the Anglo-elites doing deals with ((bankers)) in search of post-Imperial easy-living.
In fact, that's probably what caused WW2.
Today, gangsters from every creed, race and religion want in on the Zionist action, and happily signal to their criminal lodestar
that they're "all in" with virtually unlimited aid, wars and diplomatic support in Congress for the Jewish state.
The New World Order. How do you like it, whitey? You just had to listen to the gold-plated promises of the Jew confidence man.
The streets will be paved with gold, right?
If you're white and in the armed forces/police, you're a moron.
The fact is Americans are nothing but the Jew's bitch, killing for them. There isn't one American, who's defended their country,
well, you'll have to go back to the war of independence for that. Every, serving member of the armed forces is a mercenary, paid
by the US taxpayer, to kill fire Israel as they establish greater Israel.
So STOP looking at your armed forces as heroes. They aren't, not one, single one! See them for what they are, braindead, brainwashed,
fighting machines, WHO DON'T FIGHT FOR YOU! And that's what's worrying. Throughout history every armed force has been turned against
its own nation and its just a matter of time with the US. THEY WILL use them against you, to push nationwide vaccination.
The armed forces, like the police, are your enemy and I strongly suggest that if you know anyone in them, or a friend whose
family members are in them, tell them to leave ASAP before they institute martial law. Remember, the armed forces don't serve
you, so leaving them is doing the people good while staying within is causing them harm.
I'm suspicious of Biden's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan. The troops will probably get reassigned to the Middle East or
the Polish Border. Trump's "withdrawal" from Syria just amounted to shipping those troops to Iraq.
The Biden administration is a revolutionary one. It is not American and doesn't pretend to be. Like Lenin's early revolutionary
Bolshevik government it is comprised of mostly Jews and racial/ethnic minorities who are antagonistic towards the majority population
and its history and traditions.
I believe that the Jews, radical blacks and others who are really in charge of the Biden administration have no plans to relinquish
power in 2024 even if they lose the election. Since the courts refused to provide a legal remedy for battleground states breaking
their own elections laws to massively increase Democrat mail-in ballots then they will just do it again unless Republicans can
win the gubernatorial elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But that might not be possible with mail-in ballot schemes
that were illegally put in place.
Will whites support a globalist regime that picks fights abroad and wars against them at home? The mood of the country is
comparable to East German during the 1980's. Resignation and apathy. The last election was a fraud, the media are liars, the courts
are political, privacy and free speech aren't being protected, and half the country declares it hates the other half.
Go ahead, try to conjure a false flag to rally Team America
There are no signs whites are about to repudiate the Evil Empire. Trace Adkins, Gerald McRaney are on tv advertisements imploring
whites to provide financial support to the fools who came back crippled from fighting in Israel's wars.
"Will Whites Support A Globalist American Empire That Picks Fights Abroad and Wars Against Them At Home?"
The answer is YES, they will.
Why?
Because they've been zombified by 150 years of corporate media whose only purpose is to use subliminal messages 24/7 to control
them. Worse of all, they pay monthly fees in order to be zombified!
Wait for the next false flag attack against the US "Interests" at home or abroad and you'll see how the zombies behave.
Elites, oligarchs, plutocrats, super-rich, whatever, but don't slime the Yankees.
And while I agree with much of this, don't forget that in the late 1960's the elites imported Mexicans to specifically replace
blacks. And then cried a river of tears at how blacks were mysteriously losing ground!!!!
Oh and also: nobody NEEDS cheap labor to run factories. History has shown that without cheap labor factories run perfectly
well. It's just that the elites need cheap labor to stay elite
The real enemy of the American working class and middle class all of them is neoliberalism ! Coupled with a two party plutocracy
that disenfranchises the same Americans who desperately need a more equitable society! Nothing to do with Russia or China we caused
it all by ourselves!
This is why there needs to be White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism. But Jewish Power tries to preempt this by making a
big stink about 'white supremacism'.
No more white support for Jewish supremacist tyranny over Palestinians and mass murder of Arabs/Muslims. If, after 2020, any
white person still harbors sentimentality about Jewish Power, he or she is cuck-roach. Useless and worthless.
Currently, an indebted, belligerent, imperialist U.S. is being propped up by naïve, well-meaning whites.
These "well-meaning whites" are the enemy. "Well-meaning whites" have always been the greatest enemy of Whites. A lot of people
here consider Jews to be our greatest enemies. But why are they here in such huge numbers and why are they in control? It started
with the Powdered-Wig Gang (a.k.a. the Founding Fathers) giving them citizenship on the basis of their shit "Enlightenment" ideology,
which held that religion was merely a private matter and of no importance. No country at the time gave Jews citizenship save Poland,
which had fallen under their sway and paid an exceedingly high price for it. Then France followed the American example when they
had their own powdered-wig revolution.
The tragedy of the US is that nearly every fair-skinned, non-Jewish individual who has any influence here is a "well-meaning
White". Generations of brainwashing have done that. Their latest bit of tomfoolery is the belief "Uncle Tim" Scott, a dim, charmless,
venal, ugly black mediocrity, will be their savior. By the way, the first time I laid eyes on Uncle Tim, I said myself, "They're
going to want to make that fellow president." That's no reason to brag, however, because "well-meaning whites" are nothing if
not predictable.
"Well-meaning whites" have no common sense and can't learn from experience. They could not conceive the idea "diversity" is
the problem. "Diversity" elected Joe Biden, through bloc-voting by non-Whites and by she-boons in black-dominated counties bringing
in suitcases of fake ballots, but guess what: as far as "well-meaning Whites" are concerned, "diversity" in the form of "Uncle
Tim" Scott is the solution.
What it comes down to is that if Whites want the White race to survive, then "well-meaning whites", who can accurately be called
"liberals", have to go. Whites cannot afford to be sentimental about "well-meaning whites".
@xyzxy the Zio-western imperialists decided ( ie "backed down") not to risk crossing them.
Incidentally JK I don't disagree with this position --
"Rather than feeling anger or shame at this national humiliation, instead I feel something like schadenfreude against them --
along with righteous indignation on behalf of the countless patriots used up and spat out by a System unworthy of their sacrifice."
But perhaps you could spare a few words & emotions for the poor bloody average Afghans who have died in their 100's of 1000's
in this vicious, stupid war.
A lack of sympathy for & indeed basic knowledge of, other peoples is part of the reason the US constantly gets stuck in these
ridiculous wars. (Had they the "leaders" we have now , the Vietnam War would probably have limped to a halt sometime in
the late 80's).
Hmm. Kirkpatrick doesn't seem to realize that 911 was sort of an official beginning to the elites domestic threat problem?
There was never a reason to enter Afghanistan because Afghanistan never attacked us and nor did Osama Bin Laden.
As long as ppl believe the official story there will always be a reason the American citizen can support for invading middle east
countries
Like the holocaust, it is a lynch pin lie that is the pre-requisite for all sorts claims and behaviors that without them would
otherwise not give validation
I doubt Russia has any regard for Turkey – it has a very long history of wars against them and knows just how treacherous they
are.
Russia alone is powerful enough to end life in USA
USA has lost Europe already- Merkel is aligning with China
Americans think Russian gas binds Germany rather than export markets like China and the fact EU needs semiconductors and Asia
is where they are produced
No one takes USA seriously any more it is peripheral as in 19th century. You forget Europeans cannot travel to US and frankly
fear to do so anyway
This cannot be said nearly enough. WASP culture is WASP elites hating all 'other' whites and pretending not to hate
a few non-WASP white groups when they (the WASPs) can use them against the whites they most hate or fear at the moment. WASPs
discard all groups they use as soon as they no longer need them to wage some type war against still other whites.
The Scotch-Irish are probably the best example of what WASPs think of even those who serve them most ruthlessly.
The mood of the country is comparable to East German during the 1980's. Resignation and apathy.
The last election was a fraud, the media are liars, the courts are political, privacy and free speech aren't being protected,
and half the country declares it hates the other half.
Go ahead, try to conjure a false flag to rally Team America.
It does look like resignation and apathy – which is sort of logical – given that all centers of power are in the hands of the
totalitarians (same as in the old East Germany).
The totalitarian Communist East German regime actually collapsed when it became caught up in the mass demonstrations of neighbouring
countries (Poland Feb. 1989 and Hungary the following month). The Communists didn't have the political will/ability to suppress
demonstrations on this scale and ceded power. Two points here are 1) that the public in each country overwhelmingly opposed the
government 2) each country was ethnically united (Poles in Poland, Hungarians in Hungary and Germans in East Germany) and viewed
their oppression as sourced externally (the Soviet Union).
The US looks different, since the population is split both politically and ethnically. So if anything is going to happen (unlikely)
then it's either a civil war, a military coup or a world war (nuclear) removing most major American cities + Israel.
@anonymouseperson c accountants uncovering the depths of Israel and its fifth column's theft of many tens of billions of our
war matériel and of our most guarded military secrets, which were then sold to China in concert with the Greenspan/Goldman Sachs
plan to transfer of our industrial intellectual assets and over 50,000 factories to China in preparation for a new order based
on joint Israeli-Chinese technocratic hegemony.
My point is that the uninterrupted, elaborate efforts at 9/11 concealment legally constitute, by themselves, sufficient proof
of the Pentagon's complicity and guilt in 9/11 and, therefore, make it an alien occupation force that serves Israel, its fifth
column, and no other. A war completing the "Bolsheviks" effective extermination of white Christian Russia at the same time as
exterminating white Christian America appears to be the objective of International Jewry, whom alone Joe Biden and his Pentagon
answer to.
When I was in the US Army, I never met anyone who signed up to 'fight for the Anglo-Zionist empire'. We were there for a variety
of reasons, no job, to get training, money for college, adventure or maybe running away from a crazy girlfriend. As the grandson
of immigrants, I was probably the most patriotic, the rest of the guys, not so much. Young men will always join the military,
whether the military oppresses its people or not. How many Irishmen served in the British military when they had few civil rights
back home? In the military, a young White man can learn a trade, learn military tactics, earn money for college and become a real
asset to his community. You can also get killed or maimed, but at 18 or 19, we didn't think about that.
Will Whites Support A Globalist American Empire That Picks Fights Abroad and Wars Against Them At Home?
If they are members of Congress, the military leadership, the police, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the MSM, or the leadership
of either political party the answer is clearly a resounding YES!!
I believe a large percentage of whites in America have a Stockholm syndrome of some kind going on. The title of the article
has rolled two very separate issues into one. As far as continuing to support wars abroad that aren't benefiting the average person
of whatever color is not an issue that can be specifically directed at Marxist oriented regimes such as that of Obama/Hillary
and now Sleepy Joe & Camel Toe. One can never forget the years of the faux conservative Bushlet regime. Whites as a group more
overtly support the military than do other racial groups (even though blacks and Hispanics make up a large percentage of our military).
They are very reluctant to criticize American foreign policy as unpatriotic and somehow react to military interventions as if
they were a sporting event.
Their concept of patriotism is very puerile. Many never ask the question of who benefits? (bankers, weapons manufacturers
and Zionists). As far as the war on whites is concerned, here is where the Stockholm syndrome comes more into play. Our people
have been psychologically beaten into submission by accepting whatever the Marxist intelligentsia throws at them.But there is
also a cultural flaw primarily among Northern European Protestant whites which consists of being perceived as NICE. Stop being
NICE, especially to people who wish you dead. Is this some sort of perversion of Christianity? Maybe. Rather than throwing the
whole Gospel message out the window, a recalibration of one's Christianity needs to happen as well. The churches have not been
our friend either.
Corporations
have taken advantage of Republicans for too long. I won’t take their PAC
dollars anymore.
... ... ...
In my nine years in the Senate, I’ve received $2.6 million in
contributions from corporate political-action committees. Starting today, I no longer accept
money from any corporate PAC. I urge my GOP colleagues at all levels to do the same.
For too long, Republicans have allowed the left and their big-business allies to attack our
values with no response. We’ve allowed them to ship jobs overseas, attack
gun rights, and destroy our energy companies. We’ve let them smear
Republicans without paying any price.
As America’s greatest basketball player observed years ago, Republicans
buy sneakers, too. We cast votes, too. And we pay attention when CEOs come after our own just
so they can look good for a few editorial pages and radical activists.
To them I say: When the time comes that you need help with a tax break or a regulatory
change, I hope the Democrats take your calls, because we may not. Starting today, we
won’t take your money either.
Mr. Cruz, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Texas.
The ambassador rose to give the not-so-loyal toast.
He began with the inevitable nod to the two nations' divergent histories, noting that some
time earlier, in their great wisdom, his compatriots had decided to go it alone.
"Oh yes!" cried the prince from a sedentary position, fortified, no doubt, by a couple of
glasses of the embassy's very good wine. "And how's that working out for you?"
It was a good question then, and it's more apt than ever now given America's current
predicament. The people that once boldly threw off the tyranny of a distant monarch now seem to
be meekly submitting to the diktats of a regnant class and ideology that tolerate less
independence of thought and action than King George III did
... Today the woke movement questions the very idea of truth. Intermixed with millenarian
frenzy and American Puritanism, Maoist mob rule and hyper-liberal culture war, there is a strand
that echoes Duranty's crypto-Nietzschean philosophy.
Notable quotes:
"... Live Not By Lies ..."
"... "You have to suffer for the truth because that's what makes you authentic. That's what makes that truth credible. If I'm not willing to suffer, my truth might as well be nothing more than an ideology," she tells me. ..."
"... Suffering is a part of every human's life. We don't know why we suffer. But your suffering is like a seal. If you put that seal on your actions, interestingly enough, people start to wonder about your truth -- that maybe you are right about God. In one sense, it's a mystery, because the Evil One wants to persuade us that there is a life without suffering. First you have to live through it, and then you try to pass on the value of suffering, because suffering has a value. ..."
It is for the cause of helping good and decent people to endure this coming destruction, and
to suffer for truth, no matter what the totalitarians throw at them, that I have written
Live Not By Lies . A passage that you have not yet seen:
Mária Komáromi teaches in a Catholic school in Budapest. She and her late
husband, János, were religious dissidents under the communist regime, and bore many
burdens to keep the faith alive.
"You have to suffer for the truth because that's what makes you authentic. That's
what makes that truth credible. If I'm not willing to suffer, my truth might as well be
nothing more than an ideology," she tells me.
Komáromi elaborates further:
Suffering is a part of every human's life. We don't know why we suffer. But your
suffering is like a seal. If you put that seal on your actions, interestingly enough,
people start to wonder about your truth -- that maybe you are right about God. In one
sense, it's a mystery, because the Evil One wants to persuade us that there is a life
without suffering. First you have to live through it, and then you try to pass on the value
of suffering, because suffering has a value.
...Suffering for truth has dignity and weight; accepting lies because they make you more
comfortable is contemptible. The fact that public intellectuals like Fran Maier and John Gray
recognize the totalitarianism within wokeness, and how wokeness in power compels everyone to
affirm lies, tells me that neither I, nor the survivors of Soviet communism who talked to me
for the book, are being alarmist.
Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American
Conservative . Joanis B • 9 months ago • edited
It's hard to see such famines, albeit politically determined ones, occurring in the US or
Western Europe, considering the way developed economies function today: based on consumption,
not national production (largely outside of the agricultural, financial products, service
sector, etc, arms industry). What not only USSR and Maoist China, but also British Imperial
Ireland and India, had in common was a situation of both extreme poverty and imperial
despotism.
So yes Stalin and Mao were horrible, but, honestly, considering what
neoliberalism/neoconservatism has done to the world since 9/11, I think most of the world
perceives the US to be the greatest aggressor of post Cold War times (and it has nothing to do
with Wokism, though Wokism might be a reaction to it).
P.S. I would add, only have facetiously, it's not a good idea to be around when empires
implode, whether it be the Russian, Chinese, French (Algeria, Indochina), German, or even the
British (certainly in the context of Indian partition).
Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic
Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the
information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no
meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.
Analysis: US
blinks first on Russia-Ukraine tensions
Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The
New York Times on the so-called
“Bountygate†story the outlet broke in June of last year
about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in
Afghanistan.
“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story
(originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence
officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,†Greenwald
tweeted .
“So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning:
congrats to all.â€
Indeed, NYT’s original
story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only
“officials,†yet this latest article speaks as though it had
been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the
lying, torturing , drug-running , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New
York Times
first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s
assessment,†with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no
mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA
was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.
The Daily Beast , which has itself uncritically published many articles
promoting the CIA “Bountygate†narrative, reports the
following:
It was a blockbuster
story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great
Game†in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central
Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry
from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the
White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had
“low to moderate†confidence in the story after all.
Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the
story is, at best, unproven â€" and possibly untrue.
So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of,
because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning.
They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.
In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories
to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy
agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!†and the
news media unquestioningly publish it.
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “ The CIA and the Media
†reporting that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had
over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too
propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New
York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse.
Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the
CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even
any pretence of separation, has been dropped.
This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if
people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear
understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if
their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government
they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most
powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to
the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power
structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in
disguise.
And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements
of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific
things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just
a glance at what the CIA was up to with the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.
There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government
agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil
things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by
mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is
comfortable, and for literally no other reason.
The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements
of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of
psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the
thoughts we think in our own heads.
May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter , or
throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi , Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you can buy
my books . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying
to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
It's imprudent to weigh in on issues that don't directly affect the company.
A few CEOs have expressed their point of view about the new Georgia voting law. They have
issued statements indicating their opposition on the basis that the law will suppress voting.
Other senior executives, retired and active, have joined them. I know most of them by
reputation and some personally. They are people of goodwill, who sincerely care about the
nation, their companies and their employees and customers. Most have done excellent work as
leaders of their companies. All have my respect and I believe have earned the respect of the
public. But I believe they are wrong to take public positions on this law.
I believe both that voting ought to be relatively simple for citizens and that verification
of eligibility to vote should be strict as a matter of principle. It is clear that any
verification of ballot integrity will increase difficulty. In my view, the Georgia law reaches
a reasonable trade-off between those two objectives.
But the reason I think CEOs should be silent on this issue isn't because I disagree with
their judgment on the merits. It's because I think it is wrong for executives to take a company
position on public-policy questions that don't directly affect their business, for four
reasons.
First, while these CEOs have the right to their own opinions, they can never speak merely as
individuals; they always speak for and represent the companies they head. As CEOs they have the
right, and perhaps the obligation, to speak out on matters affecting their organizations, but
unless they have asked their boards for approval before speaking, they don't have that right on
unrelated matters.
Second, inevitably their announcements on purely political issues will alienate many of
their employees and customers. Those positions will always lead to unintended consequences. In
the Georgia situation, it immediately prompted Major League Baseball to move the All-Star Game
to Denver, which then brought on charges of hypocrisy because of baseball's close ties to two
dictatorships -- Cuba and China. It also generated calls to boycott two major Atlanta-based
companies. This won't be the end of the backlash.
Third, these and other executives will be pressured in the future to comment, pro or con, on
other states' voting laws. That will lead to further charges of hypocrisy, more boycotts, more
publicity, more ill will. At the end of the day corporations and the idea of capitalism will be
in lower repute.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, there is no limiting principle to this problem. If
business heads can be pressured to comment on issues unrelated to their businesses, they will
be compelled to weigh in on more current events and issues and will have no basis for refusing
to respond. What do you think of catch and release at the border, what do you think of no-bail
laws in New York? It will go on and on.
Boycott Nike Campaign : 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Share via E-mail More share options
On Monday, Nike rolled out a new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, the former 49ers quarterback who gained national attention
when he began taking the knee during the national anthem to protest racism and police brutality. Nike’s new ad features a black
and white photo of an unsmiling Kaepernick. The words written across his face read “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing
everything.â€
Kaepernick hasn’t played for the NFL since he became a free agent in 2017, but he continues to be in the public eye. Just last
week, a judge ruled
that Kaepernick’s lawsuit against the NFL for alleged collusion can go forward. Nike’s new ad campaign has garnered a lot of
attention, with people on both sides of the issue reacting intensely. Serena Williams, who also is a Nike spokesperson, tweeted that
she is now “prouder than ever†to be part of the “Nike family.â€
At the same time, many people, angry at what they see as Colin Kaepernick’s unpatriotic politics, have announced that they will
boycott Nike.
An advanced society functions by creating a series of institutions, telling them what it
wants them to do, and funding them to do it. Institutions like the police, fire departments,
courts and schools do the jobs society creates them to do. But one American institution --
higher education -- has decided to repurpose itself. It has set aside the job given to it by
society and substituted a different one.
Higher education had a cluster of related purposes in society. Everyone benefited from the
new knowledge it developed and the well-informed, thoughtful citizenry it produced. Individual
students benefited from the preparation they received for careers in a developed economy. Yet
these days, academia has decided that its primary purpose is the promotion of a radical
political ideology, to which it gives the sunny label "social justice."
That's an enormous detour from the institutional mission granted to higher education by
society -- and a problem of grave consequence. For the purpose that academia has now given
itself happens to be the only one that the founding documents of virtually all colleges and
universities take care to forbid pre-emptively. The framers of those documents understood that
using the campuses to promote political ideologies would destroy their institutions, because
ideologies would always be rigid enough to prevent the exploration of new ideas and the free
exercise of thought. They knew that the two purposes -- academic and political -- aren't simply
different, but polar opposites. They can't coexist because the one erases the other.
The current political uniformity of college faculty illustrates the point. It meets the
needs of the substitute purpose very well, but only by annihilating the authorized one.
Analytical thinking requires exploring a range of alternatives, but political crusades require
the opposite: exclusive belief and commitment. That's how far off course academia has gone in
its capricious self-repurposing.
Though most Americans aren't happy about this, academia has no qualms. No matter how many
times the lack of intellectual diversity on politicized, one-party campuses is decried as
unhealthy and educationally ruinous, the campuses won't listen. There was once internal debate
about higher education's direction between traditional academic scholars and radical political
activists, but that debate is long over. The activists, now firmly in control, have no interest
in what the dwindling ranks of scholars have to say.
Menthol cigarettes are racist. Regular flavored cigarettes don't kill as many black people
as menthol cigarettes and will henceforth be canceled. Because black people will ever only
smoke menthol cigarettes and never smoke regular flavored cigarettes, right?
On menthol, African American health groups and researchers say it is clear that Blacks
have been disproportionately hurt by the cigarettes, which studies show are more addictive
and
harder to stop using than non-menthol cigarettes.
In the 1950s, only about 10 percent of Black smokers used menthol cigarettes. Today, that
proportion is more than 85 percent, three times the rate for White smokers . African
Americans die of tobacco-related illnesses, including cancer and heart disease, at higher
rates than other groups, according to studies.
I smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day most of my adult life and I can tell you without
hesitation or qualification that anyone who believes canceling one kind of cigarettes will get
people to stop smoking should be fired for rank stupidity.
GodEmperor0fMankind 1 hour ago
He cant even get his son to stop smokin crack
ted41776 47 minutes ago
while naked in bed with underage relatives? allegedly
Hedgehog77 1 hour ago
But smoking meth and ****ting on the sidewalk is just fine.
onasip123 1 hour ago
When Menthol cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have Menthol cigarettes.
dukeofthefoothills 1 hour ago
Biden: "If you smoke regular cigarettes, you're not Black, man."
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 1 hour ago
This is so awesome.
awake283 1 hour ago
When I smoked, I really only smoked menthols. Does that mean I was appropriating black
culture?
-- ALIEN -- 1 hour ago
Reparations need to be made!
Gentleman Bastard 1 hour ago
Looks like a black market opportunity for menthol cigarettes just opened up.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 1 hour ago
Yep great minds think alike.
Lord Raglan 39 minutes ago (Edited)
Oregon legalized cocaine but they've outlawed straws.
Must be frustrating.
There's classic liberal logic for you.
holmes 1 hour ago
Blacks like menthol cigs better. So these cigs are racist. So does that make fried chicken
racist also?
the6thBook PREMIUM 1 hour ago
Shouldn't blacks be upset that they are banning their cigarettes? Trying to make blacks
smoke white cigarettes?
cowdiddly 37 minutes ago
Well, Obama did warn you that this Dotard was dumb as a rock.
A federal politician travels to the scene of a controversial trial to threaten a riot if the
jury doesn’t deliver the “correct†verdict.
Rule of law is such an antiquated idea.
In front of God and country (and journalists with cameras) Rep. Maxine Waters â€"
from behind a face mask/face shield combo for COVID safety, of course â€"
declared:
“We’re looking for a guilty
verdict… If nothing does not happen [sic], then we know that we have got
to… stay in the streets…I hope we get a verdict that
says guilty, guilty… And if we don’t, we cannot go
away.â€
When asked what she thinks protesters should do, Waters explicitly told them to
“get more activeâ€:
"We’ve got to stay on the street. We get more active,
we’ve got to get more confrontational . We’ve got to make
sure that they know that we mean business.â€
The subtext, of course, is that previous protests were not confrontational or
“active†enough. What exactly would a “more
active†Minneapolis riot round #2 look like?
Maxine Waters, incidentally, theoretically represents LA â€" quite a long drive
from Minneapolis or, for that matter, Washington, D.C. Waters most likely flew in on a
chartered jet, though, and left the driving to the proletariat.
The judge in the case, Peter Cahill,
replied to Chauvin’s lawyers’ motion that he declare
a mistrial due to Maxine Waters’ threatening rhetoric on the streets of
Minneapolis:
“I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially
in a manner that’s disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial
branch and our function… I’m aware the Congresswoman
Waters was talking specifically about this trial… if (representatives) want
to give their opinions, they should do so in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the
Constitution to respect the co-equal branch of government… Their failure to
do so, I think, is abhorrent .â€
This is practical proof that the trustees of the fictitious democracy fantasy we are all
forced to accept don’t believe in the legal process or rule of law
â€" as if Americans required more evidence of their Congressional
representatives’ failings, over and over and over.
Outside of rule of law, the federal government and the corporations that functionally own it
treat the American citizenry to a host of abuses:
Warrant-free mass surveillance
Endless foreign wars with no legal declaration of war
‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State.â€
Imagine, for a moment, the mental process of a juror in the Floyd case, a resident of
Minneapolis â€" the same city in which Maxine Waters threatened mass violence if the
jury you belong to fails to render a “guilty†verdict. Perhaps
you live in one of the same neighborhoods that was essentially leveled in the riots of June
2020.
Maybe, for some masochistic reason, you enjoyed shopping at your local Target before
“protesters†pillaged it and you couldn’t
buy waffle batter and Korean electronics or whatever.
Or, maybe you really liked the guys at the local AutoZone who helped you out with sourcing
car parts â€" the ones who don’t have a job anymore because they
don’t have a building to work in
after protestors torched it .
Yes, you have been instructed not to view news surrounding the trial as all jurors are. But
now, after coming home from a long day at court, Waters’ tirade is all over
your social media as you scroll through your newsfeed.
How could it not be? A sitting member of Congress not only sanctioned but encouraged riots
in the same case that you, again, are charged with rendering an impartial verdict in.
Even if you wanted to ignore Waters’ threats to remain in good faith as a
juror and try your best to deliver justice, you couldn’t. Humans, however
Stoic, are not robots.
What are you going to do? Is impartiality possible in such circumstances when
it’s your own city, maybe even your own neighborhood, on the chopping block
at the whim of a faceless, nameless mob?
Or are you going to bow to the pressure and give the mob the verdict it wants â€"
and hope and pray that’s enough to satisfy them and prevent more lootings
and burnings (though that’s certainly no guarantee).
If Waters believed in rule of law, a basic Constitutional function of the government, why
would she not let the process finish?
In the weeks leading up to her calls for riots on the streets in the event of an acquittal,
every legal analyst worth his or her salt predicted a guilty verdict on all counts.
So, why would you disrupt the process days before the guilty verdict demanded by the mob,
tainting the jury pool potentially and, as a result, nullifying the entire court proceedings
and mandating a retrial?
“Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may
result in this whole trial being overturned.â€
Of course she gave cause for appeal, by any rational standard or analysis. A sitting member
of Congress traveling to the scene of active protests to fan the flames of rage and threaten
riots on camera that almost literally everyone â€" including the jurors in the case
â€" have seen.
This is not a mere case of Congressional misconduct â€" those happen every day.
This is the instantiation of mob rule as a substitute for law. Justice is now dispensed at the
whim of popular opinion, which is not gauged by any scientific means like polling but rather
through raw expression of power on the streets.
Where this ends is anyone’s guess, but it’s not likely
to be anywhere decent. Some more multinational corporations that worship at the altar of
neoliberalism might get their Minneapolis stores torched along with rule of law, at least, and
no one will mourn the loss.
Ben Bartee is a Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Contact him via
his portfolio or on
LinkedIn
.
You can help protect us from BIG TECH DE-PLATFORMING by joining our email list.
This is the single biggest way to ensure we can't be silenced for speaking out against
censorship, and the elite/ cabal's plans for a "Great Reset"-- their New World Order meant to
render you impoverished and powerless.
This stupid woman is doing nothing but foment increased racial tension and disgust for
black culture. Black leadership of the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and this evil brain dead
congresswoman is disgraceful and self serving. Their idiotic messages are never about
self-reliance, living by acceptable moral standards, abiding by the law, valuing education,
valuing family, treating others with respect, etc.........but rather always hate filled,
victimhood mentality, and that someone else is responsible for keeping you down. Why on earth
are these self serving pieces of shyte leaders not seen for who they are (race baiting,
hustlers with no real agenda for improving race relations) by their black constituents?
Bioweapon 6 hours ago remove link
Why isn't she arrested for inciting violence? You know it's all aimed at White people and
their businesses and homes of which the remain the vast majority across the state.
left blank 8 hours ago (Edited)
maxine waters refuses to live in Compton neighborhood she represents.
just like the others' in a long list of California politicians who take orders from the
annual bohemian grove meeting of corporations , who then use taxpayer funded govt agencies to
impose their list of 25 rules - to overthrow and topple the usa
In China’s Cultural Revolution, Mao and his extreme leftists sought to
grab power and keep their opposition and public in a state of confusion by extremist
political sloganeering, creating constant chaos, and attacking tradition and rule of law.
They do it without fear of retribution because they cover themselves in sanctimony and
victimhood.
Waters isn’t very smart, but she knows what she’s
doing here.
optimator 6 hours ago (Edited)
a dedicated ruthless 10% of the population that means business is usually enough to grab
control of the government. Russia 1918, American Revolution, etc.
Something strange is occurring in the gutter of "liberal comedy"... After four years of constant attacks on anything 'Trumpian'
and constant ignorance of anything 'Left', one man has begun to realize that there is plenty of farce on both sides of the aisle
and virtue-signaling to your cocktail party co-conspirators just doesn't pay the bills anymore (
cough CNN cough ).
Last week, Comedian Bill Maher used his HBO show to highlight some awkward 'facts' and ask some uncomfortable questions about
media and politicians approach to COVID .
This week, he has taken aim at the heart of the problem - American Millennials and Gen Z and their total ignorance of history.
"In India, young people touch old people's feet to show reverence. In Japan, there's a national 'respect for the aged' day.
You know the reason why advertisers in this country love the 18-34 demographic... because it's the most gullible .
A third of people under 35 say they're in favor of abolishing the police ...not defunding, but doing away with a police force
altogether... which is less of a policy position and more of a leg tattoo.
36% of Millennials think it might be a good idea to try Communism... but much of the world did try it... I know most of Millennials
think that doesn't count because they weren't alive when it happened... but it did happen, and there are people around who remember
it. Pining for communism is like pining for BetaMax or MySpace.
So when you say 'you're old, you don't get it', get what? Abolish the police? ...and the Border Patrol? ... and Capitalism?
... and cancel Lincoln?
No, "I get it"... the problem isn't that I don't get what you're saying or that I'm old. The problem is that your ideas are
stupid .
If you say "let's eat in the bathroom and shit in the kitchen" , yeah, that's a new idea, but I wouldn't call it interior design.
You think someone 80 is hopeless because they can’t use an iPhone? Maybe the one who is hopeless is the one who can’t stop
using it .
You think I'm out of it because I'm not on Twitch? Well maybe I 'get Twitch' but I just think people watching other people
play video games is a waste of fucking time .
20% of Gen Z agree with the statement that "society would be better off if all property was owned by the public and managed
by the government" and another 29% say 'they don't know if that's a good idea'...
Here's who does know... anyone who wasn't born yesterday!"
Watch the full monologues here (timestamped to begin at 5:13)
Manthong 8 hours ago (Edited)
You know when Bill Maher is right...
I hate when that happens.
But if you listen to the whole piece, he is shilling for a fool who is wholly owned and he is wrapping truth around deception
and falsity... very crafty.
But that's what they do.
various2 5 hours ago
Billionaires do not allow their direct peasants millionaires to deviate from left-right allocation. If he utters a word of
nationalism, he would be canceled fast.
Billionaires destroy America, and need firmly control over common peasants.
Money printing billionaires bought out all big tech and big media as fast as they become public.
Only Trump was allowed to speak certain limited truths like “China - enemy globalist proxyâ€, “Russia is America’s only
ally on a planetâ€.
But that was an experiment in compromise that billionaires failed.
Macho Latte 4 hours ago (Edited)
Maher is part of the problem, not part of the solution. His salary depends on that. The only reason he has "changed" his tune
is because he got permission to do it or he was told to do it.
DemonRats: The EVIL that lives among us.
Max Hunter 3 hours ago
He didn't change his tune that much, if you watch the first 5 minutes he is drooling all over Biden and shilling the orangeman
bad mantra.
Enormous sums of money have poured into racial justice groups since the May, 2020 murder of
George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police Department. "The foundation widely seen as a steward of
the Black Lives Matter movement says it took in just over $90 million last year," according to
a
February Associated Press review , while at least $5 billion was raised by groups associated with that
cause in the first two months alone following Floyd's death.
Two weeks after the Floyd killing, The New York Times said
that the "money has come in so fast and so unexpectedly that some groups even began to turn
away and redirect donors elsewhere," while "others said they still could not yet account for
how much had arrived." Propelled by the emotions and nationwide protest movements that emerged
last summer, corporations, oligarchs, celebrities and the general public opened their wallets
and began pouring money into BLM coffers and have not stopped doing so.
Where that money has gone has been the topic of numerous media investigations as well as
concerns expressed by racial justice advocates. AP noted that BLM's sharing of financial data
in February "marks the first time in the movement's nearly eight-year history that BLM leaders
have revealed a detailed look at their finances." That newfound transparency was prompted by
what AP called "longstanding tensions boil[ing] over between some of the movement's grassroots
organizers and national leaders -- the former went public last fall with grievances about
financial transparency, decision-making and accountability."
In December, ten local BLM chapters severed
ties with the national group amidst questions and suspicions over the handling of
activities and finances by one of its co-founders, Patrisse Cullors, who had assumed the title
of Executive Director. On April 10, The New York Post
published an exposé on what it called Cullors' "million-dollar real estate buying
binge." The paper noted that as protests were unfolding around the country, the BLM official
was "snagging four high-end homes for $3.2 million in the US alone, according to property
records," including a California property valued at $1.4 million. The article also revealed
that the self-described Marxist and her partner "were spotted in the Bahamas looking for a unit
at the Albany," an "elite enclave laid out on 600 oceanside acres," which "features a private
marina and designer golf course." The Post included photos of several of the properties
obtained from public real estate listings.
... ... ...
How is it possible that the ACLU is all but invisible on one of the central free speech
debates of our time: namely, how much censorship should Silicon Valley tech monopolists be
imposing on our political speech? As someone who intensively reports on these controversies, I
can barely remember any time when the ACLU spoke up loudly on any of these censorship debates,
let alone assumed the central role that any civil liberties group with any integrity would, by
definition, assume on this growing controversy.
In lieu of the traditional, iconic and organization-defining willingness -- eagerness -- of
the ACLU to defend free speech precisely when it has been most
controversial and upsetting to
liberals , what we now get instead are cowardly, P.R.-consultant-scripted excuses for
staying as far away as possible: "We don't have anyone who is closely plugged into that
situation right now so we don't have anything to say at this point in time." That sounds like
something Marco Rubio's office says when asked about a Trump tweet or that a corporate
headquarters would say to avoid an inflammatory controversy, not the reaction of a stalwart
civil liberties group to a publicly debated act of political censorship.
In this particular case, it is not difficult to understand the cause of the ACLU's silence.
They obviously cannot defend Facebook's censorship -- affirmatively defending the stifling of
political speech is, at least for now, still a bridge too far for the group -- but they are
petrified of saying anything that might seem even remotely critical of, let alone adversarial
to, BLM activists and organizations. That is because BLM is one of the most cherished
left-liberal causes, and the ACLU now relies almost entirely on donations and grants from those
who have standard left-liberal politics and want and expect the ACLU to advance that
ideological and partisan agenda above its nonpartisan civil liberties principles. Criticizing
BLM is a third rail in left-liberal political circles, which is where the ACLU now resides
almost entirely, and thus it again cowers in silence as another online act of censorship which
advances political liberalism emerges. Indeed, BLM is an organization which the ACLU frequently
champions:
Like so many liberal-left media outlets and advocacy groups, the ACLU was suffering
financially before they were saved and then enriched beyond their wildest dreams by Donald
Trump and the #Resistance movement he spawned. "The American Civil Liberties Union this week
laid off 23 employees, about 7 percent of the organization's national staff,"
announced The Washington Post in April, 2015. But in the Trump era, the money flowed in
almost as quickly and furiously as post-Floyd money to BLM. In February, 2017, said AP , the
group "is suddenly awash in donations and new members as it does battle with President Donald
Trump over the extent of his constitutional authority, with nearly $80 million in online
contributions alone pouring in since the election." So that is the donor base it now
serves.
The ACLU's we-know-nothing routine for abstaining from commenting on Facebook's censorship
of the BLM article is, for so many reasons, preposterous. The group funds what it calls its
Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, and some of its best lawyers oversee it. Clearly they focus
on these issues. And the ACLU in general has taken a firm and borderline-absolutist position
against online censorship by Silicon Valley monopolies: principles whose application to this
particular case would be easy and obvious. The ACLU has a section of its website devoted to
"Internet Speech," and its position on such matters is stated explicitly :
The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a vast free-speech zone deserving at least as
much First Amendment protection as that afforded to traditional media such as books,
newspapers, and magazines .The ACLU has been at the forefront of protecting online freedom of
expression in its myriad forms. We brought the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court
declared speech on the Internet equally worthy of the First Amendment's historical
protections.
In a July, 2018
article published on the group's site entitled "Facebook Shouldn't Censor Offensive
Speech," the group praised Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's controversial pledge "to keep
Facebook from diving deeper into the business of censorship" as "the right call."
Unlike in response to the BLM controversy, the ACLU had no trouble back then recognizing
that "what's at stake here is the ability of one platform that serves as a forum for the speech
of billions of people to use its enormous power to censor speech on the basis of its own
determinations of what is true, what is hateful, and what is offensive." The ACLU's stated
policy on these controversies could not have been clearer: "given Facebook's nearly
unparalleled status as a forum for political speech and debate, it should not take down
anything but unlawful speech, like incitement to violence. " In light of that principle, how is
it remotely hard to denounce Facebook's censorship of the Post 's article given that it does
not even arguably fall within the scope of those narrow exceptions?
Because the ACLU still employs a few old-school civil libertarians among its hundreds of
lawyers and staff, those employees manage to do work and express views that are consistent with
the ACLU's old-school civil liberties agenda even when contrary to the interests of liberal
politics. But the tactics used by the ACLU in those cases to downplay or hide those aberrations
are as transparent as they are craven.
When three Silicon Valley monopolies united to
remove the social media app Parler from the internet in January, 2021 after influential
Democratic lawmakers demanded it -- one of the most brute acts of monopolistic censorship yet
-- an ACLU lawyer, Ben Wizner, was cited in The New York Times as labelling Parler's
destruction "troubling," telling the paper: "I think we should recognize the importance of
neutrality when we're talking about the infrastructure of the internet." But on the ACLU's
highly active and influential Twitter
account -- the group's primary platform for promoting its work, expressing its views, and
soliciting donations, where it has two million followers and often tweets up to fifty times a
day -- the group said absolutely nothing about the removal of an entire social media app from
the internet:
... ... ...
4 hours ago
The ACLU was founded in the 1920's by a group of leftist lawyers for the purpose of
providing legal support for Communists. That is all one needs to know to understand what they
are all about. play_arrow 27 play_arrow
MRob 2 hours ago
Listen to the interview of Ira Glasser with Rogan, he's the former head of the ACLU and
guy who really transformed it from a small enterprise to an household name. Listen and it
becomes clear he's a frothing at the mouth left wing ideologue, and a fcking hypocrite at
that. He entire argument about not enacting laws to ban free speech, is that if you do, you
opponents (on the right) will be able to use those laws against you. Which leads to the
obvious conclusion - it is OK to restrict your opponents free speech, if they cannot do the
same to yours, so the goal is to manoeuvre yourself into that position. As the left has done
today. He didnt mention that it was morally unacceptable to ban free speech, and that it
leads to totalitarian evils. The concept of a free market of ideas, wasnt discussed once.
At another point in the discussion, he said that everything in politics could be
interpreted in multiple ways, that there is never an absolute "correct" everyone will agree
on. And then later he said that it was a fact that a vote for Trump was a vote for racism,
white supremacism, bigotry etc. An absolute fact, that you just couldnt argue with. WTF. I
stopped listening at that point. I was interested to begin with, but by the end, and on
further reflection of the discussion, I despise the man with a passion.
Ms. Erable 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
'Stalwart civil liberties group'?
Back away from the crack pipe, dude. The (((ACLU))) has never been about civil liberties.
play_arrow
hegger 3 hours ago (Edited)
So much LGBTQ+ symbolism.
These people create both an individual and a collective identity based solely on what they
do with their d1cks/vag1nas in their free time.
That's it. Lizard brain stuff. No greater ideals, no thousand-year philosophy, no plans
for the future, no interest in science or the arts.
If you haven't noticed, the United States is reorganizing itself into two Americas -- blue
and red. Although there is a president of the United States, state governors are in many ways
now driving the national narrative in this new America.
The president and the vice president are who they are now because six Republican-controlled
states forwarded questionable electoral votes, and Vice President Mike Pence missed a historic
opportunity to challenge those votes. The current president and vice president seem trapped in
foggy and abstract ideological slogans rather than providing executive leadership. Vague
generalities and virtue signaling aren't replacements for executive leadership.
And who are the true executive leaders of the two Americas? Florida and Texas on one side,
California and New York on the other side. Their governors essentially dominate the bully
pulpit formerly occupied by a sitting president. Many of the rest of the American states have
aligned with one side or the other.
The American political conversation has become a modern Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches With Stars"
on steroids as Americans are now beginning to group, assemble, and march separately according
to our ideologies. Both sides have equal ownership of this behavior -- neither side should be
excused or let off the hook on this matter.
Two Americas/Two Systems
A part of this blue/red separation is the manifest " Digital
Apartheid " that is being applied by the
blue side to the red side to create two social media systems. This Digital Apartheid is
pervasive and driven by the new, vicious, lockstep, "social justice" mantra that has taken over
the automatons who lead U.S. social media.
We are experiencing an unprecedented shakedown by groups such as Black Lives Matter (
BLM ) and
Antifa who broadcast through their relentless bullhorn of social media and old media.
There are now two business systems in America -- blue and red. Many of the businesses that
lead major market sectors have now revealed themselves to be de-facto thought police to enforce
Social Justice.
MyPillow CEO
Mike Lindell is the poster child of this, as he has been targeted for elimination by the
self-appointed high priests of "wokism."
We're also finding out there are
two financial systems in America, as those with capital now act as the gatekeepers of who
receives capital and who is excluded. Bank of America has become "Bank of who I decide to allow
access to the capital system." That's a
far cry from the intent of its founder, who wanted to make sure all had access. The modern
bank staff has now become an appendage of the virtue-signaling synchronized chorus.
There are now
two media systems in America. The Hollywood award shows are now a Roman circus of
self-loathing, lecturing, and virtue signaling. Few are watching these award shows -- in fact,
few are watching legacy media as ratings collapse.
It's curious from an agnostic business perspective how CNN even survives at this point in
time. Somehow the citizen's pocketbook is being fleeced by corporations and advertisers who
recycle ad revenue through "woke" media to keep them alive when it's patently obvious the
viewership has imploded -- but that's the beauty of the new era of crony capitalism (which is a
transition phase to socialism).
The citizens of our nation have consciously or unconsciously chosen sides. If you're angry
at yourself for not being woke enough and have righteous virtue-signal signs in your yard
lauding BLM, you're likely on the blue side. If the drivel of virtue signaling makes no sense
to you, you're probably on the red side.
The author of the article you link too is a bit late to his wokening. It is a digital
iron curtain; I commented on that here almost a year ago. His initial comments on " trapped
in foggy and abstract ideological slogans rather than providing executive leadership." are
off. They are imposing by executive action precisely the cultural transformations their
ideology demands.
It would be interesting to further divide these transformations into those
sourced from their own ideology and those derived from the corporate sponsors
behind their PAC oxygen supply. Both subsets would contain interesting lists of
names and connections.
We already have the command economy, and command media, of a socialist state. The
mechanism just has a stage of indirection, to borrow a term from the software world. If
you're a money losing business of any kind you can always raise money by floating shares or
issuing bonds that are miraculously bought by "the market", ahem, Blackrock. That they get
to skim their vig in the process is a "feature not a bug". Business then devolves into a
contest to see who can be most craven to the official party narrative. With the Fed
printing money in the form of zero interest "loans" to insider controlled hedge funds and
investment banks like it was going out of style, this can continue until the dollar
inflates away or the Fed, through the banks, owns just about everything. Market
Socialism!
Excellent analysis of the current state of the Red vs Blue situation. I live in the
epicenter of The ongoing SJW disaster , Minneapolis. The Downtown, which was once lauded as
" the Minny Apple", is no more. Between the Covid and Chauvin trial it is an ongoing
disaster.
I walk the skyway system twice a week yearly and Have done so for 50 years.
Approximately 150k People used to work there with all the attendant Amenities. Stores
restaurants bars etc. were the Lifeblood of the ever growing and liveable space. On a 2 to
3 mile walk through the 8 plus mile Labyrinth I might encounter 50 to 100'people if That.
Noon hour used to be in the thousands.
Two retail stores, Target and Walgreens, the only Two open. Fights and assaults common
near those Stores. The defund clowncil rescinded the no Loitering ordinance. This is the
result.
All major store fronts have been boarded Up and the world has seen the fencing and
Barricades everywhere. The future here is bleak Indeed. The Mayoral and council are up for
Re-election this November. If no changes the U-haul caravans and for sale signs will sprout
Like the proverbial mushrooms. It was a nice Run despite the climate.
That is such a sad report. On a visit to Minneapolis a few years back staying at a
downtown hotel (the converted bank hotel) We hit the streets the next morning looking
for breakfast, only to find almost no street life in this major city. How strange we
thought, for such a major and apparently healthy looking city.
It was only later in the day we learned street life was all going on inside the
remarkable Skyway – what a magical world that was, and what a perfect way to
create year round community vitality.
You can join the rapid decline of California city street life too – taken over
by vagrants, closed shops and sad out door dining operations. And a recent rash of
crazy people with guns, knives, obscene conduct in public, gang fights and out of
control vehicles jumping curbs and running into flimsy restaurant parklets..
Something has clearly gone very wrong in pubic decorum and decency expectations. But
we do have docks for electric bicycles. So you can at least try to get away faster than
if by toot.
IMO, the article glossed over the risk posed by big corporations moving from storing
their data on "the cloud/AWS" in today's revolutionary political alliance with big biz,
especially the tech biz and even more especially tech biz owned by "socially active"
megalomaniacs like Bezos.
I've recently been involved in some related corporate discussions. The lure of cost
savings and scalability represented by the cloud is swaying decision making in its favor.
No one seems to be seriously looking at the downside. Once the data and extract/reporting
processes are out on AWS, if the political activist powers that be decide they don't like a
corporation for whatever reason, they have that corporation's ability to access the data
and do business held hostage. That would be a nuclear sized disaster in an industry sector
like insurance, but is, really, pretty damaging to any industry since everything about
business is now highly data driven. If Bezos decides to shut you out, you're done for. You
would not be able to re-build internal infrastructure in time to save your operation.
Would a Bezos pull that trigger? I think so, when the time is "right".
Look at how companies like Nike are willing to alienate 50% of their potential
customer base. Ditto Facebook, professional sports The list of woke kamikaze corporations
is growing longer every day. They appear willing to take the losses if it beats their enemy
("deplorables" like you and me) into compliance in the long run.
While I agree woksterdom is a mile wide and an inch deep, the other side of the coin is
that we are not going back to some proverbial happy place. American culture(why is the
United States the only country in the world without a term specifying the citizen? No
United Statian.) is built on several centuries of geographic, economic, industrial and
technological growth, topped off with 40 years of exponential debt to keep the party going.
What happens when we try looking inward?
We are not the Old World, with millennia of cultural history to fall back on, when he
current civil structures implode. Contrary to Dick Cheney, debt doesn't matter, until it
does. We are determined to max out the national credit card and the most everyone seems to
do, is point to the other guy wasting it, not looking in the mirror.
I've been saying for over a decade, our kids are not going to be wondering what side of
whichever Middle Eastern conflict we will be pouring money and material, but how many
countries the US break into. Now it is happening. As for a deeper observation, logically a
spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of
wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. The fact we are aware, than the details of which
we are aware. The Ancients were not ignorant of monotheism, but as there was no division
between culture and civics, it equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god.
Democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures, as that was how they
modeled multicultural societies, with many aspects and distinctions, from two sexes to the
regeneration of the population. The Romans adopted Christianity as the Empire solidified
and any remnants of the Republic were shed. Though the Trinity was a nod to the Greek year
gods. Father, son, mother. Consequently the default political model for the West, for the
next 1500 years, was feudalism and monarchy, all about the Big Guy at the top. When the
West went back to more populist forms of government, it required the separation of church
and state, culture and civics. The problem with confusing the ideal with the absolute, is
that it creates the belief one's aspirations should be universal and beyond question. An
ideological basis for both the current left and right. Though the pendulum swings back and
forth, depending on the momentum. Where are we today? Is anyone about to seriously question
their cultural assumptions, or just keep blaming the other side?
John, It's an old Cosa Nostra trick. Get them in debt to you and then pull the plug.
When they can't pay, ruthlessly take control of the business.
Speaking of La Cosa Nostra, something that impressed me, negatively, about Italy,
especially the South, is how there isn't even sufficient electrical power for people to
properly bath or wash their clothes. So much for the strength of ancient cultures.
People in the US take way too much for granted. We suffer from something like
"Affluenza" and are committing cultural suicide nit picking our collective conscience
because we don't realize that we have already pretty much achieved relatively as close
as humans can get to utopia.
1929 isn't ancient history, unimageable today. It is only an idiotic decision or two
away, and idiotic decisions are now the norm because an exceedingly ideological
government is trusted by 50% and seizing control anyhow.
Totally agree that the current economic policy is not sustainable. Only wise and
cautious leadership could steer us back to a sustainable path. We don't have any of
that.
IMO, we don't have socialism. What we have seen over the past 50 years is a steady
evolution to classic fascism. The merging of Big Business and Big Government. The merging
of the National Security State and Big Corporate & Financial Interests.
The pandemic response exemplifies it best. The government through edict shut down and
bankrupted small businesses while they allowed big business and big finance to further
consolidate their market power. We now have the most concentrated market power in American
history. Even greater than a century ago which led to the reforms like anti-trust and
Glass-Steagall, which have all been successfully eroded. We now have the greatest wealth
inequality and concentration of economic and political power.
The 2 Americas is the tale and theater designed to further entrench power. The bottom
90% in both blue & red America have allowed themselves to be enslaved, precisely
because of their infatuation with narrow cultural identities and the faux culture wars.
The behind-the-scenes puppeteers of both blue & red America are the same. Obama used
the race and BLM canard to political gain. His personal social network however are the
Richard Branson's and David Geffen's. His own $12 million home is on "white supremacist"
Martha's Vineyard. Trump sold the Deplorables on Draining the Swamp and then proceeded to
hire the Swamp to run his administration. Mitch McConnell epitomizes the duplicity.
The left/right, Red/Blue, Liberal/Conservative faux battles are precisely the
entertainment that the "owners" as George Carlin labeled them want, to keep the bottom 90%
distracted & divided. What has changed from the Roman "bread & circuses"?
>IMO, we don't have socialism. What we have seen over the past 50 years is a
steady evolution to classic fascism. The merging of Big Business and Big Government.
The merging of the National Security State and Big Corporate & Financial
Interests.<
Agree. This isn't socialism at all; it's capital- F Fascism.
Andrei, Never under-estimate the stupidity of the typical American.
My grandfather barely survived the Armenian genocide, made his way to America,
joined the Army, was so strac he was promoted directly from private to sergeant in WW1.
After service, he organized Armenian business owners in Detroit to arm themselves and
successfully fight off the Purple Gang (a Jewish mafia, predecessors of the Italian
mafia in Detroit). He made actually money during the depression. Real tough guy.
He was offered an opportunity to invest in Disney Land (world?) on initial offering.
He laughed it off as a con. Who would pay good money to travel across the country to
spend time with unskilled actors in stupid cartoon mouse costumes? My father, another
street wise tough guy, WW2 vet, and by that time, an attorney and advisor to the
family, agreed. Idiotic concept.
When I was a young man my father and I sat down and did a ballpark calculation of
what that offering would have been worth, at present, had my grandfather gone for it.
It was a staggering amount. It was a lesson the old man wanted me to learn.
I understand what you are saying about "big tech" versus the real thing. However,
the so called big tech people don't need to be very real or stellar to be highly
influential. True quality has always been, and only can be, appreciated by a small few.
The masses are always appeased by shallow, crude, garbage. It's a sad truth that the
few tend to overlook, because it's offensive to them. Cynics exploit it.
Events of the last few days have made one thing crystal clear: The Democratic Party (and
therefore the nation) is being led by two doddering old fools who should be domiciled in a rest
home, not the Oval Office and the Speaker's Chamber.
How that baleful reality coexists with Wall Street's expectation of an awesome economic
future and stock prices which never stop rising to the sky is one of the great enigmas of our
times. Or maybe it's just because $10 trillion of fiscal and monetary "stimulus" in the past
year can turn the proverbial sow's ear into a silk purse. For a time.
By now, of course, we expect idiocy from Sleepy Joe, especially on the economic front.
Accordingly, at his virtual global summit he will be reading-out from the White House
teleprompter the demented agenda of the Climate Change Howlers. Therein he will promise to cut
greenhouse gases by 50% by the end of this decade, which calamity we can also promise would cut
America's debt-entombed economy to its knees.
That comes after Tuesday's White House contretemps when he first prayed for a guilty verdict
in the Chauvin trial even as the jury was sitting in its deliberations, and then, afterwards,
made the risible claim that this tragedy was the spawn of systemic racism.
In fact, Nanny State over-reach was the underlying cause of George Floyd's arrest and unjust
death -- just as it is the source of most of America's unfortunate violence between police and
unarmed citizens, back, white and otherwise.
In both cases, of course, we find Sleepy Joe fronting for the hideous core agenda -- race
baiting and climate hysteria -- of a Democratic Party which has lost its way and has been taken
over by a camarilla of woke zealots.
Indeed, if there were any doubt about the latter, Nancy Pelosi's truly venal deification of
George Floyd should remove it once and for all.
Yes, the man was a victim, but he was also a drug-addicted criminal lout and grifter, who
deserves no place of honor anywhere; and who's estranged family deserves sympathy and support,
but not a $27 million gift of blood money from a woke city council that takes Minneapolis one
step closer to its demise every time it meets.
"And thank God, the jury validated what we saw, what we saw," Pelosi said in front of the
U.S. Capitol Building as she delivered remarks with the Congressional Black Caucus. "So,
again, thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice. For being there to call
out to your mom. How heart-breaking was that? To call out to your mom, 'I can't breathe.' But
because of you – and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came
out for justice – your name will always be synonymous with justice."
For crying out loud. George Floyd didn't sacrifice himself in the cause of justice. He got
hopped up on a lethal dose of fentanyl and then foolishly resisted arrest when the original
officers on the scene attempted to place him in the backseat of a squad car.
That is to say, the entire narrative culminating in Nancy Pelosi's hideous idolization of
George Floyd has been blatantly wrong from the get go. This case is not about racial justice at
all, to say nothing of striking a blow against so called "white privilege".
For want of doubt, we need to repeat the facts. That's because they show that episodes like
the George Floyd case do not fit the stereotypes of either the BLM and its race-card playing
progressive/Dem allies or, for that matter, the Foxified Right's knee-jerk defense of the
nation's over-empowered, over-budgeted, over-militarized police.
Needless to say, the George Floyd case was not an aberration. During the recent past there
were 38 such police killings of unarmed black citizens in 2015, and then 19, 21, 17 and 9
during 2016 through 2019, respectively. That's 104 black lives lost to the ultimate abuse of
police powers.
Of course, the number should be zero police killings of unarmed citizens. There is no
conceivable excuse for heavily armed cops -- -usually working in pairs or groups -- to cause
the death of lone, unarmed civilians, regardless of race or anything else.
And in this case that was especially so, and not withstanding several mitigating
factors.
For instance, the Minneapolis police officers originally attempted to put George Floyd
safely in the back seat of a squad car after his arrest for the petty crime of attempting to
pass a counterfeit $20 bill, but he resisted them intensely for up to five minutes. That's
plain as day in the other videos -- those from the cops' body-cams.
The trial evidence from these body-cams also showed that during this struggle around the
squad car Floyd said he couldn't breath six times owing to a severe medical reaction to the
fatal level of fentanyl in his blood and the methamphetamines that he had ingested shortly
before the incident. These reactions were surely compounded by the man's "severe" and
"multifocal" arteriosclerotic heart disease and clinical history of hypertension, which the
Minneapolis medical examiner said was the underlying cause of his death.
Yet after Floyd was cuffed and placed prone on the street, as he himself had requested, and
the officers had called for an ambulance owing to his obvious medical distress, the arrest went
haywire and Chauvin exposed himself to Manslaughter 2, at least, for no plausible or
justifiable reason.
That's because Floyd had been unarmed throughout the incident, was hand-cuffed and incapable
of flight or harming others and was surrounded by four armed officers. Accordingly, he was no
threat to them, nor anyone else, and he therefore presented no policing reason for the extended
knee-hold on the back of his neck -- especially after the surrounding crowd had warned the
police that Floyd was in self-evident dire distress.
So as we see it, Chauvin's conviction on second degree manslaughter does indeed comport with
the Minnesota statute, which reads as follows:
..by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk ,
and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;
But here's also where the Woke/Progressive Left narrative goes even more haywire. Floyd's
death was due to an arrest which shouldn't have happened and bad police behavior that has
nothing to do with race .
As to the former point, what should have been on trial in this case was not "systemic
racism", but the Nanny State for grotesquely excessive use of force to enforce a petty
counterfeiting complaint that should not be police business in the first place. It's the job of
retail store owners to handle petty counterfeiters or people who unknowingly pass bad
greenbacks and to absorb the cost of self-protection just like they do in the case of refusing
charges on bad credit cards.
So there is zero reason why George Floyd should ever have been arrested.
As to bad police behavior, you do not have to look too hard to see that it's essentially
color-blind and that being non-black is no guarantee against the same unjust fate.
During the same five-year period in which 104 black lives were lost, a total of 127 unarmed
white lives were wasted by the police, as well. That included 32 white killings in 2015
followed by 22, 31, 23 and 19 in 2016 through 2019, respectively.
Overall, 302 unarmed citizens were killed by the police during those five years, with the
balance accounted for by 71 deaths among Hispanic and other victims. That is, the real issue is
illegal and excessive police violence, not racial victimization.
Indeed, the fact that 34% of these police killings involved black citizens compared to their
13% share of the population is not primarily a sign of racism among police forces, although it
is continuously construed to be.
It's actually evidence that the Nanny State, and especially the misbegotten War on Drugs, is
designed to unnecessarily ensnare a distinct demographic -- young, poor, often unemployed urban
citizens -- in confrontations with the cops, too many of which become fatal.
Alas, young black males are disproportionately represented among this particular
inharms'-way demographic, and that's the reason they are "disproportionately" represented in
the 302 cases cited above.
Stated differently, the Nanny State results in too many black victims of plain old
injustice, even if that is not necessarily the intent of the crusaders and zealots who have
launched the state into anti-liberty wars on drugs, vice and victimless iniquities and
peccadillos.
That is to say, statism in the sphere of law and order is every bit as dysfunctional as it
is in the realm of economics, yet neither conservatives nor progressives recognize it.
Conservatives want way too much law and police empowerment in the service of cultural norms
that are none of the state's damn business in the first place; and progressives confuse the
often brutal and unjust over-reach of law enforcement agencies as a manifestation of racism,
when it is actually just policing expectorations in behalf of inappropriate missions such as
the enforcement of drug laws.
Indeed, the main trouble in America today is not overt racism or even simmering racial
animosity. The real evil is the relentless aggrandizement of state power in the form of the
Nanny State -- a conflation of too many laws, crimes, cops, arrests and thereby opportunities
for frictions between the state and its citizenry and for abuse by the gendarmes vested with
legal use of violence.
In a word, some citizens sometimes can't breathe their last breath because in far too many
instances liberty can't breathe in today's unhinged Nanny State, either.
Among the most recent notorious cases, of course, are George Floyd's fatal arrest for
allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill; Eric Garner (NYC 2014), subdual for selling untaxed
cigarettes; Rayshard Brooks for falling asleep drunk in his car at a subsequently incinerated
Wendy's in Atlanta; and Breonna Taylor of Louisville for being awake in her own apartment at
1:30 AM when police barged in with guns blaring in a drug enforcement raid.
These are anecdotal cases, of course, but the big picture statistics tell the same story. In
the most recent year of complete data (2018), there were 9.3 million arrests in the US
excluding traffic enforcement charges of DUI. Yet among this massive number of arrests, those
involving serious crimes against persons and property accounted for just 521,000 or 5.6%. These
included:
Negligent murder and manslaughter: 11,970;
Rape: 25,205;
Armed robbery: 88,128;
Aggravated assault: 395,800;
That's it. That's the contribution to core public safety delivered by the 850,000 sworn law
enforcement officers in the USA -- about 0.6 arrests per year for serious crimes per law
enforcement officer.
As for what they were doing the rest of the time and the other 8,777,000 arrests that
occurred in 2018, we can say this: They clearly provided more occasion for conflict between
citizens and the gendarmes and for policing actions to go haywire, as in the George Floyd case,
than any additional increments of public safety.
After all, the single largest category of arrests in 2018 was for drug abuse violations,
which totaled 1,654,282.
In fact, while total arrests for all crimes in 2018 were no higher than they were in 1977
despite a 100 million/50% growth in the US population, and had actually dropped from a peak of
nearly 13 million in 2006, the opposite trend was extant in the case of the nation's
misbegotten War on Drugs arrests.
As shown by the chart below, drug arrests in 2018 were nearly at peak levels and were up by
more than 171% since 1977 -- the vast majority of which are made for drug possession generally,
and marijuana possession most often.
War on Drugs Arrests, 1980-2016
Not surprisingly, the next largest arrest category after drugs is one called "other
assaults" for which 1,063,535 arrests were made in 2018. Yet the FBI's own definitions raise
considerable doubts as to why these are even a proper matter for law enforcement by the
state:
Other assaults (simple) - Assaults and attempted assaults where no weapon was used or no
serious or aggravated injury resulted to the victim. Stalking, intimidation, coercion, and
hazing are included.
Then, of course, we have all the victimless and vice crimes, including the following number
of arrests:
Prostitution and commercialized vice: 31,147;
Sex offenses excluding rape and prostitution: 46,937;
Gambling: 3,323;
Liquor law offenses: 173,152;
Curfew and loitering law violations: 22,031;
Vagrancy: 23,546;
Public drunkenness: 328,772;
Disorderly conduct: 329,152;
Forgery and counterfeiting: 50,072;
Weapons carrying and possession: 168,403;
All other offenses: 3,231,700.
The latter huge number tells you all you need to know. The UCR lists 27 enumerated
categories of crime including all of those itemized above–plus the usual suspects like
fraud and embezzlement for which there were about 135,000 arrests in 2018. Yet when the whole
lists is exhausted, 32% of arrests occurred for crimes that are so minor even the FBI is
embarrassed to enumerate them!
So, yes, we do think there are way, way too many crimes and cops, and that decriminalizing
and de-funding law enforcement are the only route to reducing police violence.
But by the same token, the unwarranted and often mendacious racializing of police
malfeasance, which the George Floyd case has brought to a fever pitch, will only insure
retrogression. That is, it will unleash a blind rallying to the defense of law enforcement by
conservative Republicans, blue collar whites and the Foxified Right, thereby insuring a
continuing failure to attack and drastically curtail the Nanny State regime, which is the real
source of policing injustice.
Of course, don't expect Nancy Pelosi or Sleepy Joe to be any more enlightened on the matter
than Sean Hannity. These doddering old fools are now enthrall to the wokedom of the
progressive-Left; and, as Maxine Water's blatant performance as agent provocateur in
Minneapolis the night before the verdict makes clear, these people want the problem to fester
and metastasize, not be alleviated.
Indeed, it is probably not too far fetched to say that Congresswoman Waters' call for a
guilty verdict or else a new round of violent uprisings amounted to an insurance policy. Three
guilty verdicts could not trigger the latter, but a judicial appeal resulting in a mistrial
order surely would.
In other words, the Democratic Party has fallen into the grip of vicious leftist zealots and
power-hungry authoritarians. And the events of the last two days suggest that two dangerously
wrong-headed and ugly narratives -- -race-baiting and climate hysteria -- now stand at the
center of the Dem agenda because the party's two supreme leaders are too weak and too senile to
resist the mob.
So we'd say to the feverish punters of Wall Street, yes, embrace the putative Economic Boom
impending and buy the Greatest Financial Bubble in history, if you must.
But, really, if the events which culminated in Tuesday's triumph of mob justice do not scare
the living bejesus out of you, then, well, you probably deserve to suffer the thundering
financial gotterdammerung which is surely coming your way. 60,006 194 NEVER MISS THE NEWS
THAT MATT
In our summer of discontent, of protests and then riots in what many view as a racial reckoning following the death of
George Floyd at the hands of police, we've seen previously radical ideas such as defunding the police become the norm.
Not only that, we've seen liberal institutions such as The New York Times bow before "woke" mobs and cancel all who don't
conform to the whims of the radical left.
And we've seen corporate America almost universally endorse Black Lives Matter, a radical organization with Marxist roots.
Two writers in particular have risen in popularity on the left, dominating national bestseller lists while gathering
increased media attention: Robin DiAngelo, a lecturer and author of "
White
Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
," and Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Center for
Antiracist Research at Boston University and author of "
How
to Be an Antiracist
."
Although their works are distinct, both writers promote an ideology they call "anti-racism."
These two authors are shaping the modern discussion over "wokeness" and the ideas that are becoming politically mainstream
in America, at least on the American left.
It's critical to have an understanding of what they believe.
For instance, why would a mob opposed to white supremacy attack statues of both a slaveholder and an abolitionist?
Is this an example of mindless, wanton destruction? Or perhaps the rioters are embracing a larger set of ideas that creates
a ruthless dichotomy between racists and anti-racists?
According to both DiAngelo and Kendi, there really are only two paths any person may take: racism or anti-racism. Being
"not racist," as Kendi writes, is not good enough, nor does it mean one isn't a racist.
DiAngelo defines "white fragility," the topic of her book, as a process whereby white people return to "our racial comfort,
and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy."
"Though white fragility is triggered by discomfort and anxiety, it is born of superiority and entitlement," DiAngelo
writes. "White fragility is not weakness per se. In fact, it is a powerful means of white racial control and the protection
of white advantage."
Essentially, if a white person is uncomfortable talking about race or denies his fundamental whiteness, as well as his
racism, he is guilty of white fragility.
In fact, according to the arguments of both DiAngelo and Kendi, even a denial of racism can be construed as evidence of
racism.
As several other writers,
including
Mark Hemingway at The Federalist
, have noted, this is what's called a Kafka trap, a rhetorical device "where the more
you deny something, the more it's proof of your guilt."
Kendi and DiAngelo argue that racism is not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a
people based on their race.
Instead, racism is redefined as a collective condition leading to inequities in society.
Kendi argues that those whom many Americans see as actual racists are far less dangerous than the real threat of widespread
acceptance of color blindness. He writes:
The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right's unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular
American's drive for a 'race-neutral' one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood
by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-white Americans toward equity is 'reverse
discrimination.'
Kendi decries "assimilationists" as being essentially as bad as "segregationists."
Kendi opposes the assimilationists, as he defines them, because he says they attribute behavior to the unequal outcomes for
different races.
In fact, even asking the question of why different groups of people have statistically differing outcomes in a society may
be construed as racist.
DiAngelo adopts Kendi's construction of racism, writing that "if we truly believe that all humans are equal, then disparity
in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination."
The argument essentially is that any racial discrepancies in society are examples of racism.
So, if a society has a disproportionate number of rich white people compared to rich black people, that is racism. If one
race has a higher mortality rate from a disease than another, again the culprit is racism.
Kendi is, of course, highly selective in the statistics he cites to demonstrate that "there may be no more consequential
White privilege than life itself."
As Coleman Hughes
wrote
for City Journal
: "By selectively citing data that show blacks suffering more than whites, Kendi turns what should be a
unifying, race-neutral battle ground -- namely, humanity's fight against deadly diseases -- into another proxy battle in the War
on Racism."
Hughes, like Kendi, is black.
2. Colorblindness Is the Problem, and Racist
The concept of equal opportunity is fundamentally rejected by the doctrines of DiAngelo and Kendi. They argue that in a
deeply racist society conditioned to white supremacy, equal opportunity under the law perpetuates only more inequality.
Both DiAngelo and Kendi rebuke the idea of colorblindness in how we treat race. DiAngelo does so more in a cultural sense.
She argues that colorblindness is essentially a sign of white privilege, a manipulation of the message of Martin Luther
King Jr. to perpetuate more racism.
"Color-blind ideology makes it difficult for us to address these unconscious beliefs," DiAngelo writes. "While the idea of
color blindness may have started out as a well-intentioned strategy for interrupting racism, in practice it has served to
deny the reality of racism and thus hold it in place."
White people must build their racial "stamina," DiAngelo argues, to overcome their white fragility.
The way for white people to do this is by recognizing, embracing, and critically examining collective "white identity" as
an antidote to white fragility. DiAngelo writes that "as an insider," she can speak for the white experience, but that she
uses her white identity as a way to "challenge racism."
DiAngelo lays on white people the responsibility -- the burden, one might say -- of attacking and defeating racism and
"whiteness."
3. Racism Is Solved Through Discrimination
Kendi leans more strongly into creating laws that specifically promote anti-racism. To be effective, he says, they must be
discriminatory.
Discriminatory laws, Kendi argues, can be desirable and in fact necessary as a way to promote equity:
If discrimination is creating equity, then it is anti-racist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.
Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is
entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into
relative wealth and power until equity is reached. The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist
discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
As long as the discriminatory finger is on the button of "equity," however Kendi and the anti-racists define it, it is
good.
Christopher Caldwell, author of "
The
Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties
,"
wrote
for
National Review that Kendi rejects the notion -- stemming from many civil rights advocates -- "that everything will be well as
long as we treat people with equality, neutrality, and respect."
"It is illegitimate. It is a 'racist' obstruction," Caldwell added.
Kendi proposes an anti-racist amendment to the Constitution,
which
he wrote about
in a short piece in Politico. It's worth quoting in full:
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals [sic]: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different
racial groups are equals.
The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public
officials (with 'racist ideas' and 'public official' clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the
Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees.
The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state, and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield
racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor
public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and
against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
This proposal by Kendi effectively would end self-government and nullify the Bill of Rights. A cadre of intellectuals
ensconced in the Department of Anti-racism would have the power to decide who can and can't run for office, and which laws
can or can't be passed based on their interpretation of what is racist.
Again, racist being defined by Kendi as "one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or
expressing a racist idea."
Which policies fall under the rubric of being racist or anti-racist?
"Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or
equity," Kendi writes.
For those who believe they can escape the ugly culture war implications of these ideas and focus on economic or fiscal
policies, it's worth noting that embracing socialism and fighting capitalism is a critical element in promoting
anti-racism.
Therefore, a supporter of lower capital gains taxes -- or even someone who isn't actively opposing lower capital gains
taxes -- may be barred from running for or serving in office by a team of unaccountable bureaucrats in a permanently funded
federal agency.
Gone is the very bedrock of the system created by the Founders, the Constitution that has bent the flawed but exceptional
American system toward liberty and justice.
"History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes" -- Mark Twain (attributed). This is a naked
fight for political power using very questionable means.
Marxist ideology revolving around class and special role of "proletariat" as the oppressed
class which strives for liberation and overthow "oppressors" in order to build more a just
society, is more or less replaced by race. In woke movement, blacks are the new proletariat.
Corporations, especially those headquartered in Georgia, have come out against the
legislation signed by Governor Kemp. Republicans describe the bill as one that addresses
election integrity while Democrats call it a voter suppression law – "Jim Crow 2.0".
Coca-Cola and Delta were among
the first to make a point to virtue-signal after the governor signed the bill, only to be
exposed as taking part in the process and giving input into the legislation. Both were fine
with the law until the governor signed it and grievance activists did their thing. Coke soon
discovered that not all of its consumers think that companies should be making policy –
that 's the job of lawmakers- and now it is trying to clean up the mess it made for itself.
Churches have increasingly played a part in American politics and this is an escalation of
that trend. Evangelical churches have shown support for conservative and Republican candidates
while black churches get out the vote for Democrats. This threat of bringing a large-scale
boycott over state legislation is a hostile action against the corporation. It's political
theatre. Groups like Black Voters Matter, the New Georgia Project Action Fund (Stacey Abrams),
and the Georgia NAACP are pressuring companies to publicly voice their opposition and the
religious leaders are doing the bidding of these politically active groups.
When SB 241 and HB 531 were working through the legislative process, the groups put pressure
on Republican lawmakers and the governor to abandon the voting reform legislation. They also
demanded that donations to any lawmakers supporting the legislation be stopped. The Georgia
Chamber of Commerce tried to remain bipartisan while still voicing support for voting rights
but then caved and expressed "concern and opposition" to some provisions . At the time,
several large Georgia companies were targeted by activists, including Aflac, Coca-Cola,
Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Southern Company and UPS.
The Georgia Chamber of Commerce previously reiterated the importance of voting rights
without voicing opposition against any specific legislation. In a new statement to CNBC, the
Georgia Chamber said it has "expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB
531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access" and "continues to engage in a
bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting
rights in our state."
Office Depot came out at the time and supported the Chamber's statement. The Election
Integrity Act of 2021, originally known as Georgia Senate Bill 202, is a Georgia law
overhauling elections in the state that was signed into effect by the governor and we know what
happened. Office Depot has not delivered for the activists as they demand so now the company
faces boycott drama. The
religious leaders are taking up where the activist groups left off.
African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Reginald Jackson said the company has remained "silent
and indifferent" to his efforts to rally opposition to the new state law pushed by
Republicans, as well as to similar efforts elsewhere.
" We just don't think we ought to let their indifference stand ," Jackson said.
The leader of all his denomination's churches in Georgia, Jackson had a meeting last week
with other Georgia-based executives to urge them to oppose the voting law, but said he's had
no contact with Home Depot, despite repeated efforts to reach the company.
Faith leaders at first were hesitant to jump into the boycott game. Now the political
atmosphere has changed and they are being vocal. Jackson focused on pressuring Coca-Cola first.
After that company went along to get along, before it realized its error, Jackson moved his
focus onto other companies.
"We believe that corporations have a corporate responsibility to their customers, who are
Black, white and brown, on the issue of voting ," Jackson said. "It doesn't make any sense at
all to keep giving dollars and buying products from people that do not support you."
He said faith leaders may call for boycotts of other companies in the future.
So, here we are with Home Depot in the spotlight. There are
four specific demands leveled at Home Depot in order to avoid further action from the
activists.
Rev. Lee May, the lead pastor of Transforming Faith Church, said the coalition is "fluid
in this boycott" but has four specifics requests of Home Depot: To speak out publicly and
specifically against SB 202; to speak out against any other restrictive voting provisions
under consideration in other states; to support federal legislation that expands voter access
and "also restricts the ability to suppress the vote;" and to support any efforts, including
investing in litigation, to stop SB 202 and other bills like it.
" Home Depot, we're calling on you. I'm speaking to you right now. We're ready to have a
conversation with you. You haven't been ready up to now, but our arms are wide open. We are
people of faith. People of grace, and we're ready to have this conversation, but we're very
clear those four things that we want to see accomplished ," May said.
The Rev. Timothy McDonald III, senior pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church, warned
this was just the beginning.
"It's up to you whether or not, Home Depot, this boycott escalates to phase two, phase
three, phase four," McDonald said. "We're not on your property -- today. We're not blocking
your driveways -- today. We're not inside your store protesting -- today. This is just phase
one."
That sounds a lot like incitement, doesn't it? Governor Kemp is speaking out, he has had
enough. He held
a press conference to deliver his comments.
"First, the left came for baseball, and now they are coming for Georgia jobs," Kemp said,
referring to MLB's decision to move this year's All-Star Game from Atlanta over the new laws.
"This boycott of Home Depot – one of Georgia's largest employers – puts partisan
politics ahead of people's paychecks."
"The Georgians hardest hit by this destructive decision are the hourly workers just trying
to make ends meet during a global pandemic. I stand with Home Depot, and I stand with nearly
30,000 Georgians who work at the 90 Home Depot stores and 15 distribution centers across the
Peach State. I will not apologize for supporting both Georgia jobs and election integrity,"
he added.
"This insanity needs to stop. The people that are pushing this, that are profiting off of
it, like Stacey Abrams and others, are now trying to have it both ways," Kemp said. "There is
a political agenda here, and it all leads back to Washington, D.C."
The governor is right. The activists are in it to federalize elections, not to look out for
Georgians, who will lose jobs over these partisan actions. The law signed by Kemp increases
voting rights, it doesn't limit them .
As Townhall.com's Spencer Brown details , Chauvin's lawyers pointed out that jurors were
not sequestered during the case and therefore may not be free from outside influence in the
form of news updates they may have inadvertently or purposefully seen along with ongoing
violence in the community surrounding the Chauvin trial and approaching verdict.
Among their concerns, Chauvin's defense team pointed to Waters and her appearance with
demonstrators in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, over the weekend.
Even though the judge denied the defense's motion for mistrial, he highlighted the damage
her rhetoric may have done, saying "Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal
that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
Perhaps the Biden presidency is the first woke/cancel culture one in history. Not (
necessarily ) for the sexual part, but because wokism is emotional not rational. What
is happening in the deep recesses of the Blinken or Biden mind is based on absolute certainty
and emotionally ingested tripe.
The original Deep State and democratic manipulation was to give the population a binary
"choice" between Trump-bad and Putin-Bad. Any third possibility, that neither were as "
bad as all that " was not spoken of in the MSM. For four years, both "choices" were
hammered by the Democrats into the supine brains of the US masses. which has given rise to
"automatic" and forceful unthinking attitudes. ( All bad because I say so and I am right,
and I know I am right because I say so ). It is the basis of our censorship culture. Over
four years they have brainwashed themselves as much as the "plebs" .
Then the Democrats "won" the election with a bit of help from the deep state, and found
themselves in power.
When Blinken was anchoraged , he expected to tell the Chinese what to do, think and
he possibly even expected the Chinese to take a knee to honour the "self-evidence" of his
wisdom . He probably got into a hussy fit when they didn't agree with he knew
emotionallly or had been told by the CIA, Bowder or Bidens favourite sweet-smellin' lobbyist.
What Politicians now do is ; when in a stresssful position they revert to emotional dominated
reactions and do not follow orders from the deep state, oligarchs or lobbies.
Now we come to Ukraine and Taiwan. For the center of the democratic party, Biden Pelosi,
Blinken, what they "know" is all there is to know . So they don't listen to
anyone .
The lobbies, military profit-makers and the Deep State are equally sure they know but they
cannot change the brainwashing that they helped install in others.
Washington is emotional and the Intelligence/Military are the cold-killers. Whatever one says
the other will contradict it. So we have a forked tongue "Adminstration".
What has happened and one of the aims of both Putin and Xi, is to move a "woke"
adminstration out of it's comfort zone. Outside it's usual certitudes. The pressure will now
be coming from East Eurasia. In many fields -
ie. Even the Czechs are already walking back their expulsion of Russian Diplomats as they
hadn't expected a strong "retaliation". Tough for the five Czechs left in Moscow. All part of
the plan to drive home that actions will have repercussions.
******
Donbas? More shelling than ever before but the Russian red line is known. No Children or
other civilians to be killed. There is a tweet available, with sounds of shelling in the
background and children playing in the street ........ The Ukes have woken up to the fact
that a sea "invasion" is possible and now are sending (fast !) tank loaded trains back
towards Odessa.
"... The guy with the badge didn't kill Floyd, he committed suicide by ingesting an overdose of Fentanyl. The Autopsy showed he had a level of 11ng/ml and 3 ng/ml is a Lethal Level. I don't see how the Medical Examiner didn't rule cause of death was Fentanyl. ..."
Didn't the life of the 7 year old Chicago girl shot in the head while in line at a McDonalds
by a gang member "matter"?
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 14 minutes ago
Unfortunately not
If she had been shot by a Caucasian cop than it would matter
Yes I am sure - is shot or Caucasian the offending word of the day
EDWARD HINES SUBSCRIBER 6 minutes ago
Exploitation value is all that "matters" to these people.
Chloe Kelley SUBSCRIBER 10 minutes ago
Will that gang member go to jail? Will hundreds of people try to justify the murder as just.
Was the little girl somewhere she shouldn't have been? Was she breaking the law? Was it past
curfew?
These are questions no one asks when a little girl gets shot. Its obvious that murder is
wrong. Her killer is caught and tried and goes to jail.
When I cop kills someone in cold blood in front of your eyes, you are still willing to and
actually search for reasons other than the obvious. It isn't the murder but the reaction to
it that people protest.
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 5 minutes ago (Edited)
so its less new worthy and therefore better for a gang member to shoot a little girl than for
a felon to die while resisting arrest
Interesting way to view things
Andrew T SUBSCRIBER 16 minutes ago (Edited)
Get ready for more Democrat riots. Remember Maxine Waters' "get more confrontational" call to
protesters.
Jerome Ogden SUBSCRIBER 17 minutes ago
The daily threats and attacks on Chauvin defenders must be having a deep psychological impact
on the unsequestered jury.
A guilty verdict for even the least serious charge of manslaughter will surely trigger an
appeal of the decision not to allow a change of venue. And I believe it will have a good
chance of success. Here's why:
Jack Ruby's conviction by a Dallas jury in 1964 for killing Oswald was overturned on
appeal because Ruby's motion for a change of venue was denied. The appeals court judges
recognized that holding the trial in Dallas denied Ruby an impartial jury, because jurors
residing in that city would feel a unique duty to remove the stain that the Kennedy and
Oswald assassinations had left on their city. (google)
Jurors residing in Minneapolis are human. They cannot be impartial under constant mob
intimidation.
I'm betting the appeals court will grant Chauvin a new trial if found guity.
Anything less would mean our judicial system itself is bowing to mob rule.
RICHARD MARTIN SUBSCRIBER 21 minutes ago
"Beyond a reasonable doubt," is the legal bench mark, and it hasn't been met no matter how
frustrated you are about the restraint technique used the police in this instance. Mr.
Floyd's drug use was a contributing factor to his death whether Maxine Waters thinks so or
not.
A. James Tagg SUBSCRIBER 22 minutes ago
Watching politicians gas light minorities is so funny to watch, just wait to see the results
of the power vacuum created by the lack of a police presence in these communities. The
result..... one of the worst crime waves that is just gonna SHRED they're community for
years.
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 16 minutes ago
crime in Minneapolis has been on the rise all year. At one point I remember an article in
which the MInneapolis police chief asked for assistance from other law enforcement agencies
because of all the retirements and lack of funding did not have enough cops to handle the
crime ridden city
Jerome Abernathy SUBSCRIBER 29 minutes ago
At the point Floyd lost consciousness, Chauvin's partner checked Floyd and said he couldn't
find a pulse, yet Chauvin stayed on his neck for over 3 minutes more. He knew Floyd was
unconscious, he knew he had no pulse, yet he stayed on his neck. He didn't administer aid, he
continued grind his neck into his neck. None of the other evidence matters for 2nd degree
murder.
Violet Liskey SUBSCRIBER 25 minutes ago
Sufficient in my mind for a second degree manslaughter conviction.
Mac Moore SUBSCRIBER 23 minutes ago
Abernathy writes, "At the point Floyd lost consciousness, Chauvin's partner checked Floyd and
said he couldn't find a pulse, yet Chauvin stayed on his neck for over 3 minutes more."
So, what? Are you looking for evidence to support your hate? How is that helpful? They
jury has all of the facts. The Prosecutors and Defense delivered excellent arguments and
supported them with facts. It seems all of your evidence is of only one perspective. The Jury
has both. I will await their decision, not yours.
Rick Krieger SUBSCRIBER 23 minutes ago
And the Floyd family will skip town with $27 million from the citizens of Minnesota.
Bruce Rado SUBSCRIBER 11 minutes ago
Thank Chauvin for that. The city settled because the bar for a civil award is only "the
preponderance of evidence," and anyone with two functioning eyes could see that Floyd's death
was "wrongful," and that Chauvin's actions were the proximate cause of Floyd's death.
Ellyn Oys SUBSCRIBER 2 minutes ago (Edited)
That is the fascinating part. I awaiting news as to how they spend it. Will they start with a
row of pink Cadillacs?
D REYNOLDS SUBSCRIBER 19 minutes ago
People who don't make a habit of getting high, committing crimes, then resisting arrest have
nothing to worry about.
John Bartlett SUBSCRIBER 9 minutes ago
Especially after ingesting a lethal dose of Fentanyl, Floyd's blood showed 11 ng/ml and
3ng/ml is considered a lethal level.
BRUCE MONTGOMERY SUBSCRIBER 32 minutes ago
Interesting final arguments by the prosecution which just wrapped up.
Next up, the Defense, then rebuttal by the State before the case concludes and jury begins
its deliberations.
The prosecution highlighted the pain suffered by Floyd under Chauvin's knee. Floyd
complained that he couldn't breath and about the pain in his stomach and neck.
According to the Mayo Clinic website, symptoms relating to an "enlarged heart," often
include shortness of breath and may also include chest pain, discomfort in other areas of the
upper body (one or both arms, neck, back, stomach and severe shortness of breath which may
indicate a heart attack), and fainting.
It is inexplicable, however, why Chauvin did not take his knee off Floyd when he had no
pulse. . .
EDWARD HINES SUBSCRIBER 44 minutes ago
National Guard in DC are playing video games on their phones.
As Minneapolis is largely unprotected, sacrificed for a political agenda.
Violet Liskey SUBSCRIBER 45 minutes ago
Bad closing prosecutor argument is going to justify a stronger reaction if the decision does
not go in the direction of the mob - we needed Steve to do a better job for all concerned
ted williams SUBSCRIBER 41 minutes ago
Which mob? The Jan 6 mob?? I'm confused
Kevin Burke SUBSCRIBER 37 minutes ago
The summer of love mob.
Richard Acuti SUBSCRIBER 52 minutes ago
The verdict and the sentence are irrelevant.
More rioting and violence will occur no matter the output of the trial.
This is a tragic tale of a lousy human being being killed by another lousy human being
with a badge. Neither of these guys are any good.
John Bartlett SUBSCRIBER 45 minutes ago
The guy with the badge didn't kill Floyd, he committed suicide by ingesting an overdose
of Fentanyl. The Autopsy showed he had a level of 11ng/ml and 3 ng/ml is a Lethal Level. I
don't see how the Medical Examiner didn't rule cause of death was Fentanyl.
John Bartlett SUBSCRIBER 9 minutes ago
The Medical Examiner is at fault for not listing Fentanyl as the cause of death, Floyd's
Autopsy showed he had 11 ng/ml and 3 is considered Lethal. An overdose of Fentanyl causes the
persons respiration to slow and even stop and that's what happened to Floyd.
Jerome Abernathy SUBSCRIBER 28 minutes ago
"This is a tragic tale of a lousy human being being killed by another lousy human being with
a badge."
Floyd was addicted to opioids like millions of other Americans. That didn't make him a
lousy human. But, I do question what type of person would accuse him of such.
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 26 minutes ago
he was also a felon who was in the process of committing a crime -
does that qualify as a lousy human?
Maria Thompson SUBSCRIBER 20 minutes ago
... Conviction for first degree home-invasion robbery where he pointed a gun at a pregnant
woman's abdomen
the Media doesn't mention it much
EDWARD HINES SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Looting And burning Footlocker basketball shoe stores will make everything better.
paul grunder SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Maxine Waters was despicable in what she did by encouraging rioters. Then I also think Chris
Cuomo of CNN should be fired for basically saying, unless white children are shot there will
be no justice Why would anyone encourage the deaths of any children? We have a sicko nation.
p's wife
Albert Griffith SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
The prosecution's closing argument is way too long. He's playing to the cameras.
EDWARD HINES SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
He wants a CNN show when this is all over.
mitch wilkerson SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
how much pressure was the knee on his back? That's the 64 dollar question. I see not enough
to kill him but merely to restrain as he was high
Violet Liskey SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I don't think there is any way to know - only the best guess of experts who may nor may not
be influenced by other factors
Keith Dowling SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I wonder, did the defense point out that G. Floyd said he couldn't breath before he was put
on the ground? That seems to be proof that the restraining hold had nothing to do with his
breathing issues.
The other factor is, what impact did the crowd have on delaying the paramedics in
accessing and treating Mr. Floyd? They said they did a "load and scoot" due to the unruly
crowd.
Mac Moore SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Dowling writes, "I wonder, did the defense point out that G. Floyd said he couldn't breath
before he was put on the ground?"
Yes. The Defense has been excellent. Both desks, Defense / Prosecutors, presented their
positions very well. The Jury has a good balance of facts and arguments to work with. I don't
know how they will find, but my guess is that at least one or more jurors will not be able to
conclude murder / manslaughter by the police.
EDWARD HINES SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
A 7 year girl in Chicagoland was shot in the head yesterday by a gang member and killed.
She was not fighting with police or under the influence of fentanyl.
Was in line at a McDonalds.
No media coverage.
D REYNOLDS SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I read about it on Fox News. Didn't see it mentioned on CNN however.
karen graham SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
It's on CNN.
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
so where are the "peaceful protests"
Thomas Fowler SUBSCRIBER 46 minutes ago
There won't be any because if a black is killed by another black, there's no political gain
to be had. This just proves that black lives don't matter unless a white (or maybe Asian) is
involved.
Gregory Weinman SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Based on the evidence I would acquit murder charges. Murder requires an intent the
prosecution has not proven. Involuntary manslaughter in Minnesota is called manslaughter in
the second degree. That seems the appropriate charge. Based on Officer Chauvin's negligence
in the death of Mr Floyd I would convict.
Representative Waters was filmed inciting riot if the jury acquits on murder. She did this in
Brooklyn Center MN, a city already in flames If Minneapolis erupts in riot will she face
sanction or dismissal? I wouldn't bet on it.
Jerome Feldman SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
Is anything going to be done to protect the anonymity of the jurors...as is done in mob
trials?
Not that anything can be done in this day and age. It is likely that the identity of each
juror is already public knowledge.
(Mrs. JF)
M Ruri SUBSCRIBER 47 minutes ago
That is a major issue as to an appeal of the verdict I believe.... because many selected
jurors did say they were worried about their safety in being selected.
John Harris SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Q: Why were those "9 minutes" necessary?
A: Because he had been successful in forcibly resisting arrest (involving the entire police
force available) during the earlier 20 minutes ... just BEFORE!
...... Summary: It's that SIMPLE!
Violet Liskey SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
I think Floyd passed out at 20:24-5 and was not resisting for the last 3 mins of the 9 mins.
And that is the best prosecutors case for at least second degree manslaughter.
Violet Liskey SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
So far prosecutor's closing argument has been disappointing - playing the jury -- by
misleading claims 9:24, 9:24, 9: 24 or superhumans do not exist in real life or (I know, not
the defense, what Chauvin knows) he knew, he knew, he knew, mock, mock, mock -- guess Steve
figures the jury has the intelligence of 8 year-olds and he is willing to yank their strings
.. although not saying he is wrong
Joseph Areeda SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I can't help but think the reaction of the mob will hang over jury deliberations.
Imagine the press reaction if Trump had used language similar to Maxine Water's on Jan
5
We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more
confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.
I pray Mr. Chauvin gets a fair verdict than depends on his actions and the law
not on expected mob reactions, but I don't see how that's possible.
Girish Kotwal SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Will police officer Derek Chauvin get proper justice from a jury that is being ferociously
intimidated to give a guilty verdict by an organized mob and filthy politicians like Maxine
Watters? It will be the responsibility of the judge and the justice department to assure that
the intimidation should have no influence on the verdict and the jury will be protected from
any repercussions of their verdict no matter what it is. Jury protection measures should be
in place until the mob calms down. I don't think that some of the organizations that were
rioting which are the poodles of the Dems are going to be rioting no matter what the decision
is because after the summer riots they got what they wanted which is the installation of
Biden in the white house. So now they have their puppy in the white house and he is doing
exactly what they want him to do.
The Dems have sowed the seeds of race wars and mass shootings that they cannot blame
Trump. Crime is a crime and deserves to be punished.
karen graham SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
Do you know who the jurors are? This is obviously a high profile case, but who do you think
is intimidating them?
And how did you get Trump into this?
D REYNOLDS SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Perhaps the mob gathering outside the courthouse?
Randall Digby SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
and a US Representative from the state of California that the moderators will not allow to be
named.
Alan Pronesti SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago (Edited)
A couple of years ago I watched a documentary on PBS on African American voters, and it said
that if Black participation rates in elections drops just a tiny % (don't remember the
number) Democrats would get killed in elections. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't know who
George Floyd is.
Once that changes the Democrats, Media, and Liberals will throw African Americans under
the bus.
This is not about race it's all about elections for Democrats.
Michael Dulaney SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
No. It was if the death of Floyd was caused only by the action of the police officer or if
there were other factors that, had they not existed, would not have resulted in death.
Floyd's body was full of drugs.
We will see if, in the United States today, Justice is Blind or Justice is now Mob
Rule.
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
Let the
"peaceful protests" begin
ALAN SEWELL SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
They already have. Somebody left a severed head of a porcine animal in the driveway of a
defense witness last night.
Scott Manson CPA JD SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
did it have an apple in its mouth?
Michael Dulaney SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Our democratic cousins.
Jason Miller SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
Chauvin was already convicted in the media before stepping into court. The majority of the
public also convicted him before knowing all of the facts. So I hope the jury is doing their
job, not judging him from a biased media perspective that has plagued our nation for years.
Either way, there will be riots, whether he's found guilty or not guilty.
Michael Dulaney SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Retail outlets need to board up before "shopping" begins when the verdict is read.
Michael Schmitt SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
Chicago stores (in all neighborhoods) started boarding up last week. Who wants to go shopping
in person any more? Between rioting, carjackings, personal attacks, homeless on every corner,
it's dangerous and not pleasant. Online shopping will take over. Retail, real estate and
insurance industries need to step up and call out this destruction.
K R HANINGTON SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
I would hope that everyone would be willing to accept the verdict of the jury, no
matter what the outcome.
This is foundational for our justice system and indeed for our country. People who have
not you been in the courtroom to hear all the testimony, to see all the evidence should
accept the Judgment of the jury. You don't have to be happy with it but you should accept it.
Outside agitators, such as Representative Maxine Waters, should be held in contempt.
Michael Dulaney SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Maxine Waters is calling for protests against the government. Don't know about Minneapolis,
but in Washington DC she called this an "insurrection".
Maybe she should be tried for treason.
Rachel Glyn SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
I'm not sure whether anybody can be unbiased enough to judge to what extent Chauvin, as
opposed to George Floyd's drug use and heart condition, caused Mr Floyd's death. Radical
supporters of BLM are convinced that Chauvin murdered Floyd and it was racially motivated.
Some on the Right discount any involvement from Chauvin and blame it all on Mr Floyd. Even if
I were on the jury to hear all the scientific evidence, I might not feel qualified to
decide.
I also am unsure whether any jurors can really make an unbiased decision. Even in a worst
case scenario, if Chauvin is racist and evil and deliberately cause Mr Floyd's death, the
jury should decide based on evidence and not mob threats. I'd like to know if the jurors have
heard outside news and if they fear for their own safety.
karen graham SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
Jurors are instructed not to listen to outside news. Juries tend to take their
responsibilities very seriously.
AM Losee SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I think a lot of people are convinced this was murder. People were screaming at Chauvin to
get his knee off his neck. How much more blatant can it get?
Because you and other right wingers hate Floyd, you are making excuses for a bad cop, a
really bad cop, who already had 17 marks against his record, some for excessive
punishment.
The guy should have been thrown off the force.
Mac Moore SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Losee writes, "I think a lot of people are convinced this was murder."
That is the sad truth. When your lens is blinded by hate, one has difficulty seeing it any
other way.
Michael Dulaney SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
The broad generalization you make against "right wingers"...."hating Floyd" shows that racism
is indeed alive and well in your neck of the woods.
Bruce Anderson SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
AM - how do you know who hates Floyd?
you are a mind reader with a crystal ball?
what a dum statement.
no one heard of Floyd before and now they hate him ?
Charles McGill SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
yes AM and leftists are mind readers and not only that but are righteous, always correct, and
think all sheep should stand quietly and get fleeced.
Joseph Rosenberger SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
What a sad mess.
Mac Moore SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
The flame throwers, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, James, BLM, and, their enablers in the MSM ....
have poisoned the waters of rational thought in America. They have far too many citizens
viewing this event through a racist lens that they created for political malfeasance to gain
power. It is sick.
Floyd was there as a culminations of hundreds, if not thousands, of bad choices of his own
making. The police were there as a request. If Floyd had chosen to comply with the police,
the outcome would have been completely different. How the police acted to gain submission is
in question, but it is political theatrics to call it murder.
For an acquittal, the defense must similarly convince all 12 jurors that the prosecution
failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But it takes only one juror to "hang" the
jury. That means that if 11 jurors want to vote to convict on at least one of the charges
against Chauvin, but one juror doesn't believe the government has met its burden of proof,
there won't be a verdict. Instead, there will be a mistrial, and although the government can
retry the case down the road, a hung jury involves delay and the risk that as the evidence
ages, the prosecution's case may become weaker.
The whole BLM/Metoo movement is "political" and primarily driven by
media/academia/think-tank elites. Yes, mostly white males and females along with the token
members of the "aggrieved" class. I don't get the psychology but denouncing their own
race/ethnicity/gender/identity through virtue signaling to achieve political ends is the game.
Cancellation and destruction of careers are all part and parcel of techniques to suppress
dissent and breed compliance to the overlords.
This trend has not occurred overnight. It is many decades in the making with creeping
fascism – the melding of Big Business and Big Authoritarian Government. This is not just
Democrats but Republicans too. The division and fracturing of society on the basis of identity
is deliberate. Gullibility is no excuse. The vast majority of Americans have fallen for
identity politics across many generations.
Reply
I am in full agreement with your comment, Sam; except perhaps for the last sentence.
Woke-ism is an *elite project*, serving primarily to get the little
people to fight each other, rather than the vastly-wealthy Very Few..
Walrus,
I don't know about all of that. As much as I despise "woke" culture, I think these concerns
are little overblown; or at least they are in *my* experience as a corporate manager for a
major US company. A caveat being the since the Covid panic/woke control of the world, we've
all been working virtually and all business trips are cancelled. So there is little to no
opportunity for situations to arise.
I have a couple of relevant rules from which I never deviate; 1. Never discuss politics
at work unless it is in a purely analytical way that is related to impact on our business.
2. Do not meet with female employees – whether they be higher-ups, peers or staff
– one on one, outside of the office (e.g. not at a happy hour). The former I
implemented from day 1 in my corporate career and the latter I developed based on early
experience, but not the experience you may think.
I entered the corporate world in my late 30s and well into my 40s I was a very fit
handsome devil (I'm getting fairly long in tooth now, in my late 50s). I have been told by
my superiors that I exude a quiet, calm confidence and it seems that people perceive me as
being intelligent and polite. Apparently women find that mix attractive. As recently as ten
years ago, I had all kinds of women, from work, coming onto me. I know the difference
between some harmless flirting and the real thing, though, IMO, as inevitable as it may be,
even the harmless flirting should stay out of the work place. An attractive female employee
is in a boring meeting with me, I catch her looking at me, she smile coyly, bats her eyes,
flips her hair back a little and looks at me again with a sultry smile. That's harmless
flirting. Used to happen all of the time. Debriefing over a cocktail on a business trip
with a female employee, in the hotel bar, and she starts running her foot up my leg, that's
crossing the line. That kind of scenario used to happen frequently too. Married women,
single, older, younger, peers, bosses, staff – and, especially, when they were
engaged to be married. Are they going to be ticked off and vengeful if I turn them down?
Would they destroy me later if I take them up on their offer? I didn't want to find out.
Best to avoid the situation.
Anyhow, it seems to me that hiring high quality people in the first place diminishes the
risk significantly. No one with talent and ambition wants to sacrifice a rewarding
corporate career by starting trouble over "me too" nonsense. That goes for both the alleged
perpetrator and the alleged victim in scenario. So far, I haven't become aware of any
accusations or legal issues at work.
As for the grandfather/woke grand daughter thing, I hadn't thought about that, but,
sadly, you have a good point there. Idiot school counselors and poorly raised scatter
brained friends can sway a forming young mind to say all kinds of damaging things.
Reply
Pray tell – what is wrong with single sex schools? I grew up in Germany when all
schools were either for male or female students, and I maintain I had a more respectful
attitude towards females because of that.
But I forget – sex does not mean anything, as anyone can freely choose Zir, Hir,
Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir preferred possessive pronoun for Zir, Hir, Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir preferred
gender..which makes establishing schools for about 63 genders ( http://www.hoschl.cz/files/6035_cz_Genders.pdf
) rather improbable .
Reply
Time to explore the prevailing wisdom that led to some of those "stuffy, old-fashioned
codes of conduct" that maybe were not to silly after all.
Perhaps they offered more freedom, than our modern version of freedom has afforded.
Freedom from STDs; freedom from false accusations; freedom of movement in public
settings; freedom from drunken harassment and freedom morning after remorse; freedom from
solo parent impoverishment -- though the story of the "plucky orphan" was long fodder for
coming of age literature classics .
Just re-watched the Shirley Temple "Heidi" – plucky orphan on steroids, matched
only by Anne of Green Gables as female empowerment role models who did thrive in a world of
code of conduct restrictions..
Reply
Walrus, unfortunately I have to agree with you. We are approaching the point where
husband and wife need to sign a consent agreement to have sex. Young adults' are simply
avoiding the subject due to social pressures.
Our experts are deflecting "Liberal" ideas with other factors:
Annotated freedom of association, set forth in statute.
But at one time, no did mean no so there was no need for this. But also over time,
fostered by the "free sex" social changes, saying no did not matter – and rape
laws already on the books were somehow deemed insufficient. He said, she said created
the impasse this statute attempted to correct. But did it?
Regarding "the demonisation of White heterosexual Males in all its forms",
I would like to add some evidence, and some historical background.
The two links below, of articles written by an anonymous American professor, give some
vivid evidence.
Each link is followed by a quote from the linked page.
"In the midst of all of this "inclusion," one can look in vain for anything positive for
Whites, Europeans, etc.
The only mention of Whites, as a group, is always in a purely negative sense."
"The curriculum of my institution is to be changed to prioritize "social justice" over
all else; indeed, we have been told that we need to de-emphasize actual scholarship, the
teaching of objective facts, and providing a truly enlightened liberal arts education in
favor of politicized far-left talking points. The entire curriculum is to be subordinated
to radical anti-White propaganda. Please note that this trend in American academia is not
restricted only to undergraduate education, but also extends into post-graduate education
of all sorts: graduate school, law school, medical school, etc. With respect to the latter,
the scientifically illiterate and hyper-politicized hysterics of the AMA are used to
justify curriculum changes at the level of medical education; one set of political hacks
justifies the lies and distortions of another group, and vice versa. All of these academic
and professional organizations are completely dominated by the Left."
I first encountered the demonization of my value system during my stint at Brandeis
Univ. from 1967 to 1973.
There, much to my amazement and shock,
the soldiers of the U.S. Army were called "babykillers".
Of course, there may have been isolated instances where Vietnamese children were wrongly
killed,
but it was commonplace to generalize this to the whole U.S. Army in VN.
Likewise, police were called, for no evident reason, "pigs".
It wasn't just the U.S. Army and the police that were trashed.
"Smash the establishment" (sometimes more specifically "Smash the WASP establishment")
was a commonly expressed demand.
Also, "the bourgeoisie", or "bourgeoisie values", were to be despised and scorned.
I am sure there were many at Brandeis who did not support such radical ideas, but they were
certainly more common there than in my previous environments.
As to hatred of whites and the then-mainstream white culture, there were three prominent
(non-Brandeis) examples;
1. Susan Sontag: "The white race is the cancer of human history"
2. (Somewhat later) Tim Wise
3. Weatherman John Jacobs, quoted in Mark Rudd's Underground : "We're against
everything that's good and decent in honky America. We will burn and loot and destroy. We
are the incubation of your mother's nightmare."
There's another possible outcome. That is one where the bottom 80% of men (the ones that
the average woman thinks are 'below average' in attractiveness) can't get a middle-class
job at all. They are limited to jobs which are dangerous (e.g. police officer, firefighter,
construction), dirty (refuse collector, sewage worker) or unglamorous (e.g. bicycle-based
delivery operative – jobs which the women don't want. The 'top jobs' are all held by
women and the small number of men they are interested in.
Reply
You left out race. Having had to fire a couple of protected class employees over the years
was only marginally better- in regards to the negative blowback on the manager – than the
problems you describe. In addition to the grandfathers you should realize father's have faced
such false allegations since at least the '80s. Try giving your 2 year old a bath today and see
what accusation you might have to defend yourself from in a decade. Thank feminists and the
lgbt+ movements for that. walrus says:
April 11, 2021 at 9:09 am
Fred, I've never fired a member of a minority. What works better is to declare them
"redundant' (ie: their job just disappeared) so its no fault and a tax free $30k – $50k
compensation payment on top of their legal entitlements to make it a little sweeter.
Fred says:
April 11, 2021 at 12:11 pm
Walrus,
These employees committed theft. The last one pre-commited company funds then provided false
documentation multiple times to the general auditors office. I didn't fire that one, I had to
do the retraining route. He decided to leave on his own accord .
Reply
Do these things happen by mass hysteria, or by intent ? The former tends to burn itself
out when the promised rewards do not arrive. It would be interesting to work up the chain
to the source of the money and intellectual force required to power all this and to co-opt
government acquiescence.
Walrus, may I add two more:
5. An attempted capture of the new power center, that being instant access to the minds
of the public, created by social media in the last fifteen years, in a way proven
successful by the lodgement of 'progressive' forces within education systems decades
earlier. Nature, and 'progressives' abhor a vacuum, and it's well underway now.
Nothing decisive would result, merely the capture of newly available ground. Note that
existing ground held by established powers are left untouched.
6. In the US, a division between 'woke' States and the deplorable States, characterized
by deliberate legislative differences and measured by the movement of people to States that
reflect their ideological preferences. Will the 'woke' States offer full employment
economies, and would that even matter to the woke refugees ?
The key word of point 6. is 'division', and the US cannot maintain it's place in the world
in that condition. All of this will not be reversed except by force and with the backing of
the majority, even a bare one, of the US population. That force will need to be headed by a
non-conforming leader with the credibility to muster it and to administer what comes after,
and that ain't Karmala.
Reply
A friend of mine's sister went to a therapist who convinced the sister her parents had
messed with her mind by performing satanic rituals on her when she was young and and had
suppressed the memories. Supposedly, the therapist had helped her recover these traumatic
events when, in fact, the therapist had implanted them. This took place in the 80s when
many innocent people were accused of performing satanist rituals, sometimes including human
sacrifice. There were some real devil worshiping killings but it turned into an out of
control witch hunt.
The sister eventually recovered her sanity after tormenting her family for a couple of
years and made up with her parents. Therapists track most of their patients problems back
to the parents, based on Freudian theory, even when the problem is drug and alcohol abuse,
as it was with this woman. The father was a Methodist minister.
Today sexism and racism are as over blown as satanism was in the 80s. I wonder what the
next media implanted Big Trauma will be?
Reply
I'm not sure how widespread therapeutic malpractice is but at times I wonder how
rigorous is the field of psychology? I think it is important to study human behavior
but I question if it can be generalized and whether it is capable of capturing nuance.
The one problem that I have with the practice is the incentive structure. It is
$/billable hour not $/outcome. The incentive is clearly to increase billable hours.
In any case I recall well the McMartin case and the surrounding media hysteria and
witch-hunts. Reminiscent of the current woke and cancel culture hysteria.
I don't know, but will try to find out and post here.
That witch-hunt felt *very fishy* even at the time..
almost like there was a subtext-in-the-making.
I wrote a post on the above-mentioned subject but I deleted it. I will not discuss the
demonisation of White heterosexual Males in all its forms for fear of cancellation. I will
instead leave you with my conclusions – which are consistent with The Walrus Law;
Governments achieve the reverse of their stated objectives.
Conclusion 1. No white male corporate manager is going to risk their career by engaging in
any of the following actions:
– Mentoring female subordinates.
– Taking one on one meetings with any female.
– Participating in any but the most innocuous social functions with female subordinates
and certainly not where alcohol is present.
– In fact avoiding any one on one situation with a female.
– It also stands to reason that women will not be employed or promoted if sufficient
excuse can be found. There wasn't a glass ceiling. There is now.
Why? Because a female subordinate can now permanently end a males career in a microsecond by
the act of alleging any impropriety thanks to #metoo. No proof is required.
Conclusion 2. The British/ European/ American class system is coming back with a vengeance.
Young men and their parents will confine their search for partners and social interactions, to
females of the same social strata, values, financial resources and background as their own.
This is not a guarantee of marital harmony, It does however decrease the likelihood of a male
being accused of relationship and career destroying improprieties twenty years after the
alleged event. You can forget marrying 'for love' outside your social class.
Conclusion 3. Male behaviour in the upper and middle classes is indeed going to change. We
will witness the return of the Chaperone for males. We will witness the end of many mixed sex
parties and entertainments because of the ever present threat of denouncement. Expect single
sex private schools to flourish. Co -education is an invitation for a young males career to be
finished before it even starts – all it takes these days is an allegation made perhaps
years and years after the alleged "event". The first a young male will know about it is when he
is arrested and handcuffed.
Conclusion 4. The nature of families is going to change. We are going to see the return of
stereotyped roles. Case in point? As a Grandfather I have decided I will have nothing more to
do with the informal upbringing of grand daughters – there is too much risk that if they
go off the rails in puberty or get involved in drugs, mental illness, etc. they will
conveniently blame sexual abuse by a relative as the cause. That means I will never allow
myself to be alone with them or be responsible for them ever and the rest of the family know
it. Period. The personal risk is just too great
I have examples to back up each conclusion but I will not share them with you.
I have not addressed the American race and firearm based issues but I would expect that
changes to firearm laws and characterisation of various behaviors as "extremist' will also have
the same opposite effect from what Government intended.
Indeed. I suspect that if I were of dating age (and single) today I would go on to die
celibate. A minority of women have made engaging with the entire gender entirely too
dangerous.
Reply
We are an adaptive bunch; witness how successful Prohibition was, or the alleged 'War on
Drugs'. Look at how Trumps border wall was rapidly shot to hell with a few acetylene
torches and some hinges – making really nice gates for the coyotes to run people
through.
It's interesting that there is no actual, physical way that the number of guns out here
'in the wild' is even known, much less can be seized. Guns can be seized by the
ATF/FBI/etc. making a huge raid on a single family and killing them all as examples –
but once that card is played, the ante will be upped and things will not be as easy for
them. The gun grabbers are literally about 200 years too late, as the gun cow is long out
of the barn.
The Covidian Cult is waning finally – in spite of the push by the globalist CDC,
WHO, Big Pharma, MSM and many others. It's hard to push fear of dying when there is nothing
to base it on any longer.
So now we are back to Ukraine, where Biden is both well known and well connected. Russia
will swat anything approaching her borders, and may swat hard. I would not be surprised to
see our puny couple of ships in their sea crippled electronically, again. But Russia
doesn't want what NATO and Biden are serving for dinner.
It's the same old SSDD of world ending disasters to keep everyone afraid of everyone
else while the big wheels in government are sending contracts out to their family members
and their various foundations using money leveraged against our grandkids.
57 genders; women cannot be approached without opening yourself to legal actions and yet
they are all in the military and government positions in far larger percentages than people
realize. Our local school principal was recently accused of "inappropriate conduct" with a
female teacher who is so obese she requires an electric scooter to move her bulk about.
Having actually seen this female, it was obvious to me, as a man with normal appetites,
that approaching her would have resulted in disgorgement of the previous meal and not
engorgement of anything.
It's human nature that when you forbid something unilaterally, it becomes more
attractive to many, just for the sake of flouting convention. Perhaps that is what the
morbidly obese teacher is striving for?
We are entering the Land of Unintended Consequences, and there is no way but
through.
The replace class conflict with race conflict. What can go wrong ?
Professional woke revolutionaries like
Chanequa Walker-Barnes
who is the
author is racial hate prayer (is not this a hate crime?) are similar to Russian Commissars. History repeats itself, first as
tragedy, second as farce.
A prayer book called "A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal," is a number one bestseller on Amazon in the
category "meditation".
One prayer, called "Prayer of a Weary Black Woman," by Dr. Chanequa Walker-Barnes, a theology professor at Mercer University,
starts:
"Dear God, Please help me to hate White people. Or at
least to want to hate them I want to stop caring about their misguided, racist souls, to stop believing that they can be better,
that they can stop being racist."
The "prayer" then describes the type of White person they want to hate -- not the actual blatantly racist ones, but the "wolves in
sheep's clothing" who "don't see color", are friendly and accepting on the surface.
"
Lord, if it be your will, harden my heart. Stop me from striving to see the best in
people. Stop me from being hopeful that White people can do and be better.
Let me imagine them instead as white-hooded
robes standing in front of burning crosses. Let me see them as hopelessly unrepentant, reprobate bigots who have blasphemed the
Holy Spirit and who need to be handed over to the evil one."
"Grant me a Get Out of Judgment Free Card if I make White people the exception to your commandment to love our neighbors as we love
ourselves."
This is a sick, insane, religious cult of hateful people.
But institutions like
churches, schools, and corporations are pushing this blatant racism mainstream.
The book is also available at Target --
a
store which banned a book
that gave voice to transgender people who regretted their decisions to transition.
play_arrow
hmmmm
35 minutes ago
Maybe
include a prayer in your book... "Dear God, Please help me to hate black people. Or at least to want to hate
them I want to stop caring about their misguided, racist souls, to stop believing that they can be better,
that they can stop being racist."
Md4
57 minutes ago
""
Lord,
if it be your will, harden my heart. Stop me from striving to see the best in people. Stop me from being
hopeful that White people can do and be better."
Instead of whining...why not just leave?
America
isn't
the right place for a
lot
of
people anymore...
...so
just
go.
You'll
be happier.
And
we'll
be
happier.
You'll
see...
Meatier Shower
1 hour ago
"
It
was not part of their blood, it came to them very late, with long arrears to make good, when the Saxon began
to hate.
They were not easily moved, they were icy – willing
to wait til every count should be proved, ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low. Their eyes were
level and straight. There was neither sign nor show, when the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd. It was not
taught by the state. No man spoke it aloud when the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred. It will not swiftly
abate. Through the chilled years ahead, when time shall count from the date that the Saxon began to hate."
-
Rudyard Kipling
Sol Invictvs
2 hours ago
(Edited)
They're worshiping the devil. There's no room for racial hate if you believe in God.
Kanzen Saimin
1 hour ago
remove
link
"If you or anyone in your
household identifies as Black, Indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), including anyone with Abenaki or
other First Nations heritage, all household members who are 16 years or older can sign up to get a
vaccine."
Health Vermont does not explain why there is a
racially segregated line for the Covid vaccine -- apparently it's just the woke thing to do these days
Health
Vermont does not admit eugenics is in play.
12Doberman
1 hour ago
They've become what they supposedly despise. They clearly have believed their own propaganda. Makes you
wonder what's coming next...white's to be deprived of their property?
homeskillet
1 hour ago
(Edited)
This is beyond the pale, the elites are pushing for a race ware - chaos and violence.
They are the
entities that should be destroyed.
jonesbeach
1 hour ago
Progressivism is not a religion of peace.
HonorSeeker
1 hour ago
(Edited)
It's more like a cult. Its members are recruited for their vulnerability, for their desperation, and for
their willingness to blame others for their failings. The members are groomed, brain-washed and then
released upon the nation they are to act like parasites against by sapping the nation's spirit and sowing
discord.
Liesel
1 hour ago
remove
link
I just
saw the book on Amazon. Interesting enough, there were "666" reviews. You just can't make this stuff up.
secretspaniel
1 hour ago
remove
link
Blacks
are not behind this, this whole issue is being weaponised to foment a race war to destroy us
JohnGaltsChild
1 hour ago
I refused to go
into a Target the moment they started blended gender toy departments.
They're sick.
A Girl In Flyover Country
1 hour ago
There
is no stopping the decline of the American empire. I wish I was wrong.
Macho Latte
1 hour ago
(Edited)
WOKE
HATE IS JUST GETTING STARTED
GET
YOUR CHILDREN AS FAR AWAY FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL AS YOU CAN
11.
The Public Schools - will ramp up their level of political indoctrination including severe anti-family,
anti-white rhetoric and Woke Hate. History will be re-written destroying every level of pride in America.
Prepubescent children will be made to question their gender. Heterosexual white boys will be emasculated and
demonized. Interracial sex for white girls will be encouraged. The destruction of childhood will be the most
horrible consequence of Woke Hate which will be administered mostly by hateful, indoctrinated, white women
with children (mothers). The incalculable psychological damage to our youth will last generations.
Demoralized, many will become addicted to prescription drugs. Many will commit suicide.
Neo2021
1 hour ago
I
guess that's not racist. I stopped reading after learning the author's name; Dr. Chaneqa Walker. I was
laughing too hard. Where is the outrage?
Ms No
PREMIUM
1 hour ago
remove
link
People
should buy a copy of that. It will be worth money as a Bolshevik relic. This won't last for ever but it's
most insane displays will have shock value forever.
NewMouldy
1 hour ago
remove
link
Like rap music. I remember saying in the 80's "this will only be a fad" (sigh)
secretspaniel
1 hour ago
The
elite are really pushing for a race war that they know will cause minorities to suffer most of all - they
are literal Nazis and the real racists. Let's not forget that the people pushing this only consider
themselves white when it suits their purposes. They hate black and white equally and are total extremists.
Xena fobe
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Chanequa has some kind of mental health disorder.
Paranoid or schizophrenic.
Hyper Entropy
2 hours ago
How
come no Targets got burned down during the riots?
Huckleberry Pie
1 hour ago
Because the looters were trying to get home with all their 'reparations'. Hard to start a fire, when your
arms are full of stolen $hit.
Miler52
1 hour ago
This
absurdity needs to stop. Keep stirring the pot with this divisional crap and all hell well erupt
eventually. Not all 12.6% of America which is the black population support this stupidity and those that do
are imbeciles and incapable of making a difference anyway. Some people are itching for a racial explosion
and a completely unsafe America. They will find it very regrettable supporting such a toxic ideology.
5G-Powered Nanobots
1 hour ago
I
would bet 90% of blacks in America don't support this nonsense.
mike6972
1 hour ago
It may
not be 90%. But it's probably at least 75%.
Miler52
1 hour ago
Whatever the percentage actually is, the majority of Americans of any ethnicity do not support this ongoing
assault on Americas ability to respect one another. And the majority of Americans are angry about the open
border, the massive, abusive spend, raising taxes, the misleading HR1, packing the Supreme Court, the arrack
on the 2nd Amendment, etc. This is all being done by a minority of people to collapse America.
Sol Invictvs
1 hour ago
All
race hustlers need rope or lead.
For
the sake of humanity.
Kanzen Saimin
1 hour ago
remove
link
If
you've never seen the movie 'Crash', I would highly recommend it. This "Chanequa" reminds me of the
character (wait for it...) Shaniqua.
That is a FAVE shock fake event. Write a racial slur on the wall somewhere (with a member of the victim
class doing the writing), then send a letter to all the alumni from the college president decrying the
episode whilst beating the drum for more indoctrination/re-education. When my college did this to me as
an alumnus, and I couldnt respond to the college president's email (bounceback), I called the alumni
office and cancelled all further contact with the school.
Ms No
PREMIUM
2 hours ago
It's a
favorite tactic lately.
"The
suspect who allegedly vandalized four synagogues in Brooklyn with anti-Semitic graffiti over the weekend has
been identified as 39-year-old Emil Benjamin, who is a Jewish man from Brooklyn."
"The
person arrested for a spate of anti-Semitic graffiti in New York is
apparently
just mad about a business dispute
and not on a hate campaign against ****; in fact, he's Jewish."
(Really, they accepted that excuse? That wouldn't work for us)
"An
alleged anti-Semitic attack on a kosher-style café in Winnipeg, Canada was staged by the owners of the
restaurant, police now say."
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
The talk shows and editorial pages are full of questions. What is the basis for acting so forcefully against Georgia? If Georgia
is racist, how can baseball talk of doing business with China? Mr. Manfred failed to spell out specific criticisms of Georgia's
voting law. Now he's put himself in the awkward position of having to defend Colorado's voting laws.
During my time as commissioner, I learned that the American people view baseball as a public trust. They want the game to stand
for the best and noblest of our national virtues. They see baseball as the repository of their dreams, even as they root for
their favorite teams. They don't want, and won't accept, anything that separates them from the game's history and leadership.
Major League Baseball can't become a weapon in the culture wars, a hostage for one political party or ideology. It can't be only
for the rich or the poor, nor can it only be for one race, as it was until 1947. Baseball must always stand above politics and
its dark elements of corruption, greed and sordid selfishness. It can't go wrong by standing for national greatness.
The situation calls to mind the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, when many erred -- like Mr. Manfred has here -- by leaping to a conclusion
based on assumptions rather than carefully considered facts. I've done the same thing, to my regret. Much rides on Mr. Manfred's
shoulders so he must be prudent. Perhaps he now sees how complicated these issues can become. I wish him well.
Mr. Vincent was commissioner of baseball, 1989-92.
Truth SQ 1 hour ago Here's a crazy idea - how about hire the best person for the job? Reply
4 JBer 46 minutes ago The interest might be there, the candidates probably aren't. Reply 2
Jones 44 minutes ago These statements are just game plays to project an image as being a good
company. At the end of the day the higher ups / managers have their own buddies / crownies /
clowns that they keep promoting. Reply 2 Yo 15 minutes ago Companies are making public
statements because they fear being canceled more than they fear losing money on bad decisions.
It is the old Pleasure Pain equation. When the pleasure derived from taking an specific action
exceeds the pain involved by taking the action, you are more likely to take the action. When
the pleasure derived from taking a specific action is exceeded by the pain of taking the
action, you are more likely to not take the action. Corporations are making these judgement
calls on everything from social justice, climate change, and the woke religion. Corporations
are interested in one thing... how to separate you from your hard earned money. When "wokism"
no longer pays, corporations will stop the insanity. Rational people need to start making
corporations pay for choosing wokism over rational thought.
Anthony 16 minutes ago The race card over and over. Hire qualified and be open minded and then
satisfaction will follow.
eric 1 hour ago Oh good, hiring based on race. What is the worst that could happen?
This is a classic "divide and conquer" strategy for corporation, which distract population from neoliberal abuses of Wall Street
banksters and financialization of the economy. It also helps to suppress the wave of populism, heat from which corporation felt very
well. Paradoxically the leaden of the most pro-corporations Party voiced his objections against such behaviour of major
corporatins.
Mr. McConnell accused Democrats of spreading misinformation about the Georgia legislation to justify their plans to ram throuth
Senate
For the People Act
,
which facilitated voting fraud. The bill passed the House, 220-210. No Republicans voted for it.
"This power grab is impossible to defend, so the left wants to deflect. Instead of winning the debate, they want to silence debate
by bullying citizens and entire states into submission," Mr. McConnell said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Monday warned of "serious consequences" if corporations continue to use their
economic power to support 'far-left causes,' the latest being a lemming response to the new voting law in Georgia, according
to
Bloomberg
.
"From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep
dabbling
in behaving like a woke parallel government,
" he said, adding
"Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside
the constitutional order."
McConnell's rebuke comes as
a number of
corporations, including Delta Air Lines Inc. and the Coca-Cola Co., have criticized Georgia's new election law. Major
League Baseball moved its All-Star Game from Atlanta, a move endorsed by President Joe Biden
.
McConnell dismissed comparisons of Georgia's new voting laws, passed by Republicans, to
the Jim Crow voting restrictions for African-Americans. He said
many states run by
Democrats, including New York, have fewer days of early voting than Georgia's new law requires, and he cited polling
showing most Americans favor voter ID requirements
. -Bloomberg
"Nobody really thinks this current dispute comes anywhere near the horrific racist brutality of segregation," said McConnell -
mocking Democrats for their dramatic Jim Crow analogy.
"Our private sector must stop taking cues from the Outrage-Industrial Complex," McConnell added. "
Americans
do not need or want big business to amplify disinformation or react to every manufactured controversy with frantic left-wing
signaling
."
JimmyJones
2 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Eat a Big
"icecream cone" McConnel, you POS. You knew that last election was a complete fraud and you did nothing even
worse actively worked against the uncovering and exposing of that fraud. As if we don't see through your fake
outrage. I hope you are primaried and replaced.
McConnel
you are a Traitor, we all know.
znilboy
2 hours ago
Guess
he thinks enough time has passed and we forgot already..
Ghost of Porky
1 hour ago
Nearly
50 years as a conservative in public office.
Hasn't
conserved a damn thing.
Buzz-Kill
19 minutes ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Mitch's public service, for the people, has made him very wealthy.
How
did that happen? Term Limits PLEASE!!!
Kayman
1 hour ago
remove
link
Despite McConnell doing nothing about clipping the wings of this Woke Corporatism, at least he is mouthing
the words,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says there is surging "aggression against white
people" in the United States and that it is harming efforts to fight racism.
Lavrov made the comments during an interview with political scientists that was broadcast on national television.
"We were pioneers of the movement promoting equal rights of people of any skin color," said
Lavrov, adding that
"everyone wants to get rid of racism."
However, he emphasized how it was
important "not to switch to the other extreme which we saw
during the 'BLM' (Black Lives Matter) events and the aggression against white people, white U.S. citizens."
Lavrov also insisted that
forces within the U.S. were trying to spread a "cultural
revolution" around the world by forcing "diversity" down everyone's throats.
"Hollywood is now also changing its rules so that everything reflects the diversity of modern society," he said, labeling it "a form
of censorship."
"I've seen Black people play in Shakespeare's comedies. Only I don't know when there will be a white Othello," Lavrov said.
"You see this is absurd. Political correctness taken to the point of absurdity will not end
well,"
he concluded.
As we
previously
highlighted
, after every mass shooting, journalists and leftists rush to blame white people even before the perpetrator has been
identified.
In the case of the Boulder supermarket shooting, this backfired massively after it was revealed that the gunman was an Islamist
immigrant from the Middle East.
After the Atlanta shooting attack which targeted massage parlors, the media once again whipped up hysteria over "white supremacy,"
despite the fact that authorities found absolutely zero evidence the assault was motivated by race.
This led New York Times contributor Damon Young to assert that
"whiteness is a pandemic" and
"the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it."
"He was not fired from his job at The Root and the New York Times refused to condemn him -- such proclamations are what they pay him
for!"
writes
Chris Menahan
.
This narrative, in addition to Critical Race Theory, which teaches that all the United
States' problems are the fault of white people, has clearly created an atmosphere where race hate directed towards white people is
not only tolerated, it is openly encouraged.
Lordflin
6 hours ago
(Edited)
I feel as
though I have woken up on the other side of the looking glass...
We are the ones
on the 'other side of the iron curtain' my friends...
Something of a
surreal experience, wouldn't you say...?
r0mulus
5 hours ago
(Edited)
It's a
convenient scapegoat the hegemons are hoping to hide themselves in while the USA wanes and the USD/American
dream slowly melts into a supranational corporate, fascist dystopia. We're a good way on our journey, not
too much further to go now. Writing is and has been on the wall.
r0mulus
5 hours ago
I
honestly don't know enough about the upper reaches of the "deep state" power structure to be able to say for
sure, but I do know that they are interested in dominating everything forever in a self-perpetuating rentier
and seignorage friendly autocracy, and that as subjects to their power, we've no rights to fair markets, no
rights to fair legal systems, and even increasingly no rights to fair scientific/empirical systems
(definition of reality). How could one living with an honest understanding of that situation ever want to
support such a society?
Misesmissesme
6 hours ago
South
Africa part deux
DPLETTENBERG
6 hours ago
Similar but not quite like South Africa. Here a small minority (16%) of the population is somehow given
power and control over the majority.
Christian whites have been ingrained with the idea of forgiveness and turning the other cheek. This belief
may well cause our destruction. It's time to value truth over turning the other cheek.
r0mulus
5 hours ago
Well
said- I've been curious as to what the thoughts of non-"black" Afrikaaners have been about their society...
two hoots
6 hours ago
(Edited)
Life
is like the yellow brick road, as you approach the end you discover the many perceptions and beliefs that
provided your support along the way are mostly fallacies, manipulations and deceptions. Once there, don't
linger on it, accept it and find your peace. Life is.
eatthebanksters
5 hours ago
Except
the percentage of the population who are white and who agree the left is nuts is far larger than in South
Africa. South Africa didn't need to cheat to win an election.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0
6 hours ago
As
someone who served in the former West Germany during the Cold War, yes, it is a very strange time.
Sir Edge
6 hours ago
Russia's Lavrov Warns
Of
Surging Anti-White Racism In US
Wow...
There goes Russia again meddling in USA affairs by
telling
the truth
...
chunga
6 hours ago
This
Lavrov is an impressive individual. I don't think we have anything like him in the US.
Ignatius
6 hours ago
(Edited)
My
concern is that Lavrov's statements -- which, in isolation, I agree with -- feeds
the
narrative
that if one is against CRT then one is obviously a Russian agent (aka, more "Russian
collusion" BS).
Our
current overlords are a clever, though evil lot. Don't underestimate them.
chunga
6 hours ago
The
fake news experts will say that. Who cares.
I
remember a few years ago there was a fake news conference of some sort and a bunch of the talkers were
shouting questions at Lavrov like maniacs and Lavrov just laughed at them, completely un-phased and said
"where are your manners?" The guy is clearly cut from a different cloth.
Biff M
6 hours ago
...white people and males. [there. I fixed it for ya]
enjoy
your S Africa experience.
SQRT 69
6 hours ago
remove
link
Big
difference in S. Africa where whites were an overwhelming minority to blacks. Here in the US whites are
still the majority while blacks are roughly 13%. The intelligent ones know that this is a setup by the
ruling class (Anglo Zionist Cabal) to create a polarized society that doesn't notice the show going on
right before their eyes, i.e. the Cabal looting the nation and leaving behind a hollowed out corpse.
harvester0fsorrow
6 hours ago
Russian leaders are far more intelligent and honest than ours. Sad that the once free-est nation in the
world is now turnimg quickly fascist. no...it cannot end well
WorkingClassMan
6 hours ago
Turning quickly maoist. This is almost the exact same playbook, complete with Red Guard mobs.
TBT or not TBT
6 hours ago
And
the Marxist struggle sessions. It's amazing to see my wife's zoom style meetings during the faux plague
spending time on trading confessions of guilt for all imaginable bias and insensitivity.
Portal
6 hours ago
remove
link
It's
not entirely about racism.
Democrats want to deconstruct America.
Destroy small businesses, the bastion of free market capitalism. Destroy traditions. Destroy cultural
sports. Destroy the military. Destroy the Constitution. Destroy elections. The list goes on...
cforeman44z
6 hours ago
remove
link
WHO
owns the media? If you know, then you will know WHO is behind this cultural revolution and WHO the TRUE
ENEMY is.
LeadPipeDreams
6 hours ago
...
forces
within the U.S. were trying to spread a "cultural revolution" around the world by forcing "diversity"
down everyone's throats.
Uh...these (((forces))) within the U.S. have been trying to spread a "cultural revolution" in every country
for millenia. The U.S. is simply (((their))) primary target at the moment.
Iron Noob
4 hours ago
remove
link
Russia
wants sanity to prevail so that it can avoid a nuclear exchange with the US. That is why it is trying to
make common cause with the sane people in the US.
So, "black bolshevism" is onthe upswing. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as
farce."
And those executives who signed the letter actually are trying to prolong the rule of
neoliberalism in the USA, the rule that hurts black population equally or more than white
population outside of top 10%.
ID
requirements are no more racist at the ballot box than they are on a Delta flight.
Corporate chieftains last year criticized Donald Trump for denying his re-election
defeat. So it's quite a spectacle to see them actively spreading the left's own big lie about
elections.
According to Delta
CEO Ed Bastian, there is only one reason Georgia passed a voting reform: to suppress the votes
of black Americans and other minorities. Georgia's Republican Legislature used the "excuse" of
voter fraud to "make it harder for many underrepresented voters" to "exercise their
constitutional right to elect their representatives," Mr. Bastian wrote this week in a memo to
employees.
Mr. Bastian has plenty of company in the C-suites. Some 72 black executives, including the
CEO of Merck and a former CEO of American Express, signed an open letter calling on corporate
colleagues to fight "undemocratic" and "un-American" GOP efforts across the states to "assault"
the "fundamental tenets of our democracy." Coca-Cola , Microsoft and Apple chimed in, and dozens more are readying
outraged press releases.
Nancy Pelosi
couldn't be more thrilled. Democrats and the activist left have long honed their techniques for
intimidating corporations. They successfully pressured companies into withdrawing contributions
from free-market groups, into embracing a climate-change agenda, into refraining from political
contributions, into adopting new "social" investment criteria.
Enlisting corporate America to help peddle a patently false narrative is their biggest
success by far. The left spent last year using litigation and political pressure to alter and
weaken election standards across the country. Democratic lawmakers and the Biden
administration moved swiftly to cement this effort with a federal takeover of state election
law, the bill known as H.R.1.
Its enactment is still no sure thing, so the left is trying to block election-reform efforts
at the state level. Central to this campaign is the dishonest claim that Republicans are
launching these efforts only because they lost the White House and because they want to cripple
the minority vote. Activists have spent weeks threatening companies that didn't join them with
boycotts, protests and the label of "Jim Crow racists," and companies have complied.
Thus the sight of the nation's top business leaders monotonously reciting a fact-free
narrative. As they know, state legislatures are moving to reaffirm longstanding rules and
restore confidence in electoral systems that were arbitrarily remade during Covid. ID
requirements are no more racist at the ballot box than on a Delta flight. Some 36 states have
them, and they've been upheld by the Supreme Court. It isn't Jim Crow to codify the use of
the ad hoc drop boxes that sprung up last year. It isn't voter suppression to reaffirm that
activists aren't allowed to approach voters in line, especially to solicit votes with gifts
(contrary to urban legend, the Georgia law allows poll workers to provide water). The Georgia
law expands voting, adding early voting on more weekends and providing additional equipment and
poll workers in larger precincts.
Mr. Bastian's moralizing memo fails to cite a single one of the supposedly "egregious
measures" in the bill that will suppress the vote, although he does stress he hears his
employees' "pain."
The letter from the 72 executives misstates the Georgia rules, suggesting the only way to
satisfy the ID requirement is with a driver's license, even though "200,000 Georgians lack a
license." In fact, voters can also use a free, state-issued nondriver ID, and those who lack
one can fulfill the requirement with a Social Security number or even a copy of a "current
utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck." The letter suggests the Georgia
"playbook" -- enacting rules less onerous than those in many blue states, as Karl Rove has
noted
in these pages -- is of a piece with "police dogs, poll taxes, literacy taxes." One can only
hope Merck is more rigorous when conducting pharmaceutical trials.
Corporate CEOs may think this virtue signaling will spare them the left's boycotts or
Democrats' punitive legislative measures. That's a sucker's bet given this week's Democratic
plan to siphon $2.3 trillion from corporations to fund new spending. Meanwhile, longtime
Republican defenders of corporate activity are rapidly losing interest in aiding CEOs who
promote partisan conspiracy theories. Witness Sen. Marco Rubio's fuming tweet on Thursday
calling Delta a "woke corporate hypocrite," noting that the company is "business partners with
the Chinese Communist Party," raking in "billions of dollars in a country that doesn't even
have elections."
Smart executives have long understood the value of political neutrality. Corporate America
is now throwing its lot in with one of the most partisan, brass-knuckle, dishonest campaigns in
recent political history. It will be a long time mending fences with Republicans -- if that's
even possible.
The Great Commission to Uplift the American Negro is a long-running national project that
goes back at least to the 1850s. It's recurred in cycles that always eventually founder,
creating at best a "talented tenth"-type elite and leaving the great mass of the black
underclass where they are or worse.
It can only continue to the extent that it does because of willful ahistoriocity on the
part of its adherents, at least with respect to past cycles.
As our esteemed host has pointed out time and again, liberals are forbidden to know of any
history relevant to blacks prior to the 21st century other than slavery, Jim Crow, redlining,
and Emmett Till.
Why crime rises and falls is a devilishly complicated question.
In journalism, always a blaring alarm that a thumb-sucking pile of BS is about to follow.
In fact, insert anything you want in front of "is a complicated question." But crime in
particular is not complicated to explain. It's just unpleasant and embarrassing to face up
to.
The George Floyd incident is illustrative. Police were not being brutal or confrontational
when they approached Floyd. Floyd escalated the situation by refusing to comply with simple
instructions. This is at the root of almost all police/public confrontations.
Police are required to investigate a violation of the law. If you hinder that
investigation, physically resist or flee things go south. They can't just let you go if they
believe you did something illegal. Had Floyd cooperated he would have likely ended up with a
misdemeanor charge of passing a counterfeit bill,booked at the jail and bonded out in a
couple of hours.
Underclass negroes simply refuse to take the easy way out believing they can talk ( lie )
their way out of a situation of their own making or, failing that, flee and everybody will
just forget about it.
If you lived in an urban area through the 60s-90s urban crime wave, you could have
predicted this with more precision than Mr. Sharkey.
If you're looking for a sinister oligarch angle which explains people like Warren Buffett*
supporting BLM, perhaps the idea is to tank the values of gentrified urban property again in
order to make money by chopping up exurban/suburban farms into tract housing and selling it
to the urban refugees for the next 30-40 years. Then you scoop up the low value urban
property anticipating that the normies will actually demand policing again like they did in
1994 they can sell "redeveloped" real estate in cities to the kids who grew up in boring
suburbs again. Population churn yielding increased profits for eternity . . .
* a few years ago Buffett got into the realty brokerage business for some reason.
Americans are experiencing a crime wave unlike anything we've seen this century. After
decades of decline, shootings have surged in the past few years. In 2020, gun deaths reached
their highest point in U.S. history in the midst of a pandemic. In 2021, although researchers
can't yet say anything definite about overall crime, shooting incidents appear to be on the
rise in many places.
... Sharkey anticipated both the summer of anti-police protests and the possibility that
souring police-civilian relations would contribute to an increase in violent crime.
Thompson: The subtitle of your book Uneasy Peace is The Great Crime Decline, the
Renewal of City Life, and the Next War on Violence . Is it safe to say that the "great
crime decline" has come to an end?
Sharkey: I would say it is very clearly paused. What remains to be seen is just how
anomalous last year was. There's a possibility that this was just a year when social life was
completely destabilized in so many ways, and that resulted in a huge surge of violence that was
temporary. That's the hope.
Their public spaces have not been maintained. Their schools are underfunded.
"Underfunded" is a euphemism for "have students with low test scores." E.g., "Washington
D.C.'s underfunded schools." Presumably, it means "underfunded relative to some theoretical
amount of money, such as a gajillion dollars, that would be sufficient to raise these students'
test scores to average."
Unlike The Atlantic , I came up with 274 more murders in Chicago in 2020 and in 103
other cities back on January 6 in Taki's Magazine , which
has no paywall.
Since the Racial Reckoning was declared, blacks have been shooting people, mostly other
blacks, at a high rate.
Sharkey: My work looks most closely at where crime is happening, not at individual
victims. But there are some things we think we know. Intimate-partner violence increased in
2020. So did hate crimes against Asians. But the overall demographics of victims is
incredibly consistent over time. It's young people of color, particularly young men of color.
I don't see anything yet to indicate that's changed dramatically.
It's all those dark-skinned Tamil Brahmin young men of color shooting each other in suburban
New Jersey.
"the overall demographics of victims is incredibly consistent over time. It's young
people of color, particularly young men of color."
That's it for the victims all right. Tragic for sure. But let's focus on the perpetrators
for once, shall we? The perpetrators are bullets , and shots which ring out .
These things come from guns .
These things happen all by themselves, of course, so the solution is to make sure that
law-abiding people are never in control of these things, which happen. Have I got this right
now?
Sharkey is trying to take a victory lap. As a sociologist in his 30s, he "predicted" that
historically low crime rates would not stay historically low, confident he would be proven
prescient. He blamed it on not giving enough to blacks, which is catnip to sociologists, the
NPR crowd, and the media. His profession and clowns like Coates make him famous in his field
because he is available for soundbites suggesting that reparations are necessary. A few years
later, when the crime rate inevitably rises, he can say I told you so. He thought it might
take many years, but it was only about 6.
On a related note, I am beginning my book on how the introduction of critical race theory
into preschools, the banning of racist Dr. Seuss books, Netflix algorithms forcing people to
see previews of Beyonce's Black is King every time they touch their remote, and the new
privately-funded welfare programs for non-whites only have caused the crime rate to fall from
2020-2021 back to more typical levels. Watch for my interviews before 2030.
Yep, Sharkey made himself a major young academic star, and Steve explains how and why:
But crime rates mostly seem to go up and down depending up what Important People want.
E.g., from the early 1990s onward, Important People were sick of all the murders in New York
City, so New York eventually became the least homicidal big city in America.
The Elites wanted this rise in violent crime, so they could blame racists, the white
trash, the Deplorables, Middle America, whiteness, etc. That serves as cover for their
Satanic level of wealth accrued at the same time that they are murdering the middle class and
reducing the working class to beggary from Big Government.
This is not the only example of fake scholarship being employed to confirm the nonexistent
and implement damage on the Black community. In
Oregon , the Department of Education is urging teachers to register for training in what
they called "ethnomathematics." The reason being is that out of the blue they "feel (without
research or proof)" that White supremacy manifests itself in the focus on finding the right
answer in Math. This is based on their premise that amidst a pandemic, importance should be
placed on "dismantling racism in mathematics" rather than teaching skills that make black
students competent in Math.
More dumb shit for lack of a better descriptor. Now correct me if I am wrong, if math is so
racist, why do more half of Asians/Pacific
Islanders ( 52% ) scored at or above the
proficient level in math in the United States?
The results from the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), from 2015,
placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science.
According to the most recent data, the US is behind China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea
and ranks 37th
in proficiency in Math globally.
The progressive liberal academic is a heretic – an unprincipled person who as George
Orwell described in Animal Farm, thinks that some animals are more equal than others.
They know what is best for all and as such, all should think like them, be forced to think like
them or be censored if one thinks or dares to state otherwise. Thus, in their purview, even the
ridiculous becomes sane. Even if it means asserting that math, objectivity and science are
inherently racist. The
Seattle school district believes this, that math is a representation of white privilege and
structural racism. Why, for no other reason than the Oregon department of education does
– that showing your work and coming to the correct solution is something black students
can't do...
Woke Supremacy - Way Worse than White Privilege and Systemic RacismWhen you
promote Anti-racism, you get Anti-ArgumentTorrance
Stephens, PhD Mar 22 6 2
I am a relic. I am a child of segregation and remember the marches in Memphis during the
garbage strikes in 1968. I unlike many today claiming the experience of racism, was born in a
black only hospital in Memphis – John Gaston hospital .
Yesterday a friend of mine asked if I saw the Grammy's. I take it he already knew that my
answer was no, so he sent me two video clips. I gave up award shows decades ago for in my
purview they were merely a reflection of mindless celebrity twaddle. But being the person, I
am, I watched and saw something of a pornographic depiction during prime television. Couldn't
wrap my head around it, or how this was even considered to be TV friendly given the present
environment in which the Looney Tunes French skunk
Pepe Le Pew is suggested to propagate the toxic masculinity of rape culture and that
Dr.
Seuss books are racist. But what would one expect from a collective of folk who mandate
having a vagina or the color of one's skin is more important than competency for filling any
job or political appointment.
Then again, maybe two black women (questionable) shaking azz surrounded by other half naked
black women (questionable) twerking in cages, rubbing their puzzies together is the
representation of black female empowerment as defined most likely by white feminist. Strange
given that calling them women and the use of the word female reflects the patriarchy (see how
dumb these arguments or anti-arguments can be.) Things change so fast that it is difficult to
take any of this emotional dissonance serious. Just a year or two back, scientific papers were
published and even lauded that theorized about the " overt objectification and
dehumanization of Black people "and how " Black women
are sexually objectified at an interpersonal level ." Others lectured on " how
racist, sexist, and classist ideologies contributed to sexual objectification experiences
(SOEs) among African American women " and how "black women are more likely than white women
to be sexually objectified and perceived less than fully human."
There is so much going on in the age of woke supremacy that you cannot literally keep up.
Used to be that segregation was evil, now they segregate under the progressive guise of keeping
Black people safe from white people. Truth of the matter using FBI and Department of Justice
data, black folk would be way (more) safer around white folk than another Black folk. I am not
hating, just stating a fact, just like blacks are more likely to die from drowning , in particular kids
ages 5 to 14
, or a Stroke than by a white
cop. But my fault, I forgot that Math is racist. This is how the anti-argument of woke
supremacists functions.
All this idiocy started with the agenda of convincing US citizens that this country is the
worst and most racist ever has been going on since the 1960's. Each decade it's gotten worse. I
believe the goal is to condition people to accept extreme change. People will accept it because
they believe our present system is so hopeless and they're winning because it has substituted
the significance of narrative over fact and reason. The examples are too numerous to count
because the dialectic of woke supremacy is not rooted in science and ergo non-existent.
Take the recent shootings in Atlanta that targeted several message parlors. The quick take
for the purpose of narration was that this action was a hate crime and that it evidenced that
white supremacy was the cause of this given that the man charged killed eight people, six of
which were Asians and two whites. Thus, it was easy for an unsubstituted contention –
that this was confirmation of a rising tide of violence against Asian Americans (mostly Korean)
based on white supremacy and the words of Donald Trump regarding a virus originally from China
was why this happened. Although the record notes this man was a confirmed sex addict, who spent
time in rehabilitation for sex addiction and an eye witnesses report he always talked about
dealing with his
sex addiction by shooting up the message parlors that (lets be honest) take advantage of
illegal immigrants and turn them into prostitutes. Dude was on his way to Florida to do the
same. Also, data documents that Atlanta is one of the largest
hubs for adult and child trafficking. This was too reasonable and fact-based for the woke
anti-argument crew. All that mattered was the color of the folk he shot and that he was white,
not even to be considered was that one would think a white supremacist wouldn't shoot two white
people dead, pay to have sex with Asians in places he had visited or be motivated by a fear of
a virus called something by a former President.
There is also avoiding the fact that according to the
FBI and Urban Institute , Atlanta has an internal child/human sex trafficking
issue , in which minors , many recruited and
exploited for sex. It is estimated that around 100 adolescent girls are exploited each night in
Georgia via escort services, erotic/nude massage parlors, internet-based exploitation and other
avenues. The big cities presently reporting an increase in anti-Asian violence are place like
Oakland, San Francisco and New York (large democrat run places where most attackers are
non-white Blacks), not Atlanta. Thus, it is possible in the Atlanta shooting, race was not a
factor.
Yet this is too logical for the typical woke supremacist so they double down. Once upon a
time Kamala Harris was the first Asian American female senator, then became the first African
American Vice President and now she over night has changed into the first Asian American Vice
President to meet the narrative. The Anti-Argument woke supremacist do not and cannot
self-correct for it would support the notion that facts, math, science, reason and objectivity
are real, and that they could be wrong.
Sad truth is that this has been occurring since the
1980s in America. The Rev.
Al Sharpton had the gumption to suggest that former President Trump inspired this wave of
anti-Asian violence happening around the country. He forgets that in the 1990s he led a boycott
against Korean immigrants in Brooklyn which resulted in several Korean immigrant businesses
going out of business. The same was true during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots which resulted in
more than
2,000 Korean-owned businesses being looted or burned (45 percent of all damages caused by
the riot). As I recall, none of the police who beat Rodney King were Asian.
The woke know this, and that this is an endemic behavior exhibited by the wokiest Blacks in
America. In past tweets, San Francisco school board's Vice President
Alison Collins called Asian Americans as 'house n***ers' and has been asked to resign but
indicates she will not. This is how woke supremacy is – be racist to others while at the
same time claim to be fighting anti-Black racism and white supremacy. The lack of
self-awareness is thick. Same is true for
Alexi McCammond , the short-lived Teen Vogue editor. She also had to go after her tweets
presenting racist tropes of Asian-Americans while in college surfaced. Prior to this, she was
wokity woke-woke.
Woke supremacy is dangerous. The problem isn't that the woke want to destroy everything, the
problem is that they will take everybody down with them just to divide everyone by skin color
alone. Merit-based activities by their axiological nature are racist and equal white supremacy
although such has been practiced around the world for centuries prior to the establishment of
America. No country that punishes folk for intelligence and hard work can survive. Sad thing is
the people who are the main pushers of this behavioral Fentanyl are the wealthiest of the
wealthy and most privileged Blacks in America – Lebron James, Oprah Winfrey, almost every
dimwit in Hollywood, Joy "homophobic" Reid and Don Lemon among others (one reason most people
hate Hollywood and celebrities at this point). Nobody gives a hoot what they think. Only the
woke supremacist would consider a multi-millionaire white black hybrid royal duchess oppressed.
If you can't concede to this then it's off with your head.
Unfortunately, there will never be an honest media again if we do not stand and fight back.
We are too far gone for words and conversations. These people have no good intentions. They
want revenge. They have no problem lying to further their goals because they are disingenuous
actors to begin with. If Americans aren't ready to stand up and treat these people as tyrants,
then it's really going to get worse. Why? Because these people are so focused on grievances
they forget to live, and pull everyone down with them. Me, I only live when I sleep, then I
awake. Had no reason to become woke for I already was. The thing is with these cats is that
like in a clique of cannibals, one day, it's your azz on the plate. 6 2
It's nice to know that intelligent people are as fed up with woke insanity as I am. Hang in
there, doc, by the end of Biden's term (Harris, rather) enough dummies will be on our side to
enable the MAGA movement to return in triumph.
@Alfred ent to spend a weekend in Oslo she was shocked how we would go through some areas
where you wouldnt see any white people.
If no one told you that was Oslo, you wouldnt had figure it out by yourself.
When i registered to take Norwegian classes, that i was paying, a few days before the
course started i was informed that i have lost my position to someone because they had
refugee status WTF?? I am paying and still i dont have priority? Their reply but you are
European, others need more than you.
Every other ad has a mixed couple, every company makes sure their image, etc is associated
with "diversity".
Seriously, is no different from Netherlands, France, etc
There is absolutely no reason at all for any American, especially white ones, to fight and
die for the Zionist-Washington empire. Even America's "decline" is misleading. It is the
American EMPIRE in decline, not the continental heartland of the USA itself. Don't join the
military.
" .whites have no reason to fight for a government that discriminates against them,
replaces them through immigration, and scorns their heritage."
This is perhaps more true and more dangerous than the author realizes.
In the US Army the combat arms-infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers-are staffed at
the enlisted level mostly with patriotic middle class whites from rural backgrounds. Support
jobs like cook, field wireman, supply clerk, etc. are populated with folks having a different
socio economic profile.
If the very people the USG-and especially the current Administration-are doing their
utmost to alienate stop enlisting and reenlisting, well, who is going to pull the
trigger?
@anonymousperson unauthorized Capitol tour upped the ante even more. The US government is
demonizing the very backbone of the US military – right-leaning white [men] – to
an absolutely astounding extent. It's like they are trying to collapse the empire. Maybe they
are.
Anyway I brought all this up with this guy and he just said "I don't really follow all
that." And for every uninformed and apathetic vet like this guy, there are probably a few
uninformed and apathetic 18 year olds who want to enlist. Perhaps the saving grace is that
these boys (and girls) will not reenlist like they used to, thus starving the military of
NCOs, or at least white ones.
In the US Army the combat arms-infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers-are staffed
at the enlisted level mostly with patriotic middle class whites from rural backgrounds.
Support jobs like cook, field wireman, supply clerk, etc. are populated with folks having a
different socio economic profile.
If the very people the USG-and especially the current Administration-are doing their
utmost to alienate stop enlisting and reenlisting, well, who is going to pull the
trigger?
Hopefully, it will be Re'derrik, Enrique, Mohammed, Aahan, Chao, Stevie ( formerly Sally )
and Juan.
@AndrewR Concept of the operation is to turn the US into a South Africa or Zimbabwe
analog: not influential internationally, but with a regime protection force and no law to
speak of. To do this, the US military must be turned from a combat force into a regime
protection force. The US Army has largely given up direct combat employing conventional
infantry, has realized that special operations don't have a strategic effect (it's
essentially a force multiplier, an analog to the "forlorn hopes" of medieval warfare). That
is, the US Army is no longer a combat force. It is not, however, a regime protection force
and cannot be with current personnel. It would have to be re-populated (as was academia)
before it can be fully converted into a regime protection force.
Whites who don't hate themselves should welcome America's geopolitical decline and
eventual displacement. Anything that weakens this anti-white satrapy leading to its total
collapse is a good thing.
"Woke" racism is a form of financial oligarchy control of population. Specifically the
attempt to rule by classic "divide and conquer" strategy and hide the problems connected with the
collapse of neoliberalism in the USA under the smoke screen of racial injustice. So yes this is
replication of Bolshevik's practices.
Notable quotes:
"... I am appalled at what is currently occurring in schools in the U.S. Sadly, under the guise of progress, history is repeating itself in the country I chose to escape the nightmares of my early childhood. ..."
Mr. Bartning's account of his children's grade school's new "curriculum" hit a nerve in me.
I grew up in Poland, born shortly after World War II, so my early childhood experiences
included attending school in Stalinist and communist times.
We, too, were encouraged to report on each other and our parents: their habits, what radio
stations they listened to, etc. Since kindergarten we were spoon fed stories of heroic young
pioneers who, as activists, valued their country's leaders and its agenda above their own
families. We were taught two versions of the history of our country: one, official and
propagandized in school, the other, real and truthful at home. My parents later told me they
were afraid I would say something in school which would result in them being arrested.
I am appalled at what is currently occurring in schools in the U.S. Sadly, under the
guise of progress, history is repeating itself in the country I chose to escape the nightmares
of my early childhood.
Is not this a new variant of Soviet promotion of sons and daughters of "workers and peasants"
in university education on the new level.
Notable quotes:
"... But what colleges love more than anything are untalented, hard-working individuals that will stick around for years to get that degree. The tuition money just keeps rolling in and it doesn't matter whether it is mom and dad's money or the governments. ..."
"... Why do you think colleges have separate categories for military members using the GI Bill? Because even if they're dull the college knows they will pay their bill. ..."
Has an era of American mediocrity begun? In January the College Board announced it would
eliminate the essay portion of the SAT, as well as all of the separate SAT subject tests. Their
stated purpose was "reducing and simplifying demands on students." Such a burden.
One high school near me just dropped freshman advanced-standing (honors) English "to combat
the effects of academic 'tracking" because it "ultimately separates students of different
socioeconomic and racial backgrounds." It turns out that middle schools from lower-income areas
aren't adequately preparing their students for high school. So rather than fix that problem,
they dumbed down high school.
... ... ...
Virtually all universities and now many companies have D&I departments, for diversity
and inclusion. Sounds worthy. But as far as I can tell, the No. 1 job of a D&I department
is to hire more people into the D&I department. No one ever mentions
excellence.
T
Terrence M Ryan SUBSCRIBER 4 weeks ago Regression towards the mean is now more than a
statistical phenomenon, it is a policy. 5 Share link Report flag
B Barbara Shamah SUBSCRIBER 4 weeks ago This has been going on for a long time. By dumbing
down admissions for everyone, it's just now more open. China doesn't have to lift a finger.
Self destruction is here 19 Share link Report flag
B Blanche O'Brien SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago It's true that colleges are making it "easier" to
get in or more "holistic" as he says but that's because enrollments are down. The open
admissions policies like some have are making it harder for other colleges to "compete" in the
capitalist framework that they are all now using. So let's face it, it all comes down to money.
So what the author is really saying although it's probably not his intention ha ha, is that
capitalism is driving mediocrity! Don't get me wrong, the Boomer generation really did everyone
a disfavor by raising an entire generation of millennials to think that everyone is a "winner"
and to not be able to handle criticism. However, I think his argument is a bit off here as to
who (or what) is to blame.
J joseph barbato SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago The article mentions Hampshire College. Both the
author and the readers might appreciate this additional information about the school.
Enrollment between 2018 and 2019 was down 94%.
In other words, conservatives and Christians need not apply. 3 Share link Report
flag
W William McIntire SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Mediocrity isn't new. This trend has been in
place a long time. When I was in college in the early 80's it was already in place. After
recently being downsized in the engineering industry, where I worked for over 30 years, I would
note that college grads generally have no idea what the heck they are doing, as a rule. I got
to the point that more than 20 years ago I would not hire a new college grad from an
engineering school to work in my department. Few of them can think and even fewer can
articulate a basic sentence much less develop a study report. The last 10-15 years have been
the worst with functional illiterates being sent to my office for interviews that knew nothing
about the company they were interviewing for and could not demonstrate basic engineering
skills, much less communication skills. Their entire lives are centered around social media and
without cell coverage they are lost. I think about this every time I cross a bridge or overpass
these days. Doug Eaton SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago
Mediocrity isn't new.
What is new is the institutionalization of it.
C Charles Clemmons SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Thank goodness for Equity! College professors
will no longer have to fend off those bright students who ask pesky, penetrating questions.
Their classes will be filled with nescient victims giggling over their tired Bon mots. One can
hardly wait for a stampede of stupefication to hit grad school and the employment market. This
re-defined Know-Nothing movement should last at least as long as it takes an equity-selected
crew to crash a space vehicle. Like thumb_up 6 Share link Report flag
D Deirdre Hood SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago If you haven't watched the movie "Idiocracy", please
so so. We are there now...
Like thumb_up 6 Share link Report flag
P Paul Runge SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Vonnegut nailed it with his short story "Harrison
Bergeron". Welcome to the monkey house. 9 Share link Report flag
R Ross Johnston SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago I believe this was all indirectly predicted 25 years
ago in the Bell Curve. Ever since I read that book (which you can't unread) I wondered how it
would play out in a diversifying world - and now I see . Outperformance is now called "unfair
advantage" and merit is looked upon like Pol Pott's soldiers in the "Killings Fields" who asked
for the "academics" to step forward for "reeducation" - which landed them dead in a field with
a plastic bag tied around their head.
It really is the dumbing down of America, but I'm sure it's a global phenomenon. The SAT
Board has already had to dumb down the test twice over the past 15 years to keep scores moving
up as the cohort taking the test scored lower and lower on average. The elimination of the
modules is a logical next step if want to dumb it down further.
I doubt you want your Medicare/Medicaid covered heart surgeon to be from the Bahama's School
of Medicine - hired for reasons of diversity quota - with no class ranking - do you?
C Christopher Petersen SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago You don't get it, do you?
Colleges created diversity programs to create a larger clientele. Colleges still want the
smartest kids because having alumni become Nobel Laureates creates bragging rights. Colleges
also want really smart kids that are going to drop out and create amazing things because their
name will be attached to them forever. But what colleges love more than anything are
untalented, hard-working individuals that will stick around for years to get that degree. The
tuition money just keeps rolling in and it doesn't matter whether it is mom and dad's money or
the governments.
Why do you think colleges have separate categories for military members using the GI
Bill? Because even if they're dull the college knows they will pay their bill.
As for government...If you're mad about mediocrity and you got a stimulus check, either
donate it or put it in the shredder. If not, you're complicit in this.
P
Parul Dutt SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago This article feel like a rant that colleges have done away
with SAT and there is an undesired focus on Diversity and Inclusion. While I agree that America
must strive for exceptionalism , the author seems to be blind to the challenges that exist for
underprivileged students and minorities. Challenges are real and the playing field is not
leveled.
There has to be conversation on equitable education so that an underprivileged child has an
equal chance of success. Also, don't forget American colleges are not producing engineers and
technologists but relying on foreign students to fill the STEM void (I don't have statistics
but Silicon valley is built on the labors of engineers who come to the U.S. for higher
education or better future). Just doing away with the SAT may not be the ideal solution but
maybe the beginning of a conversation.
R Ronald Ganim SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Maybe a wealth tax isn't such a bad idea. We could
confiscate the wealth of the tech oligarchs and thereby eliminate their power to censor us on
social media. How about a law that no one can have wealth greater than $20 million (I'm under
that figure)? John Kerry would have to give up his private plane (thus helping the environment)
and Jack Dorsey wouldn't dare shut down anyone else on Twitter. As conservatives, maybe we
should start thinking outside the box!
B bruce miller SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago I have elsewhere advanced the same notion.
Why does progressivity in the IRC stop at $500K? Is an accountant, electrician or other small
business owner, earning $500K on the same footing as a tech plutocrat earning $50 million? Of
course not. Why are we defending these people who do not have our best interests at heart? Tax
the earnings above $1 million per year at escalating progressive rates. Heck, Buffet wanted
that. Oblige him! 1 Share link Report flag
J Jean Samuel SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago I am a "woman of color" married to a White man who's a
pediatrician. I am an electrical engineer with an MSc in mathematical sciences. I earned my
degrees and my well paying job through hard work and sweat equity same for my husband. We both
find racial preferences and the dumbing down of college level courses simply revolting. Of
course if you choose to major in modern dance you have earned your job at Starbucks. Mediocrity
only wins out if you allow it.
G George Rebovich SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Kudos to you and your husband.
My parents were the first generation to be born in America. My father worked in an oil
refinery most of his life as an hourly wage earner. We lived modestly and within the family
budget. My father worked many overtime shifts so his children could go to college, the first
generation of our family to do so. We learned the value of education, hard work and postponing
gratification for long-term happiness.
My daughter is an MD ... the story line of how that happened is similar to my brothers and I
being the first to go to college.
America is a great country that offers opportunities to citizens that are only dreams
elsewhere. But those opportunities don't arise from mediocrity.
J Jason S SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago I'm not sure the author really understands why colleges
and universities are dropping standardized tests. It's not that they're unfair. That's just the
cover story.
The real reason is the trouble Harvard got into from excluding Asian Americans. Those kids
had the grades and the test scores and used them to prove (in court) that Harvard wasn't using
those metrics to determine which kids to admit. Could (or still might) cost Harvard a lot of
money. :-s
But here's the thing, if you don't use standardized test scores as part of your admission
process, well, guess what, you can't be sued as easily for recruiting/admitting whoever you
want.
This opens up the door to going after students from richer families who can actually pay
full price. Who really cares about test scores anyway when your budget is on the line?
L LEONARDO ROSENFELD SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Mr. Kessler touches on a dozen examples of what
he sees as liberals disincentiving merit in favor of mediocrity. What he seems to ignore is the
fact that most people who have been successful in life have had some help along the way,
whether through the privilege of their parents, a high-quality education (afforded to those who
can pay for it through private school or living in expensive suburbs), or another form of
support (connections, etc.). If you want to see more children grow up to be successful and get
to fulfill their own version of the American dream, then recognize that our society is not
equal and that the American experience is not the same for everyone.
The initiatives Kessler cited are far from perfect, but at least they're acknowledging that
there is a problem that continues to grow with each decade as income inequality becomes more
extreme. Maybe this isn't a problem for you, Mr. Kessler, but it is for many others who work
hard and still cannot get ahead.
G Greg Barry SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago I will agree with those challenging "American
exceptionalism" in as much as I believe that we will enjoy no special protection from our bad
decisions. Take a look at historical examples of what embracing class warfare and mediocrity
yeild on a societal scale, and you have a window into our possible future. Like thumb_up
3 Share link Report flag
J Juan Vega SUBSCRIBER 1 month ago Mediocrity and the pursuit of what is trivial and
irrelevant. Never in the history of the world has a great nation chosen to commit self
immolation by become deaf, dumb, and blind.
However, to those that think that they have won the recent events are not unlike when
Churchill was confronting the reality of Nazi Germany after Dunkirk when members of his own
party were trying to convince him to surrender and negotiate. Those of us that look beyond the
horizon of the next few years realize that now is definitely the time to stand.
I thought that as smart as the left was in orchestrating the electoral coup they need to see
that it did wake a sleeping giant of 75 million that went out and voted. We do not need Trump
to keep the dream of a free, fair, and proud America. Freedom is in this nation's blood and
soul.
Many of the 80plus million already see the mistake and how they we lied to. Hunter Biden's
thievery is true. Catholics that voted for Biden will see him as a hypocrite.
"... It turns out that Floyd had a long criminal record, including an armed robbery in which held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant woman. In short, George Floyd was a real piece of shit. ..."
"... I don't think it is likely Chauvin will get any justice. Presumably the upgraded murder charge works in his favor as he's more likely to get off, but considering the media attention, the state of thinking in America, and the corruption of the justice system, it seems likely that he's going to get railroaded. ..."
"... Actually, he might not have been lying. Covid19 patients are known to have difficulty breathing. Add to that Fentanyl, which also causes sudden death. I wonder if the autopsy included a review for blood clots around his heart, which is not an uncommon cause of death for Covid19 patients. ..."
"... The author of this piece is every bit as much a cry baby as BLM pricks painting up the streets. ..."
"... Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said that he did not want to release the videos because it might hurt his attempt to prosecute the officers. Get that, he's not interested in justice but to get the pre-determined result: WHITE MAN guilty of racist murder. ..."
"... Agreed that George Floyd got justice, but please remember that it's not the role of police to hand out justice. Agreed that he was not killed by the police, but just what does the author mean by saying that Floyd got what he deserved, ..."
"... Fentanyl is a respiratory suppressor in itself. Some of its analogues are particularly so. Floyd had multiple fentalogues in his system I believe there were also some variety of benzodiazapines as well. These combined are more than lethal at surprisingly low doses for a normal adult male. That doesn't even start to consider all the meth, and metabolites of it, coursing thru his veins. Metabolites will have an effect in this mix, in terms of toxicity. ..."
"... Of course it's a lie. The Mockingbird Media has been lying for decades running about damned near everything. Why is anyone surprised? It's like the old joke in the USSR about Pravda (Truth) and Isvestia (News): There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth . ..."
"... Yes this is very true. Breanna Taylor of Louisville was an actual case of such reckless abuse of power (no knock warrant where the cops killed an innocent black woman). Haven't seen the usual suspects complaining very much about that one. Yes there have been a few scattered BLM riots – but only after the tragic ascension of St. George the Breathless. She didn't get tens of millions via Go-Fund-Me and a state funeral with a gold-plated casket like St. George. Guess St. George serves a higher purpose than Breanna – apparently a mere paramedic rather than the Kang of Wokeundumb Kangz. ..."
"... Honestly, to most Europeans, neither George Floyd nor the cop who knelt on his neck can inspire sympathy. Both are loathsome. Most of us don't like American police methods, they're brutal and dishonourable for a country that pretends to be free, and most of us don't like criminals who are fake victims of racism either because most of the racism we see is against us and our civilisation nowadays. ..."
The cries for justice over the deaths of Trayvon Martin and
Michael Brown were
hoaxes. Both men were criminals who died because they were dumb enough to assault men with
guns. The same is true of Ahmaud Arbery
.
There are more than forty million black people in America. Can't Black Lives Matter find at
least one actual victim of racism?
Now, with the leak of the police body-camera footage of the arrest of George Floyd, we have
confirmation of what sensible people suspected all along: George Floyd was not a victim of
police brutality or injustice.
The story we had been sold was that, for no good reason, Floyd was thrown to the ground by a
brutal cop, Derek Chauvin, who then put his knee on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes while
Floyd pled that he could not breathe, choking him to death.
Based on this story, Derek Chauvin was fired and indicted for murder, and the three other
cops who assisted him were fired and indicted for aiding and abetting murder.
Also based on this story, America has been convulsed by more than two months of race riots,
which have killed dozens, injured countless others, and destroyed billions of dollars in
property and countless livelihoods.
There were many facts that did not fit this story, however.
George Floyd's autopsy revealed that he wasn't suffocated. Instead, he died of heart
failure. He was suffering from heart disease and COVID-19. He also had the opioid fentanyl in
his system as well as methamphetamine. The medical examiner said these drugs contributed to
this death. (He also had traces of cannabis.)
Beyond that, Floyd was apprehended before he could drive off, clearly intoxicated, after
trying to pass a counterfeit bill. Should the police have allowed him to just drive away?
Obviously not. They had to do something to get Floyd out of his car and away from the public so
he could not endanger himself or others.
The person who called the police reported that Floyd was acting strangely, which in all
likelihood meant that he was intoxicated or mentally ill, thus not to be trifled with.
It turns out that Floyd had a long criminal record, including an armed robbery in which
held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant woman. In short, George Floyd was a real piece of
shit.
Moreover, putting a knee on an uncooperative suspect's neck is an approved police control
technique, so how could Chauvin be indicted for murder?
Finally, there was never any evidence that race played any role in Floyd's death. He
was not arrested because he was black, but because he committed a crime. He was not forcibly
restrained because he was black, but because he was uncooperative. Two of the four officers
were non-white. The claim that race had anything to do with Floyd's death at all was simply
a baseless assertion amplified and endlessly repeated by the media and BLM
agitators.
But now we know that it was all a fraud. What does the police body camera footage
reveal?
First of all, it reveals that George Floyd was dishonest, uncooperative, and acted deranged
and scary.
Floyd claimed that he had just lost his mother (he hadn't). He claimed to be too
claustrophobic to get in the police car, which was a lie because he was not too claustrophobic
to sit in his own car. He claimed twice that he was not on drugs, falsely. He refused
repeatedly to allow the police to cuff him. He refused repeatedly to get in the police car. He
claimed multiple times that he could not breathe before he ended up on the ground with
Chauvin's knee on his neck. Obviously he was lying before that, so it made sense for Chauvin to
disbelieve him when Floyd was on the ground. And, in any case, remember that the medical
examiner said Floyd did not die of asphyxiation.
Second, the video reveals that the police dealt with Floyd with a level of patience and
professionalism that I certainly could not have mustered. One cannot say that Chauvin lost his
patience or lashed out at Floyd.
Ask yourself, dear reader, would you have been able to maintain your cool in the same
situation? I know I would have snapped. I was thinking "Couldn't we just arm police with
tranquilizer darts to bring these beasts down?" This video gives me nothing but respect for the
police who have to deal day in and day out with deranged criminals like George Floyd.
Was George Floyd a victim of injustice? No, he died because (1) he committed a crime, (2)
refused to comply with the police, and (3) was so high on drugs that he was not up to the
rigors of being forcibly arrested. If he hadn't done any of those things, he -- and a lot of
other people -- would still be alive today. George Floyd's death was entirely his fault.
It wasn't murder. It was the predictable result of Floyd's own bad character and bad choices.
It was his just desserts.
George Floyd got justice.
Now we have to secure justice for Derek Chauvin and his fellow officers, as well as for the
millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside down by this massive hoax perpetrated
by the government of Minneapolis, the State of Minnesota, Black Lives Matter, the mainstream
media, and the far Left -- aided and abetted by the craven eunuchs of the mainstream Right.
If I were Donald Trump, I would invoke the Insurrection Act, then spend the next few weeks
arresting the leaders of BLM and antifa, as well as their collaborators in state and municipal
governments, for the crimes they have already committed. Once the Leftist beast is decapitated,
I would pardon Derek Chauvin and his fellow officers. Then I'd grab some popcorn.
"But we could never do that! Blacks would burn the country down!"
If that is your initial reaction, I want you to reflect on it. Derek Chauvin, his fellow
officers, and the whole planet have been victimized by a blatant hoax. If we can't do the right
thing and call a stop to it, then aren't we admitting that we have to choose between having
justice and having black people in America ? Well I choose justice. Which is reason number
one-hundred-million-and-one why I believe that blacks and whites in America need to go our
separate ways. We need
a racial divorce .
"I was thinking 'Couldn't we just arm police with tranquilizer darts to bring these
beasts down?'"
That would've killed him flat out, what with a lethal/near-lethal dose of fentanyl in him
already. It seems they'd decided to let EMS deal with him, which was absolutely the correct
decision. Strap the maniac down on a gurney.
I can't find any fault with this assessment. After watching the eight minutes of Floyd
lying about claustrophobia and struggling against the attempt to simply get him safely into
the police vehicle, it makes me sick that I bought into part of the narrative being sold at
the time.
There's not much doubt left that a combination of drug abuse and poor health killed the
man. Chauvin and the others should be released with a clean record.
Which is not to say that no policing reforms are needed. Too many innocent people are
killed by cops. Floyd just wasn't one of them.
I don't think it is likely Chauvin will get any justice. Presumably the upgraded
murder charge works in his favor as he's more likely to get off, but considering the media
attention, the state of thinking in America, and the corruption of the justice system, it
seems likely that he's going to get railroaded.
If he does that will be the saddest part of this whole affair – a cop just doing his
job to police the community gets (presumably life, at least his life ruined) because he was
sent to deal with a deranged, intoxicated negro.
This video shows a silverback coming to the realization that he is going to jail, yet
again, and acting like a typical low I.Q. Negro. He was a career criminal P.O.S. that got
just what he deserved. It's a travesty of justice to charge the cops with anything.
It ought to be a wake up call for any cop that the powers that be need you collectively
but will throw you individually under the bus if it's politically expedient.
He claimed multiple times that he could not breathe before he ended up on the ground
with Chauvin's knee on his neck. Obviously he was lying before that, so it made sense for
Chauvin to disbelieve him when Floyd was on the ground.
Actually, he might not have been lying. Covid19 patients are known to have difficulty
breathing. Add to that Fentanyl, which also causes sudden death. I wonder if the autopsy
included a review for blood clots around his heart, which is not an uncommon cause of death
for Covid19 patients.
I agree with you Greg, yet ANOTHER hoax. Whew. Like you said, they can't even find ONE
legit victim of oppression. I blame Keith Ellison, but most of all I blame the jewish media
for inciting the whole bullshit scam. With the covid scam, two big scams going at once, the
creepy jews have our citizens on their fucking knees.
I've had it. I'm at the not gonna take any more stage, and I suspect that many people feel
the same way I do.
This is what you get when jews run your country incessant lies and hoaxes and gaslighting
and nonsense and chaos and crime and murder.
And one day, for no reason, the entire German populace decided, "Gee ..I don't think I
like the jews anymore ."
Unfortunately the police are proving impossible to love. They bow down to the people who
hate them and want to strip them of their jobs (if not their lives), but then arrest people
who defend themselves against a violent mob. In big cities they have no qualms against
assaulting people for not wearing a mask, nor to enforcing illegal "red flag" laws. They are
the definition of anti heroes:
Violent and oppressive toward peaceful and productive whites, but meek and subservient toward
violent and destructive blacks and communists.
I'm aware that there are exceptions, such as a few rural sheriffs refusing to enforce this
crap. But they're getting tarred by association, simply because you can never tell whether
your district will be run by a patriot or a petty tyrant.
If I were Donald Trump, I would invoke the Insurrection Act, spend the next few weeks
arresting the leaders of BLM and antifa, as well as their collaborators in state and
municipal governments, for the crimes they have already committed. Once the Leftist beast
is decapitated, I would pardon Derek Chauvin and his fellow officers.
This is brilliant. If Trump did this, he would win big -- if they don't alter the results.
If Trump did this, he would become a historical icon akin to Daniel Boone or George
Washington.
If Trump did this, and ground the Government's boot on the throat of every race agitator,
including celebrities like Winfrey and Cannon, as well as NBA/NFL ingrates, he would forever
change the hustle of blacks to game the system. He would alter America on a cellular level,
and exponentially for the best.
Alas,Trump will never do this. He cares too much (perhaps in a prurient manner) what his
daughter Ivanka thinks and her cunning conniving husband, Jared.
Note: Ron Unz has MAXIMUM backbone to run this fabulous, truth telling piece.
So the marchers are completely correct. There will be no justice. There will be no peace.
They will make sure of both no matter what. At least they tell us of their plan. Veteran
coppers smell what's up. Many have gone fetal. Others are retiring earlier than expected. All
are disgusted by the bullshit they see with this case
George Floyd was dishonest, uncooperative, and acted deranged and scary
.
Stop the presses! Acting scary is too much! Especially if it's a scary nigger! Kill the
scary nigger! Aaaaahhhhhh!!
The world has become soft, and everyone is just one big victim of every action and
inaction. The author of this piece is every bit as much a cry baby as BLM pricks painting
up the streets. Take your "I suck blue dick" cause on down the road – you're bound
to find followers.
We have to thank the leaker of the body cams video. Minnesota Attorney General Keith
Ellison said that he did not want to release the videos because it might hurt his attempt to
prosecute the officers. Get that, he's not interested in justice but to get the
pre-determined result: WHITE MAN guilty of racist murder.
Ellison was humiliated when he lost the election to the chair of the Democratic National
Committee to Tom Perez because of his affiliation to the Nation of Islam. As a consolation
prize Perez made him Deputy Chair, a meaningless title for a worthless person. I am sure that
if he can deliver a murder conviction of a white police officer the black caucus will demand
a cabinet post for this house muslim.
Yes! Yes! Yes! But you do not understand. The largest crime was not committed by Floyd.
The largest crime was committed by totally criminal media. Particularly CNN.
Agreed that George Floyd got justice, but please remember that it's not the role of
police to hand out justice. Agreed that he was not killed by the police, but just what does
the author mean by saying that Floyd got what he deserved, "his just desserts"? Was
death the form of justice he deserved? Could there have been another path made available to
"salvage" him and turn him into a benefit rather than a detriment to society?
What forces, internal and external, acted on Floyd from the time of his birth to his death
to make him become what he was, behave as he did? Can we build a society in which someone
like Floyd never exists and never needs to be put out of his and our misery?
In Floyd's life and death should we see racism or societal failure? In the reaction to his
death what should we see?
The video will of course be used by BLM and other leftists to enhance their whiny shit.
They'll say that trying to stuff him into the back of the cop car after he told them he was
claustrophobic was cruel, and just exacerbated the situation. They'll also say the cops
should have just let him sit on the ground till the amberlamps arrived.
They'll bitch about the cop pulling his gun on an "unarmed black man," and "they wouldn't
do that to a White guy." Then they'll say something really intelligent like "trying to pass a
fake 20 doesn't deserve the death sentence."
It would have been so simple to pop Floyd in the head while he was sitting in the car,
like they do in Brazil or Mexico. Or what fellow negroes do to each other every weekend. At
least then he would have died once, and the cops certainly would have been justifiably
crucified. But this case will go on and on, and we will have to endure from multiple angles
his dying. And of course the kangaroo court theatrics that will go with it all. Add to that
the scapegoats,( sacrificial pigs).
@AnonymousFentanyl is a respiratory suppressor in itself. Some of its analogues are particularly
so. Floyd had multiple fentalogues in his system I believe there were also some variety of
benzodiazapines as well. These combined are more than lethal at surprisingly low doses for a
normal adult male. That doesn't even start to consider all the meth, and metabolites of it,
coursing thru his veins. Metabolites will have an effect in this mix, in terms of
toxicity.
IMHO dude was a goner, they just showed up too early. And all hell has broken loose over
another opioid overdose not much different than hundreds of others that week but for a video
that looks bad to the unknowing
Weimar Amerika has a problem, it is called the Jewish run media that spreads lies and
causes harm to the nation. We the people have the right and moral duty to remove all Jews
from the press, the tv, from newspapers, etc.
The damage done by the George Floyd hoax is nothing compared to this stupid Covid
insanity, they are actually shutting down schools over nothing. Governments are being run by
insane lunatics, there are no adults in the room making any rational decisions.
This comment gets 5 stars
This is what you get when jews run your country incessant lies and hoaxes and
gaslighting and nonsense and chaos and crime and murder.
And one day, for no reason, the entire German populace decided, "Gee ..I don't think I
like the jews anymore ."
The trial of Chauvin will be interesting. If they do the right thing and acquit him we
might be in for some stormy times. However, sending an innocent man to prison to appease all
the extremists out there isn't something we should be forced to swallow. Buckle up your seat
belts, round two coming up.
It won't matter. This entire issue is based on complete nonsense and fantasy. All of
modern woke identity politics is intentionally fantastic and mystifying and completely
divorced from reality. As many have pointed out, the entire notion of objective truth is
considered simply a form of white supremacy (this is an actual quote from a woman with a PhD
discussing racism in math: "the idea of 2+2 equaling 4 is cultural and because of western
imperialism and colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing"). Just as the news
will not say a suspect is black or show his face, any discussion AT ALL of actual crimes
committed by "POC" have become verboten on the woke left, and they control the narrative. If
issues were presented and discussed openly and honestly, none of this would have ever
happened anyway. So this video will simply be memory holed or, better yet, edited to somehow
portray Floyd as a victim, just as people still think of Michael Brown as a victim and all
the rest. It just won't matter.
That kind of job cannot be done by a president : there was never such thing as a honest US
president. A honest US president is a president who resigns to avoid his country the shame of
impeachment. Such a job can only be done by a Lucky Luke or so who identifies with the
president and whom the president has no choice but to support.
Of course it's a lie. The Mockingbird Media has been lying for decades running about
damned near everything. Why is anyone surprised? It's like the old joke in the USSR about
Pravda (Truth) and Isvestia (News): There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth
.
The Pulitzer Prize committee has never rescinded Walter Duranty's prize for his lies from
the 1930s about the great abundance of milk, honey and happiness in the Ukrainian SSR under
the tender care of Stalin's good boy (((Lazar Kaganovich))). Oh what's that? Never heard of
those 8-10 million being starved to death under the machine guns of those nice (((NKVD
men)))? Just another damned conspiracy theory ! (Mentioning this will get you jail
time in the "free country" once known as France – for minimizing the holycost!)
This truthful article is about the big lie regarding the ascension of St. George the
Breathless but that lie is far from the only one told. Along with the holy man's long
criminal record there's the lie about those 4 White cops when only Chauvin was
actually White. One was Black, one was Asian and a third was of mixed ancestry. Almost as big
a lie as the whopper printed about the notorious white soopremaciss involved in the
tragic ascension of St. Trayvon of Skittles and Arizona Iced Watermelon Juice – a
Peruvian octaroon named George Zimmerman. The Germans had the perfect term for our lovely
comrades at the Ministry of Truth: Lügenpresse
Which is not to say that no policing reforms are needed. Too many innocent people are
killed by cops. Floyd just wasn't one of them.
Yes this is very true. Breanna Taylor of Louisville was an actual case of such
reckless abuse of power (no knock warrant where the cops killed an innocent black woman).
Haven't seen the usual suspects complaining very much about that one. Yes there have been a
few scattered BLM riots – but only after the tragic ascension of St. George the
Breathless. She didn't get tens of millions via Go-Fund-Me and a state funeral with a
gold-plated casket like St. George. Guess St. George serves a higher purpose than Breanna
– apparently a mere paramedic rather than the Kang of Wokeundumb Kangz.
If he hadn't been pulled over, he probably still be alive today. I guess blaming the
nigger is a satisfying way for white Americans to cope with the obvious, ongoing decline of
their civilization.
Everyone I know flashes their high beams to warn other drivers of speed traps. The same
hypocrites in this thread massaging cop balls are certainly greateful for it. They only love
the cops when their abusing blacks or their political opponents, not when they're burning
down Waco.
Hmmm well, I'm not seeing the same idiots that came here before to embarrass themselves
with comments insisting that the cop murdered Floyd. Hang your heads in shame, wherever you
are.
You stupid cunt ..Floyd ingested a huge amount of fentanyl AND meth AND cannabis.
The cops were insanely patient with that crazy negro, and then the jew media LIED about
the incident for months creating an entirely false narrative that resulted in horrible loss
of life and property.
It's not "crying" to speak the truth about what happened and to lament the fact that we
were hoaxed yet again.
They DIDN'T kill the crazy buckwheat; he killed himself.
EXCLUSIVE: Police bodycam footage shows moment-by-moment arrest of George Floyd for
the first time – from terror on his face when officer points gun at his head, sobbing
before he's shoved into squad car and begging to breathe as his life drains away .
Worth a look. I think Gould must moonlight on violin.
@Tusk of thinking
in America, and the corruption of the justice system, it seems likely that he's going to get
railroaded.
He will most likely get railroaded by a jury that is afraid of another riot.
The prosecution won't be able to argue that he died by asphyxiation. They will have to
argue that he might have OD'd but the knee on the neck was a factor. Well that's manslaughter
at the most.
They'll probably give him 6-10 and let him out early. I think he should just be fired.
I really don't know why anyone would take a police position under a left-wing mayor.
If I were Donald Trump, I would invoke the Insurrection Act, spend the next few weeks
arresting
The media conglomerates, as others have said, and the education conglomerates.
Scrap higher education and go back to the tech schools we had before. It's too late to
save the old system; PC infestation and weird sex rot have ossified them all. When the
country even pretends to be civilized again, we can give it another shot.
All of the media and most of the Antifa's paleface contingent are graduates of our
overweening Institutions of Higher Indoctrination. Defund them all.
@Avianthro d the
meth and fentanyl up his rectum. That's the fastest way to get any drug, legal or not into
the vascular system.
After his last prison term in Texas, he moved to Minneapolis for drug dealing and
counterfeit money passing.
People like you, endlessly posturing and weeping about dangerous thugs like Floyd are more
responsible for " societal failure" than the useless, dangerous thugs you want to cuddle and
care for as if they were babies abandoned in a snowstorm.
Get a rescue dog or cat to lavish your love and care on, instead of defending the likes of
Floyd
Liberals blacks and Jews claim 2 of the officers got into the back seat with him and beat
him up. Yeah right, 3 men, including the giant Floyd in the back seat.
Remember White Justine Dimond also of Minneapolis. An affirmative action black officer
shot her dead as soon as he saw her, the woman who called the police about a possible
disturbance. Took more than a year to even charge and arrest him.
Lets get this straight. The police did not go over to Floyd and ask him a few questions
about his transaction in the store and then tell him he had to come with them or be arrested
for passing fake money. They just went up to his car GUNS IN HAND, and started demanding he
showed his hands. The people from the store had already been over to the car and talked to
him before this happened, they did not seem to think he was dangerous.
He refused repeatedly to allow the police to cuff him.
The police did not tell him what it was about.They swore at him and pointed a gun at him
and then started pulling him out the car, It was several minutes after he was pulled out and
handcuffed they tell him that this was an arrest on a charge about the counterfeit bill.
He refused repeatedly to get in the police car
Yes he did that.
He claimed multiple times that he could not breathe
Yes he was trying a variation on the old I'm having a heart attack ploy. Maybe the COVID
19 epidemic and the froth at the corners of his mouth ought to have made Chavin think twice
about what he was going to do.
He claimed multiple times that he could not breathe before he ended up on the ground
with Chauvin's knee on his neck. Obviously he was lying before that, so it made sense for
Chauvin to disbelieve him when Floyd was on the ground.
Excuse me? Floyd had three cops on top of him and three knees on his back when he was
prone on the pavement. Chauvin was scoffing that "It takes a lot of oxygen to talk" and told
Floyd to stop yelling about how he could not breath.
One cannot say that Chauvin lost his patience or lashed out at Floyd.
I can and am going to, because in my opinion the most likely thing is Chavin decided to
give Floyd good reason to complain about his breathing and that is why Floyd and his hapless
stooges put him down and knelt on him. They only got off 9 minutes later when they were
told he was not breathing . What was Chauvin trying to achieve, and how long did he plan
on keeping Floyd like that?
Moreover, putting a knee on an uncooperative suspect's neck is an approved police
control technique
The use of knees technique is authorised to a purpose that is not what Chavin was using
the technique for. Chavin got his and his two colleagues' knees on Floyd and kept them there
for 9 minutes 30 seconds while resting his hands on top of his own legs.
how could Chauvin be indicted for murder?
He is charged with felony murder meaning the prosecution merely have to show that he used
the "approved police control technique" in a way that crossed the line into assault. It is
not necessary to show intent for anything but the felony for a felony murder conviction,
George Floyd's death was entirely his fault. It wasn't murder. It was the predictable
result of Floyd's own bad character and bad choices.
One could say the same of many murder victims.
It was his just desserts
He messed with the wrong guy in Chauvin. But Chauvin also messed with the wrong guy. If
Chauvin had done his job properly none of this would have happened.
"In Floyd's life and death should we see racism or societal failure?"
We should see neither, for neither had any demonstrable bearing on his life or death. As
the sage is reported to have said to the seeker: "Some have good fates; some bad. Yours was a
bad one."
The author did not actually suggest that tranquilizing Floyd with darts was the best way
to deal with him. He merely stated the thought would go through his head if he had to deal
with individuals like Floyd, as he would not be able to muster the saintly patience and
forbearance of Derek Chauvin and the other officers.
It's another one of those cases where the narrative is important, not the actual story. In
a real world, with a real press with intelligent reporters, we would have discussed how
horrible the death was. How it was an accidental event but was hard to avoid. They wouldn't
use his death to inflame passions, race bait, try to forement racial hatred, strife, and race
war. Floyd's death wouldn't be an event used by the Beast to get Orange man, because
ultimately, everything the media has done the last 4 years has been one version or another of
"Orange Man Bad". We might be talking about real issues like asset forfeiture or police
immunity from crimes. How police unions weld too much political power and abuse their sacred
position of trust in society. In other words, in a real world, we wouldn't have a
manipulative propaganda organ to make Orwell's head spin like a top. We'd have intelligent
and thoughtful readers that really take a part in debate and help steer the course of
society.
No that would be asking too much I suppose. Eat your gruel, prol.
I agree with that statement but it seems that sometimes the Universe blindly hands out
justice to people. Floyd seem to be one of those. When you consider the toxicology report and
the type and amount of drugs in his system it seems likely that if he had never had any
interaction with the police at all he would have still died that day. By his own hand. But of
course not one black in a million can see it because blacks are not a people that let logic
and truth stand in the way of them venting their constant rage against the White man.
@Biff nd BLM are
producing far worse consequences than merely a deceptive message or a wrong-headed
article.
The BLM circus is not only excusing, but giving credence to, and animating violent,
low-life negro culture which often kills innocents, ruins lives, destroys businesses, debases
entire neighborhoods, and undermines the rule of law. This is worrisome trend.
The spiraling costs associated with the unintended death of one stupid criminal is already
in the billions. And BLM is still on the warpath. It's time to vigorously resist this mob,
not appease them.
People will believe what people want to believe. Curiosity killed the cat, I did a search
to find out what George Floyd's autopsy said.
After all, the whole BLM thing spread over the ocean and came to Europe for no reason
whatsoever. Americans have a shtick to export every piece of shit they crap. Some time ago
they produced some useful stuff, now they manufacture gay prides, surrogate child bearing,
gay marriage, "humanitarian" military interventions, and their latest product, "anti-racism".
Coming from a country that has abolished segregation only half a century ago, it's rich.
Honestly, to most Europeans, neither George Floyd nor the cop who knelt on his neck
can inspire sympathy. Both are loathsome. Most of us don't like American police methods,
they're brutal and dishonourable for a country that pretends to be free, and most of us don't
like criminals who are fake victims of racism either because most of the racism we see is
against us and our civilisation nowadays.
Though George Floyd's autopsy did say that "he died of heart failure" and that he "was
suffering from heart disease", it didn't say that he suffered of COVID-19, it said the
opposite, that he was tested positive to the coronavirus causing it two months before but
that he remained asymptomatic and likely was still so at the time of his death.
To top it, George Floyd's autopsy didn't reveal "that he wasn't suffocated", it said that
there were "no injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures", in other words
that there were no signs of trauma associated with forcible asphyxiation which doesn't mean
that his heart failure wasn't eventually caused by lack of oxygen, even if drugs in his
organism contributed to it.
As I see it, this video proves nothing either way and will only enhance each side's views
because each side will pick from it just what suits it.
Why can't the racist boot-licking authoritarians here just admit that they love seeing a
black man humiliated and murdered? Step up, you crybaby cunts, embrace your depravity. You
don't care about justice or the rule of law or anything else. The cops easily got the cuffs
on him and easily got him in the car but we can hear the author trembling behind his keyboard
at the big scary black man. The worldview of you idiots guarantees that the US will
periodically burn.
Could there have been another path made available to "salvage" him and turn him into a
benefit rather than a detriment to society?
No, career criminals have no interest in reforming or becoming productive members of
society.
All they care about is getting that easy gimmi dat from the welfare center while getting a
llit of extra cash on the side by selling drugs and robbing other people.
@aandrews after
the police leaders denied that Chauvin was acting to procedure, posted the department police
training manual and noted Chauvin was a trainer and the other officers his trainees that day.
This was all from the police department website! Brilliant.
The media ignored this, of course. Even UNZ missed it.
The Libertarian Institute also pointed out no one is investigating his Floyd's real
murderer, namely whoever sold him the defective drugs. What was being covered up?
Since then, we have world riots to shut down the police department. Why are the
Libertarian fans the only ones noting this looks like a massive cover-up, perhaps the
far-left again getting in bed with far-right and now Islamic organized crime across
borders?
No country for white men,first there were those Indian savages, attacking peaceful
settlers, then there were Africans, refusing to take a place, assigned to them by God,then
came Chinese, pretending, they were invited to build Transatlantic railroad,then came
Latinos,claiming that this is their country,since they came first!And there were also those
Russian commies, pretending, they are as white as they could be!
@Biff Race has
been merely one part of a wider Elite effort (ie Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was a new
phase).
Indeed, the US is itself entering a new phase: massive unemployment, massive drops in
productivity, mass evictions, mass poverty, massive (dangerous) belligerence towards
international competitors, mass business failure .and so on. And again, only one group seems
to be profiting from this nightmare.
Articles like this one, plus the lunatic & vicious shenanigans of BLM etc are merely
speeding the country towards a precipice beyond which no one knows the depth of the eventual
drop.
You've got at least 45% of the voting population who will never see things your way, and
all the organs of media working overtime to influence as many of those on the fence as
possible to buy into the narrative despite any narrative collapse.
As much as it would be justified in a sane world, Trump using the Insurrection Act and
rounding up the leaders of yet another coup in America would play into the narrative and
would lead to a landslide defeat. Unfortunately for Trump, acquiescing isn't doing anything
to make a case for his re-election, but at least it isn't fanning the flames to burn him out
of office for being a dictator. The mayors and governors of these hell holes are all on the
D-team, and the D-team knows the best way to beat Trump is to make him look like a monster
(buffoon just hasn't been working), and so they keep whipping up those flames the best ways
they can.
The rounding up of people should have started with the Russiagate coup conspirators in
2017, but Orange Man was no doubt told by his handlers that that would look like political
revenge and that he should just let it go. That is where everything went off the rails. 2020
would not have gone to hell if 2017 had been handled correctly, forcefully, and
aggressively.
You're reading too much into this. I think it's futile to keep finding reasons why
diversity doesn't work and to try new solutions. It all ends up just being welfare programs
for blacks. Separation is the only sensible solution.
Yet another piece of trash being trotted out of UR, that is increasingly assuming the face
of White supremacy. Yet UR's merciless – and justifiable – criticism of Zionist
Israel as an apartheid, racist entity seems to fly in the face of this blatant diatribe
against minorities in general and Blacks in particular. The purist White "analyses" being
touted here speak of a reality that has never existed in this country and never will. Live
with that.
@Gleimhart
Mantooso eyes of the masses of conservatives who went along with the story because of the
bad optics in the first video. It will allow them to second guess their judgement and for a
new opinion.
You can almost never change closed minds of the zealot liberal left, nothing will do that,
and this should not be the goal. This is more of a confirmation that thinking people are on
the right path and that their detest of the never ending pandering is right on point.
So it is still good that it came out. The cops are vindicated as well as the disbelievers
in the sensationalist coverage.
Having wasted two generations since the Civil Rights Acts were passed and the negro was
invited to fully participate in American life, the negro today senses time and money have run
out. Worse still, while he bitched and moaned about 'racism' he now realizes he has been
replaced by hispanics for low skill labor. With neither the education or talent necessary for
high paying jobs he, no doubt, realizes he has become superfluous to the American economy.
The covid virus has shut down the only lucrative gigs his race had- professional sports and
entertainment. His only option is to take up the inane slogan of BLM even as he realizes they
don"t.
Note to Tarantino. "Django 2020, Buying Cigarettes in Crackertown". Script half compete.
Artistic license required for completion. Studies show wide acceptance with young white
female demographic.
@Anonymous
Cigarette smoking involves sucking in nasty smelling smoke into your lungs, which from my
naive way of thinking, sure as heck is not going to do anything except add to whatever
breathing problems he had due to the Fentanyl he had in his system.
Unless, of course, he was buying those cigarettes for the other guy who was in the SUV
with him.
I am still wondering where he got that counterfeit $20 dollar bill in the first place.
Last time I mentioned this, my comment disappeared down the memory hole – for the first
time ever on this website. Why might that be, I wonder?
Racial divorce is not the issue. The white Leftist are white. They are freaks and
monsters. Their race does not alter that a teeny bit.
Along those lines you must face the fact that the Negro was made Numinous by Yankee WASP
Elites. The very crowd that idiots like the VDARE bunch would have you serve and emulate
created the Negro Problem in order to use the Negro as weapons and tools to wage culture war
against the non-WASP whites the WASP Elites hate most.
Jussie Smollet and Bubba Wallace were hoaxers painting themselves as victims of hate
crimes. But fake hate crimes are real hate crimes against whites. Both men's careers should
be canceled, and they should end up in jail for their crimes.
That is correct but that is not what will happen.
Now, with the leak of the police body-camera footage of the arrest of George Floyd, we
have confirmation of what sensible people suspected all along: George Floyd was not a
victim of police brutality or injustice.
Exactly. Now where is that asshole, Mercer's retraction?
No sympathy for the cops. They have been using excessive force on ALL kinds of people for
decades. They haven't done a thing to "protect and serve" any of the victims of these
riots.
Doesn't matter that the democrat mayors told them to stand down. They know what the right
thing to do is. They could have gone to their unions and bitched that they weren't allowed to
do their jobs, their precinct houses were being attacked etc. Could have went to the media
etc.
They did nothing to apply any pressure on these mayors or police chiefs.
They want to cruise around the suburbs, go after soft targets and collect their fat pensions
nothing more!
Cops are well known to take a routine traffic stop and poke and prod at the driver to
escalate a situation until it becomes a physical altercation, and the cops then have an
excuse to arrest and charge the driver with assault.
They like to taze grandmother's in Texas
Karma's a bitch as they say
"Papers please" has been going on in the U.S. for a long time, cops pulling people over just
to ask "where you going, where'd you come from?"
Cops are petty tyrants, the kind of guys who got their jock straps Ben Gay'd, in high school
or their heads swirly'd in the toilet, and now that they have a little power, their going to
exert it maximally using anything as pretense to exert it.
That said, the dirt bag Floyd got justice, Antifa and BLM need to be put down by the
military.
If you can use the military to force whites to have to put up with black degenerates in their
schools, you can use the fucking military to put down riots. There is already plenty of
precedent for the use of military troops to put down riots and insurrection. What BLM and
Antifa are doing is the very definition of insurrection.
Don't dare get together to actually peacefully protest the unjustified, and unconstitutional
Covid lockdowns and other assorted bullshit if your white however That's treason!
The U.S. government as far as I'm concerned has rendered itself "null and void."
Firstly, there is absolutely no reason for his arrest. They did not ask him for ID. They
did not ask him his name. They did not ask him about the $20.00 bill.
You do not get arrested for passing a $20.00 bill. You get arrested for "knowingly" and
with "intent to defraud" pass a counterfeit bills. .
Where is there an iota of evidence that he did it with intent to defaud. The evidence they
had was insufficient to make an arrest.
They did not even ask him any questions about passing the bill before taking out a gun and
arresting him.
But he also knows that the Elites love him and will always use him to terrify the white
middle class and to batter the white working class.
The Numinous Negro knows that that he is, and had ben since roughly the late 1830s, the
beloved pet of the Elites of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, who despise the vast majority of the
whites they rule.
The police asked him and his friends (more than once) 'what he was on'? It appears that
both G.F. and his friends declined to say. He (or perhaps his friends) maybe could have saved
G.F.'s life if he (or they) just would have told the police he was on opiates. They probably
could have given him naloxone. In many jurisdictions the police have that on hand (but I'm
not sure if that is police policy in Minneapolis). But probably it is, according to this
link:
Maybe the more accurate angle on this whole thing is that the friends should be
investigated, as to what they knew about his drug use that day. If it could be determined
they knew, perhaps the correct angle is manslaughter (it being the friends as the guilty
ones).
@mark green
teacher's unions and welfare bureaucrats who in the latter case take for themselves 70% of
every dollar supposedly going to help inner-city negroes, so you can take it to the bank both
groups have accounted for the largest number of demonstrators of any color. The white
parasite machinery was out in numbers as well with all the obvious dykes with a hatred of
male-dominated society despite their continued existence relying on white male sympathy
toward such effed up and sexaully disgusting women. But, the worst of it all is that it all
could have been shut down on day one if urban police hadn't proved themselves uniformed
bureaucrats who serve the Democratic political machinery and none other.
But it will open the eyes of the masses of conservatives who went along with the story
because of the bad optics in the first video. It will allow them to second guess their
judgement and for a new opinion.
Tucker Carlson still thinks Derek Chauvin should be charged with something. Carlson is the
best Whites have in the MSM but he is still lacking immensely.
We need to make some distinctions. The police should act differently than bandits. It's
not the competence of the police to decide permanently what is justice or not and also not to
impose and execute death penalties.
In a Rechtsstaat the police only uses violences according to what is allowed by the
law and not more than necessary in a certain moment to restore order.
I don't see any need to use violence of any kind in this case. It's not very probable that
the police arrived there a few seconds or minutes after being called. I think that the
article in the Daily Mail says that Floyd wasn't trying to run away during the time that it
took for the police to come. He was sitting in his car. Second, I don't understand that the
police arrests somebody only because someone accused him of something. How can the police
arrive in some place and know immediately who is guilty of what? It was a petty offense
anyway. The police should speak with him, confront him with an accusation and he could answer
or not answer. After that the police should ask his identification card, write his name down
and go away. Later a prosecutor would see if there is a reason to write him to call him for
an interview, or not.
If the rules allow the knee on the neck, then there will be more people who should answer
for murder besides Chauvin. Could the author of the article explain what Chauvin was doing?
And what for? Why stay with his knee for almost 9 minutes on the neck of someone on the
floor? How can it be that 4 policemen aren't able to arrest one man who has shackles on his
hand? If this was the case, why didn't they call for more policemen to come?
Floyd was free and apparently the police wasn't looking for him. But even if he was a
criminal, criminals have rights. Many Americans seem to think that citizens don't have
rights. Chauvin is now accused of a murder and there is a lot of evidence against him. If I
remember correctly and if what I read was right, then Chauvin had a history of abuse of
authority. To say that Floyd got what he deserved is cynical.
@Tucker I believe
Fentanyl is used medically in obstetrical anesthesia.
Fentanyl may be the choice on the street now because of its potency.
Regardless, if you are getting it and doing it on the street, "recreationally," you are no
stranger to drugs and most likely a junkie. Who in Floyd's case is also doing meth. Going the
full John Belushi.
There is a saying that nothing goes better with cocaine than more cocaine and another
cigarette. This in general holds true across the board in this crowd.
He probably wasn't following his doctor's advice. Any of it.
American justice is a joke–Ofc. Chauvin will only be its latest victim, just like
the Tsarnaev brothers blamed for the Boston marathon bombing, justice like the victims of
America's response to 9/11. But list is a long one
Obviously, those in power in this deeply democrat state had all the tapes and all the
information about how St George died pretty quickly. They parsed it and twisted for a
specific reason, they think angering up the Negro will get them out to vote. The whole bs blm
nonsense, is idiot dems willing to destroy the country so they get elected. They did the same
thing with the Ferguson nonsense in 2014 as the mid-term election was coming up. And Negroes
fall for it every time. If I was sitting in a spaceship, watching this on alien television,
I'd say it was cliche and played out. But it never ends. Low IQ or not, stay off drugs, don't
have kids without being married, obey the law and go to work every day, you'll do fine in the
USA. Why doesn't some Negro preacher say that?
Yes, even if Chauvin et al are acquitted, they will be considered forever guilty by the
same mobs who consider Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin to be murder victims.
St George had 19 nanogram/ml of fentanyl and metabolites in his system. That works out to
19 ug/l. The volume of distribution of fentanyl is 6 liters/kg. Assuming he weighed in at
over 100 kg the amount of fentanyl in his system would be a minimum of 12 thousand micrograms
or 12 mg. The retail street value would be thousands of dollars. The wholesale value would be
less. This suggested he may have been dealing and consumed his stash to avoid prison
time?
*You can always count on Negroes to mouth-off.
*Black Live Matter–except to their bros in the hood.
*Pelosi, Schumer, the Black Caucus and the woke folk will press to have the Lincoln Memorial
replaced by the George Floyd Memorial.
" turns out that Floyd had a long criminal record, including an armed robbery in which
held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant woman. In short, George Floyd was a real piece of
shit"
Apparently St G of da 6 Felonies would beat his hoes as badly as Meg would the etard if he
didn't grovel hard enuf whilst takin da knee to a swarthy Hollywooder.
@anastasia You do
not get arrested for passing a $20.00 bill. You get arrested for "knowingly" and with "intent
to defraud" pass a counterfeit bills. .
Where is there an iota of evidence that he did it with intent to defaud. The evidence they
had was insufficient to make an arrest.
They did not even ask him any questions about passing the bill before taking out a gun and
arresting him.
This is BS. This was completely staged.
He was behind the wheel of a car in a highly intoxicated state. Of course there was reason
to arrest him.
@UncommonGround
wasn't trying to run away during the time that it took for the police to come. He was sitting
in his car. Second, I don't understand that the police arrests somebody only because someone
accused him of something. How can the police arrive in some place and know immediately who is
guilty of what? It was a petty offense anyway.
The call to the police indicated that Floyd was either nuts on or drugs. He was either nuts
or on drugs (in facts, minutes from dying from an overdose) behind the wheel of a car, a weapon
weighing how many pounds? Of course there was good reason to restrain
him.
If he hadn't been pulled over, he probably still be alive today.
Well, the excitement of the arrest didn't help his survivability prospects but I'm not
even sure what you're proposing here. Your argument is so stupid that I'm unsure if it's
coming from a human being. It's like watching an ant twitching his antennae. I know it's
trying to say something but it all translates into gibberish.
Are we supposed to ban arrests because one in a 100K perps might be too sick and/or
drugged-up to survive the ordeal?
To put it simply, blacks were being self-destructive, and elite whites decided not to stop
them because that would be "racist." And now our elites are going further down that path by
glorifying a criminal, George Floyd.
Had our elites fifty years ago used tough love instead of pampering, few blacks would turn
to criminal activities. George Floyd likely would have sold insurance or become a pharmacist
or something else harmless and even productive. Too bad it didn't turn out that way, but it's
impossible to get through to our elites that they are the problem.
@Priss Factor And
CNN, all of them, are pure opinion and propaganda. Made up concern. Not news. No actual
people actually care about this stuff.
Who will give a shit about George Floyd in 2021? There will be another school shooting by
then. Or better, a fucked up election to talk about.
No charges for the officer who shot Michael Brown. No reaction from anybody. No "riots."
Nobody even burned down a Wendy's. Because nobody knows who Michael Brown is. They found all
the statues and Confederate flags. They forgot the thing with Michael Brown. You can't take
them seriously.
@TKK g incidents
like this for crass political purposes.
What's different this time, besides cabin fever from the lockdown, is Trump.
A word to the wise, be a little less credulous about the "Oh, it's just the blacks again"
narrative when purportedly peaceful protests over "systemic racism" quickly become a violent
assault on the White House, with Democrats, Allied Media, and resistance scum like Mitt
Romney and Mattis egging them on.
Apparently, all it took was painting 'BLM' in front of the White House and Trump Tower for
many here to take the bait.
@Robert Dolan
those white nationalists that was over on Unz's The Political Bankruptcy of American White
Nationalism thread, pissing and moaning how he got it wrong too.
Another thing that white nationalists seem to piss and moan about is how wrong the State
is. Constantly deriding big bad government. Yet when big scary black man comes along, it's
straight to the jackboot to wimpier behind. I recognized the same thing when the twin towers
were coming down – save us from those scary Araabs no matter what it takes! or what
you take from us. – Suckers then and Suckers now.
@Alden He didn't
shoot her immediately AFAIK. She, unarmed and in her pyjamas, was taking to the other officer
when this Somali Muslim killed her from inside his car, across his partner.
The biggest red flag for me was the fact that his layers refused to release a statement
after interviewing him. What he did was indefensible so everyone expected some variation of
"I thought I saw something" excuse but his story was, apparently, so bad that they decided to
say nothing.
Needless to say, that case disappeared from the MSM like Jimmy Hoffa. I've heard somewhere
that the killer was convicted but that's all. I still don't know what the Somali Muslim told
his defenders.
There was certainly no reason to restrain him the way it was done. Did the police tell him
why he was being arrested? Did the police know for sure that he was on drugs? How? Or is it
enough that someone tells something about someone and you are arrested? In any case, I
thought he had been arrested because of the 20 dollar bill. Was there a talk between the
police and Floyd or they just came to arrest someone and decided that they would arrest him?
Don't Americans have rights? Can the police jump on your necks and tell the reason later in
case you haven't died?
@Realist Also
take in consideration that in America the justice system by no stretch of the imagination
lives outside of politics. They HAVE TO charge him with something, and it's probably good
that the charges were upped to 2nd degree murder because it will be far harder to prove. Now
the problem is that the courts might end up finding him guilty with an mostly black picked
jury. If that happens white Americans should no longer oppose riots in big cities, or even
care for preserving the police, all of it should go down the drain the sooner the better
because the system will clearly be a openly SJW one against whites.
@Rich he
Cloward-Piven Plan that we see unfolding before our eyes obviously has nothing to do with
justice and everything to do with a hatred and vengeance so great the leftists will burn the
country down around themselves to destroy everything whites have created. This is a point
Nietzsche made long ago, that vengeance and resentment are always the actual motives of those
marching under banners calling for social justice. I'd take the prophesy by a Russian monk
during the height of the Christian massacres in Russia a century ago to heart; namely, that
what the Jews were doing to Christians in Russia was a mere prelude to what they will attempt
to do to Christians in America a century hence.
This idea comes from a view of history that telescopes slave ships, pre-civil war plantation
stories, KKK, Watts Riots and MLK to the year 2010. I think there might once have been white
people who feared to allow large black men to be peacefully questioned about a crime. There
have been almost 80 years of integration, whites voting for blacks and close contact between
the races at work, school and in the military. We know each other well. We're not afraid of
black people.
Where has everybody been since 1940? Not in the country I know well.
was Ellison & Co not releasing the bodycam vids they should be charged as inciting a
population to riot under the PATRIOT ACTS I & II, and the willful obstruction of
justice.
Bravo!! You have, with your article, tremendously helped the public good. What the
incompetent press do is to cherry-pick "items" to support their agenda. Recently, the
Herald-Tribune of Sarasota, Florida published a similar hatchet job. Fortunately, on page 6,
they published six real cases, and I concluded what you have in your excellent article. I
sent a comment to the newspaper that the Sarasota police department used appropriate force in
sub-doing the six who were resisting arrest. I had the same question that you express in the
article: What would I do if I was the arresting article?
Even the Jesuit mouthpiece, America Media, joined the cacophony of ridiculous
"reporting"
If a double dose of fentanyl did not bring him down, they would have needed an elephant
tranquilizer.
But your point is one worth exploring. The key is a drug with fast kinetics. Something
that paralyzes one almost instantly yet last only five minutes. Wouldn't that worth a govt
grant somewhere.
The divorce attorneys for the other side are Jewbaum, Jewberg and Jewfeld, LLP and the
presiding judge will be none other than Dishonorable Jewstein do you see a favorable ruling
for the plaintiffs? I don't think so
Alternative ending: The police never showed up, and Floyd slowly died behind the wheel of
his vehicle as his companions tried to shake him awake.
Cause of death: Meth, fentanyl, Covid, and a bad heart. The fentanyl alone would have
slowed his breathing down to the point of death. As his circulatory system shut down, he
would have fell unconscious and unresponsive. His friends would have panicked, but they also
would have been reluctant to call 911 for obvious reasons.
Of course there are those who believe Floyd was a superman who could have laughed off a
lethal dose of fentanyl that day, "if only the cops hadn't held him down ".
No. He was destined to die of an overdose and he did. The cops holding him for the
paramedics were trying to save his life and should be commended for their
professionalism.
@Moi Ever since
Keith Ellison first ran for Congress in 2006, he has characterized his relationship with
Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam as a sincere but misguided youthful dalliance. Though
Ellison said he was proud of his 18-month association with the Nation of Islam in preparation
for 1995's Million Man March, he wrote to concerned Jewish leaders in May 2006, saying, "I
have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation
of bigoted and anti-Semitic statements and actions of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan,
and [Farrakhan aide] Khalid Muhammed."
Strawman argument. Everyone here knows that blacks, gays, cat ladies, etc. are simply
tools wielded by the Jewish program that has been going forward for 120 years.
I don't see any need to use violence of any kind in this case.
That's because you're living in some weird, out of touch bubble. A guy like that –
text-book example of someone who'll explode into violence at any second – must be
restrained for everyone's sake and the cops did it professionally.
If the rules allow the knee on the neck, then there will be more people who should answer
for murder besides Chauvin.
What? You don't see a problem with throwing a guy in jail for following the rules? Do you
have any idea how a justice system should work in a normal country?
@Realist d. It
would have been easier to just ignore it.
Do you think that Tucker should be judge and jury and proclaim Chauvin innocent? If he did
that, he would deserve to be fired, and I would be all for it. Would Tucker off the airwaves
be fine with you?
Most of Tucker's more discerning fans understand that he must be careful in his language
if he wants to keep his job. The Cancel Culture Left is out for his scalp every day, and will
use any phony excuse to get him removed. If you think that Tucker's a sell-out and is
"lacking immensely," I have an obvious answer. QUIT WATCHING!
I haven't seen that Tucker made any sort of reply to this newest video. It would
surprise me if he didn't respond with asking whether the rioting had a just cause, or
something along that line.
Upon doing a search on Tuckers recent programs I can find no comment that I attributed to
him. It appears I confused comments made by Hannity with Carlson.
Don't forget to blame white Minnesotans who thought it was a good idea to elect a black
Muslim leftist with credible accusations of domestic abuse against him.
Those white racist supremacists, I'll tell you what.
He had some more bills that he (they) shoved in the seat cracks after being stopped. I do
not know, but it is possible the stashing operation kept his hands busy and why there was a
delay showing his hands and was the cause for guns to come out.
We've got an election coming up, or don't you read the papers.
These events were no surprise, Trump was on track to garner a game-over 20% or more of the
black vote.
Heck, the Democrats and their Allied Media even rolled out their old favorite David Duke,
once again shouting that he so wants Trump to win he's available any time for CNN and MSDNC
to tell everybody so.
People like you, endlessly posturing and weeping about dangerous thugs like Floyd are
more responsible for " societal failure" than the useless, dangerous thugs you want to
cuddle and care for as if they were babies abandoned in a snowstorm.
They do this Every. Single. Time.
When the hoax blows up, they tell us how the point still stands that Blacks are victims of
evil racist White society because reasons.
Get ready for round two
Injustice or insurrection.
It will define the USA for decades to come.
Justice, if it clearly prevails – will immediately unleash bloodletting, arson,
robbery, rape, murder and unprecedented mass civil revolution.
If it doesn't prevail it will unleash bloodletting, arson, robbery, rape, murder and
unprecedented mass civil revolution as a chronic ongoing and increasingly vile, corrupt
society.
Either way- the old America is gone to just a hatefilled, brainwashed cesspit of violence and
crime and to civil war – if white people there have the guts to hold their ground and I
wouldn't bet on that.
The USA has become George Floyd – the nation.
Criminal, brutal. drug ridden, and the gun he holds to a pregnant woman's belly symbolises
the gun held to much of the defenseless planet as the USA plunders and murders across the
globe.
Floyd is the USA.
Let us hope it meets the same fate.
@TimeTraveller If
he hadn't been pulled over, he probably still be alive today
That's an assumption. Could very well have smashed into a car full of kids and all we would
have heard was the "tragedy" bracketed by more reports on Kim Kardashians fat ass.
I've had the cops abuse me in my own house in front of my wife and kids over what was
essentially a phoned in SWATing by some anonymous bastard. So I have no love for cops and their
abuse of power. And as far as people flashing their lights its a sign by people who are
systemically abused for non crimes to be on the lookout for the badged
thieves.
Media is by and large nothing more than an echo chamber of propaganda and disinformation.
I've observed for nearly five decades the consistently increasing volume of BS uttered out of
their pie holes. Its gotten to the point that they no longer even pretend.
Because the purpose of these riots is not to actually address issues with cops, it's to
expand the power of the Police State by getting rid of local cops who might be familiar with
their community and have federal police from elsewhere to act like an occupying army. That
is, of course, the antithesis of what libertarians are all about.
May 27, 2020 New video shows Minneapolis police arrest of George Floyd before death
Four white officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been fired from the
Minneapolis Police Department, but Mayor Jacob Frey is saying that one of the officers should
be arrested for pressing his knee on Floyd's neck.
July 6, 2020 End Qualified Immunity from the Bottom Up
While states can't end a federally-imposed legal fiction on their own, a new state law to
reform the practice can serve as a model for getting something done.
A staff member rushes up to the two officers waving the banknote. 'Before they drive
off, he's parked right here, it's a fake bill from the gentleman,' he tells the cops
Well so glad the cops were able to serve up swift justice for poor Hadji there wouldn't
want this fine looking American to have to go to Friday Prayers with a fake twenty in his
pantaloons, now would we ?
Was reading obit of Herman Cain. His mother taught Cain that what matters is what you
start off with spiritually, not materially. His dad managed to buy a house and did all right.
I've met blacks like Cain's parents. They are solid people. There used to be a lot more of
that type of black.
I think some level of civil war may well be inevitable at this point. However, if Trump
did try that there would be 100% chance of civil war right now. The situation is not dire
enough to declare a state of emergency and may well encourage a coup d'etat by the CIA (who
has ultimate political power and is profoundly hostile to Trump and populism) and allied
elements in the military. Trump today has little room to do much of anything even if he wins
the next election.
They had already run the nogs plate and what do you know An armed violent offender red
flag is burning bright on his his arrest sheet right there on their computer screen. What do
suppose they should have done?. Walk over to the vehicle with a bundle bundle of balloons and
a lollipop.
The worthless nog had children in Texas that he never paid a penny of child support to yet
he's doping it up, making porn and driving around in a fucking Mercedes. He lived the life
and he died like a filthy mutt.
Alternative ending: The police never showed up, and Floyd slowly died behind the wheel
of his vehicle as his companions tried to shake him awake.
Alternative alternative ending: Floyd drove off in his car, had a heart attack or passed
out from drugs, and plowed into another car or a pedestrian or two before coming to a
stop.
We have laws against driving drunk for this reason.
@Anonymous e
story makes it clear that the police had reason to believe he was lying. The police
wouldn't know if he had Covid 19, when he was infected, and whether or not he was
symptomatic.
If Floyd knew he was infected and knew he was symptomatic, why was he not self quarantining?
As studies from around the world have shown, "having Covid 19" means little, as 50% of those
tested and found to have been infected, have no symptoms, and majority of those infected have
mild to moderate symptoms. If Chauvin and the other cops not done their job, Floyd would have
been counted as a Covid death.
Floyd says 'I'm dying man..'. I don't agree here – the cops were not compassionate
in his arrest. They had guns, he had muscle. Sure, one could have ended up with a broken rib
if they surrounded him and told him to calm the fuck down, but none of them, were really ever
at risk of death – like he was.
He was an imperfect citizen, even an imperfect human being, if you like, but the state
should aim to improve the lives of, and even the individuals themselves.
This is not what the cops did here. The issue is not racism, or even police brutality. It
is US society. Guns, no guns, genetics, culture – something must make US society so
violent that citizens kill cops, and cops kill citizens.
There are enough nations (China, Russia) where there is a melting pot of ethnicities and
cultures, where this kinda shit is much rarer. Why, violence is so exponentially prevalent in
US society (and not say UK society, where 3% of the population is Black), is a question.
In my personal opinion guns without education about guns – an aggressive state
policy, breeds aggressive citizens, white or black – they behave as they are led.
Three cops with guns on one druggy with muscles – either they are pussies or they
are psychopaths. In both cases, they need to either retrain, quit, or be arrested for
intentional harm.
There exists in males what I call a "delayed compliance" reaction. The football coach says
"everyone line-up for wind sprints" and no one, of any color, immediately moves. A brief
delay; a few seconds. It satisfies the ego; creates a false sense of voluntariness: Well,
okay, I will comply, but it is only because I choose to. Authority figures -- coach, the
teacher, parents. A harmless delay game. But whites seem to sense that a policeman is not the
football coach; when a policeman gives an instruction, you comply instantly. Instantly. For
some reason, Blacks think that the policeman is the football coach. Poor, uneducated,
intoxicated Whites, in their stupor, nonetheless seem to know this is not the football
coach.
You are being too kind.
The "societal failure" has been, and is, the negrification of virtually every aspect of life,
and claiming it is normal. That ranges from unintelligible ebonics to dressing like pimps, with
drug usage, lax sexual morals, etc along the way. It's all courtesy of the tribe. https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Sacks-Multiculturalism-threatens-democracy
Some people don't understand that.
@neprof e
allergies and prior conditions police know nothing about so using any sort of tranquilizer
carries a high risk as does using 'less than lethal' weaponry as you don't know how a person
will fall.
I am reminded of the Dylan song about the prizefighter Davey Moore. Moore was knocked down
but his fall was 'broken' when the base of his skull caught the bottom rope of the boxing
ring. He got back on his feet and finished the round. He even gave a post fight interview but
then lapsed into a coma in his dressing room and soon died. Apparently that lower rope
injured his brain stem
@anonymous ents
don't matter. Science doesn't matter. Only The Narrative™ matters.
So put Chauvin on trial, convict him, and sentence him to thirty years in prison. Then
pull a Witness Protection gambit: give him a new identity, a million bucks for his trouble,
and release him into South Dakota.
Nobody ever follows up on anything anymore, and if Cuomo can get away with murdering
thousands of vulnerable Covid patients in nursing homes, I'm sure the Minneapolis penal
system can carry a phony name on the books for a few years.
Voila, justice. Or at least what passes for it in The Day of Cthulhu.
New elites were emerging with new ideas, and one of them was to pamper blacks instead of
using tough love. Anything blacks did was ok with them, even if it did them no good.
It's called multiculturalism, and it's been the death of every European based country and
society.
@Trevor Lynch .
It doesn't mean they arrest you. They just do it so you don't try to run off or fight back.
So in this case putting cuffs on Floyd was justified as they had evidence of wrongdoing, and
just wanted him neutralized until they figured out what happened. Floyd freaked out, went
crazy, when they even tried to talk to him. It was a tragic event, but I don't see how the
cops really did anything wrong. They followed procedure. Floyd should have remained calm, but
he was too high, mentally unstable, afraid because he knew he messed up, had a panic attack
and a heart attack. Floyd killed Floyd.
He claimed to be too claustrophobic to get in the police car, which was a lie because he
was not too claustrophobic to sit in his own car.
There is a huge difference between sitting in a vehicle that you can freely leave, such as
one's own car, and sitting handcuffed in the backseat of a police car with a grate across the
front–which Floyd could not leave.
I would imagine that there are many people who can handle a car that they are free to
leave–and that can also take them many places , thus easing any sense of confinement,
and being *locked* in the back of a police car.
Other than that, I find myself sympathetic to much in the article. In particular, I have
sympathy for the other police officers who tried to get Chauvin to stop kneeling on Floyd's
neck and who are now facing serious crimina charges.
However, since Floyd did not pose a threat to the safety of the police officers–none
reported being injured–he should not have been killed. And I don't believe he died of
*entirely* natural causes, as there are conflicting autopsies. I think we should wait and
see.
Even by the account given in this article, Floyd was being difficult, not dangerous, and
being difficult does not deserve being knelt on while begging for breath and calling for
mother.
@Emily k of gas
are going to find themselves frostbitten and being shot at with no food and nowhere to lay
their head.
You are a woman. We've seen what happens once or twice when some blubbery black teen
female got caught shoplifting in a Korean store and assaulted the Korean woman and she simply
hauled off and shot the girl dead.
When screeching BLM come into suburbs and some black girl throws a rock through the wrong
window some non-white woman is going to simply blast her.
The AG has already he is withholding evidence in order to get a conviction. This is
against everything the prosecution is supposed to be about. He should be disbarred after this
at a minimum but this puts the whole prosecution into jeopardy at the appeals level.
Don't forget to blame white Minnesotans who thought it was a good idea to elect a black
Muslim leftist with credible accusations of domestic abuse against him.
Minnesota is about 85% white, and yet they elect a black supremacist Muslim uber-liberal
who doesn't pay his own taxes.
If they put it to a state-wide referendum, that all white males in Minnesota must be
castrated at birth, I wonder by what margin it would pass. 85%?
If he hadn't been pulled over, he probably still be alive today.
No, more like if he hadn't been pulled over he would probably be dead from the fentanyl
overdose the stupid bastard took. Blaming stupid niggers for their stupid nigger behavior is
quite rational and the fact that you seem to think it inappropriate indicates you have an ax
to grind.
He was high on drugs. He was passing a fake 20 and he had a rap sheet as long as a porn
stars schlong. What part of that did you fail to understand?
That's nine too many right off the bat. And although it's not in your face in media, cops
kill people other than blacks. Many more whites than blacks die during encounters with cops.
I'm not saying it is our biggest problem but there is room for improvement.
@jsinton or "put
cuffs" on anyone they want. It's enough that someone tells something about you (maybe not
even this is necessary). The police may also say that you might get uncoperative at some
point in the future because you are a "text-book example of someone who'll explode into
violence at any second" even if your hands have been tied before and the police has not read
any textbook or got any special education. Did the police make any test, make any question to
know if Floyd had taken drugs, was drunk? No. Did they tell him why they were arresting him?
Not necessary because people don't need rights.
@Ilya G
Poimandres voidance. That's why the cop has his gun out right away.
Police departments develop rigid, inflexible procedures to minimize risk, that leaves less
room for judgement and humanity.
For instance, police have not rescued drowning people on several occasions, because it was
against procedure.
I don't know about Russia, but police in China are notoriously brutal and rights are few
and unenforceable – worse than America, and there is a general callousness towards
human life.
Its hypercapitalism – anywhere hustling and the profit motive is king, human life is
cheap.
@bruce county
rofessional law enforcement officers kneeling on his torso and another on his legs. As for
the cervical spine, Joe Rogan says anyone putting their shin across a training partner's neck
like that in a Jiu Jitsu class would be instantly told get it the fuck off. Did Chauvin
maintain his position only for the few minutes until Floyd had became weak as a kitten and
begged to be allowed to stand up, or until Chauvin noticed Floyd had suddenly expired?
Neither, Chauvin stayed on top of Floyd for two minutes after medics had found Floyd
had no pulse. A medic had to tell Chauvin to dismount the dead man.
Some commenters mention Jewish support of BLM, and this interests me as someone who has
read Philip Roth. A Roth list of Jewish traits would be something like this: Contentiousness,
dissension, oppositional, hyper-touchiness, hyper-criticalness. Displaying these traits, says
Roth, "Puts a spring in their heel." (is it any wonder that Jewish people do not do very well
in the military?). It seems to me that BLM embraces the very same traits. So maybe Jews see
BLM as colleagues, sharing the same sensibility.
@Jefferson Temple
e needed. Too many innocent people are killed by cops. Floyd just wasn't one of them.
But Duncan Lemp was. And all of these fuck whitey riots have refused to acknowledge his
murder. We STILL don't have bodycam footage. The "defend the police" crowd have no problem with
police or even police brutality. They are upset that blacks get arrested at all. They cheer on
police when they murder white dissidents and seize the guns of law abiding citizens. The crowd
of rioters don't give a damn about police reform, other than to turn the police into a
commisariat to persecute whites
It is about BOPE an elite police squad in Brazil.
One commentator writes
"saw the movie, surely the best movie i've seen in a long time. impressive story. my country
needs BOPE definitely. saudações da Sérvia. respeito!"
Movies of super macho Cops who bash up criminals black and blue are super popular here in
India.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mp-XqCrCi6I?feature=oembed
Super Hit super cop movie Singham.
After his last prison term in Texas, he moved to Minneapolis for drug dealing and
counterfeit money passing.
Criminals out on parole often move to another state since they won't be known to the
police. That is why George Floyd moved from Texas to Minnesota and not because he was just a
good guy who made some mistakes and seeking a "fresh start" as the jewsmedia tried to frame
things.
As I wrote in a previous commentary, the attorney general of Minnesota has no case against
these 4 police offiicers. They were merely acting in that incident in accordance with the use
of force protocols of the Minneapolis Police Department. That is simply the best defense they
have. Further, although I am not an attorney. I don't see how any judge could even allow this
to go to trial. There is no legal case. And if it does go to trial, they will surely be
acquitted.
Beyond that, these 4 officers should sue the hell out of the city of Minneapolis, the
state of Minnesota, the mainstream media, both verbal and print, as well as these black
organizations like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, these fake civil rights attorneys like
Benjamin Crump and others of his ilk. And any other entity or entities that were responsible
for this charade and outrageous defamation of character. They should take a leaf out of the
Nick Sandman playbook. Each of these officers could easily wind up with tens of millions of
dollars and be independently wealthy for the rest of their lives.
You're a spineless, virtue signaling nigger loving lunatic. These fucking filthy
primitives do not care about you. When SHTF will you genuflect to you Black invaders. They
will slaughter you and your nigger loving family mercilessly. Your wife and family must be so
proud of you.
@AaronB Caught On
Camera: Cops from Utter Pradesh State mercilessly Beat Up Boy With Cricket Bat
This is so normal, something like this probably happens everyday in the country.
Also applying electric shocks to genetilia etc is common practice here. Before you jump in
say how evul Indian police are, Indian police themselves are brutally beaten up the public
often.
This is how it is and this is how it will always be here.
As the US population becomes more brown and more multiracial and mixed, this will be
future that will await the West. It is inevitable.
@JessicaR not
deserve being knelt on while begging for breath and calling for mother.
He was bullshitting. He lied about his mother. He lied about doing drugs. He was lying about
being unable to breathe. But you want to construct an elaborate rationalization for him not
lying about claustrophobia. And who cares?
Should we disband the police because blacks start claiming they have "jailophobia."
You strike me as a nice person. We have police to protect nice people from horrible people
and ugly realities. Just thank them for their service and go back to thinking happy
thoughts.
His breathing difficulty was most certainly due to the lethal levels of fentanyl in his
bloodstream, which, including both fentanyl and it's active metabolite, norfentanyl, was
about 16.6 ng/mL. The average lethal concentration found in one recent study of opioid
related ODs was 9.8 ng/mL. We're not even sure Floyd was accustomed to opioids, because a
naive user can succumb even at much lower levels. Per the autopsy he had signs of advanced
atherosclerosis, which means he was a ticking time bomb considering his use of illicit
substances.
The merchant victim of the bogus bill asked Floyd to void the transaction by returning the
cigarettes and the change for the bill he passed. Floyd refused and that's why the merchant
called the cops on his black ass.
@NobodyKnowsImADog
ayments that let them stay in the city and not vote while the political professionals vote
"Democrat" that claim to represent the inert mass / mob, but don't.
Time to end this farce, and it's time because the money has run out to even support the
present system. Supposedly Trump and the Democrats are negotiating a COVID-19 welfare package
that will amount to 2.5 trillion dollars, if the negotiations don't fail. 2.5 trillion
dollars, all borrowed when the Democrat run States and cities (supposedly the richest in the
country) are effectively all bankrupt. The phrase "Dead, but too stupid to fall down" comes
to mind.
It's not the usual beast with a brain to remove. Like ISIS, it's a starfish with arms that
will grow back.
George Floyd was not a victim of police brutality or injustice.
Like the rest of us, he was a victim of the Covid lockdown. He was passing a bad bill
after losing his job. That wasn't his fault, but the DFL governor and mayor's.
@Malla stranger
wanted to start a fight with me in a bar. None of that would ever happen in America, despite
its supposed culture of violence.
America only doesn't look so great when compared with Western Europe (and Eastern?) and
Japan, but police brutality is obviously much less severe in America than in China and
India.
But America should be compared to the most developed places, not India or China or
Thailand or Poland, and it is more brutal than places in that comparison.
Sweden and Norway seem to have worked out a good approach to policing.
Which is reason number one-hundred-million-and-one why I believe that blacks and whites
in America need to go our separate ways. We need a racial divorce.
There needs to be separation because there's certainly no shortage of stupid dysfunctional
blacks like Saint George Floyd or indoctrinated/cucked whites who will take up for them.
Once the former are gone, we can focus entirely on the latter.
@animalogic t of
the divide and conquer strategy. Seems to me Trump has done his job (for his handlers) better
than even Obama; he's the most divisive President by far. I know, the media creates the
controversies, but Trump gets to play his part. He's an actor, taking direction, just like
every Pres. since Kennedy. I've noticed a steady progression beginning with Billy boy, and
reaching new heights of division with Trump.
People who still think "we" elect our President, or that it makes any difference at all
who gets elected,
gotta be deluded or distracted or just not paying attention.
The situation in the United States that this entire George Floyd event crystallizes into a
microcosm of our society even has such people as Dr. Gary Null, a noted researcher on the
Left side of the political spectrum up, in arms.
What is he angry about? That such organizations as BLM and many others of the Left,
concentrate on their own victimhood instead of concentrating on those issues that concern all
of us, together as one nation.
In this afternoon's radio broadcast, Dr. Null leveled a broadside against the Left that
would have had everyone on the Right standing up and cheering
The merchant victim of the bogus bill asked Floyd to void the transaction by returning
the cigarettes and the change for the bill he passed. Floyd refused and that's why the
merchant called the cops on his black ass.
LOL
Typical Nigger Behavior.
Unrestrained arrogance + Unmatched ignorance.
Look how many of them will gun each other down over the slightest notion of
"disrespect"
Some people will chose death over incarceration, but the duties of police and correctional
officers as properly discharged are to make the aforementioned option a very difficult one in
practice. The guards in the Epstein case are being prosecuted and so are the cops in the
Floyd case. They were paid to do a job.
@AaronB , cops in
America are far more rude than cops in Britain or the rest of Europe or Japan on average. For
some reason, I have never had any problems with police anywhere, for some strange reason cops
and airport officials are nicer to me than others (I have noticed). For example being let off
without fines for bringing in forbidden food products (the food products were confiscated
ofcourse) at airports while all my Indian friends having to pay fines.
But even I found American cops a bit rude compared to Western Euro/ Japanese cops. British
cops are extremely friendly and nice.
While the entire narrative concocted by the Lügenpresse is of course a massive lie,
there are nevertheless real questions to be asked about the tragic ascension of St. George
the Breathless.
*Big-city cops aren't usually very concerned with things like some drugged up hoodlum
passing a fake 20-dollah bill. They usually have better things to do and leave this nonsense
to the feds. (Yes we know they are supposed to enforce all laws – federal included
– except immigration violations which they routinely are ordered not to enforce by the
criminals who issue their orders.)
What was so important about this particular drugged up negro felon when there are so many
out there? Why was this fake 20 so important?? (They're all really fake 20s of course but
we're only referring here t0 those who are not legally entitled to counterfeit versus those
who are.)
*Officer Chauvin and St. George might very well have known each other as they both worked
security for an establishment called El Nuevo Rodeo, which seems to have some interesting
owners connected to the famous representative in our Clown Congress – one Ms. Ilhan
Omar, a paper Murikan from Somalia. Chauvin supposedly worked as outside muscle while St.
George served as inside muscle for this fine, upstanding pillar in a top-notch Minneapolis
neighborhood.
*Did St. George ingest all that Fentanyl, etc. himself or did someone help him?? Given his
saintly lifestyle self-medication seems most likely but still if a loose end needs to be tied
up it needs to be tied up.
*Chauvin's record of excessive-force complaints (18) in über-leftist Minneapolis
seems unusual for someone still allowed to work at the pleasure of the Politburo there. Is
this unusual or are they so desperate to keep foot soldiers they'll overlook the number of
complaints (many of which could be nonsense in that environment) despite his being a
crackah?
*I've read some reports of a massive counterfeiting operation centered in Minneapolis. Did
St. George, Derek Chauvin and the owners of El Nuevo Rodeo have anything to do with this? Is
there any possibility Chauvin was merely making certain that St. George's OD was permanent in
nature??
@Sulu worth an
article on Unz because the drug manufacturers are white (so the Chinese or Blacks can't be
blamed). The victims are also white.
It seems obvious that what these people need is medical attention and mentorship. In
Europe, that's what they would have gotten. It probably won't happen, however, because
blaming the victims is easier and more satisfying.
Seeing this shithole country finally crumble makes this a great time to be alive. Hit that
shard pipe, wrap yourselves in the flag, and find other losers to commiserate with you.
At least Hadji was working to build a business instead of Saint Floyd who was working hard
at hardly working. But tbeiving and being an ignorant dope fiend was "job 1" for the
beneficent giant.
" Four white officers " SNIP! And that my friends is where all of this crap falls apart.
When these clowns reporting this nonsense can't even get that right then everything else, all
of the subsequent lies, follow.
@FB dn't want
this fine looking American to have to go to Friday Prayers with a fake twenty in his
pantaloons, now would we ?
Arabs are the ones keeping the lights on in a lot of these areas.
A lot of those mini mart owners are actually refugee Coptics. This is especially true for
Detroit where a Coptic community runs half the businesses. Ironically the Blacks chased out
the Jews in the Detroit riots and the Gov replaced them with Coptics (Not a conspiracy, it's
done through green card requirements).
Muslims don't like handling pork or alcohol unless they have to.
@Anon This is why
I suspect that the smaller prefrontal cortex is really the main issue. We are supposed to
believe it's just a coincidence that this is the area of the brain that is responsible for
self-control. Harsh to talk about but I don't see blaming Whitey as a long term solution.
The obsession alt-right has with IQ tests is corrosive and leaves too many questions
unanswered. I used to live near a group home for severely mentally limited adults and they
were harmless. They were happy to help with anything but weren't able to care for themselves
since they were mentally around 6 or 7.
The Germans and Hitler were right. I wish Germany would have won the second WW. Jews do
not want to join the peoples of the world. Their hog wash ( gods chosen people) keep them
from becoming citizens on the level playing field of world peoples .that leaves one defense
for us non jews get rid of them ..had the Germans won the second WW, there would be no small
state of Israel .and look what a murderous monster state of terrorism it is today
The jews take over of the us Fed Reserve is not acceptable .they run the US congress .through
their lobbys .they steal billions from the US taxpayer .this way .and there you have it .they
are thieves ..period. Get Rid Of Them
Prefrontal cortex executive function would be overthinking it in emergencies. That is why
it gets disconnected under conditions of extreme stress. If you are brought up around chronic
stress, you become programmed to react very instinctively to any threats, even ones to social
status.
That's the flip side of the same "logic" that says that anybody who champions their rights
actually hates themselves and/or wants to have sex with them.
@John Johnson
decline as long as this continues.
Here, biker gangs make and distribute this drug. I guarantee that none of the "pro-white"
commenters here are going to be calling for cops to manhandle them, or even to take any
action at all, since seeing a white guy on a Hayim Davidstein motorcycle that he wouldn't
otherwise be able to afford is fine no matter how many white kids' lives he ruined.
Whites here would rather cry over a Jewess that was killed by a Somali cop, and my thesis is
that no race or community can survive with the problems that white Americans continue to
have.
@anon is what
this "article" is designed to do, to set one group against the other. "Let's you and him
fight." That is how we make color revolutions by the training manual. Look! A plane hit the
building! You didn't see it? Something wrong with your eyes. Look at the video. BLM and
Antifa should think twice when they are sent out because their own trainers may shoot them in
the back for special effects. Of course, it's not just about the Trump Biden election. It's
about who rules the world. The World Trade Center is now "One World Plaza." And to think this
is our own government doing this to us.
@AaronB
prostitutes where some police accused me of soliciting and actually drew their guns on me.
But I was polite and kept my hands away from my pockets (Which makes cops nervous) and in
five minutes they said I was free to go.
Its a kind of utter buffoonery. An oafishness.
On the female side its a grotesque public spectacle. As anyone who has seen a 300 pound
hooker knows. Sure, there are Jewish sex workers. Lots of Gentiles beat off to Joanna Angel
or Nina Hartley films.
But Joanna is not screaming on the sidewalk "The streetlight makes my p((ssy hair glow in
the dark"
I met Joanna Angel once at an electronic trade convention. She was polite and nice.
@anastasia ss a
single counterfeit bill is arrested. The matter is immediately referred to the federal
agency, Secret Service which investigates.
If the arrestee is deemed an innocent person who's innocently acquired the bill. He's not
charged. If the investigation finds the person has acquired the bill from either the
counterfeiters or another passer of counterfeit bills he is charged with knowingly passing a
counterfeit bill.
Floyd was a career criminal. There's a major counterfeiting operation In Minneapolis. As
evidenced by the seizure of 900,000 counterfeit bills recently.
In 1993 on a trip to Spain I saw four cops (one female) club the living shit out of some
Moroccan in Puerto del Sol Madrid. They beat him until two bricks of "mugre" dropped out of
his pants on the sidewalk, slung him in the back of a patrol car and sped off. From first
verbal contact to everybody gone was less than two minutes.
Another hoax perpetrated by the dishonest f media going unpunished for inciting subsequent
hate crimes and destruction against white weaklings and founding fathers images. Racist Lemon
and his colleagues from the CNN together with MSNBC are leading this police onslaught.
The use of police body cams that the Obama administration pushed for and which were
supposed to prove the narrative that police, and especially white police, are
stopping/targeting and killing blacks for no other reason than they are
driving/walking/jaywalking while black, is actually debunking the narrative and showing that
blacks invited and deserved the force that was used against them based on their erratic and
violent behavior.
Not sure who made the prediction but years ago they said that the widespread use of body
cams would do precisely this (debunk the far left narrative), so there would be a new push to
eliminate the use of body cams since it would show blacks acting like animals on the set of
the wild kingdom.
This is a great article but Greggy went soft on the Jewish owned drive by media and if not
for their slanted and propagandistic coverage and false claims the nation wouldn't have been
set on fire for months now. An honest media (Jew free) would have put events in their proper
context and waited for more facts to emerge instead of screaming "racist killer cops"
24/7.
@Sean they puled
him out because he'd give them the virus in the closed space. Then they called the paramedics
to take care of him. While waiting, one of the cops held him down with a knee on the BACK OF
Floyd's neck, preventing him from turning around and spraying the cop with viruses.
Cops aren't personal maids or nurses, asking them to take care of infectious drug addicts
would require a lot more cops and they wouldn't be cops anymore – that would be a
horrendous way of wasting taxpayer's money. Why didn't you go and take care of the drugged
criminal? At your own expense? His death is your fault
You'll notice that the media, even FOX, hasn't breathed a word about the Hennepin County
Medical Examiner's report. That's because the report contradicts the media's claims that
George Floyd died of asphyxia due to Chauvin's knee on his neck. The medical examiner's
report makes clear that Floyd had no internal or external injuries to his neck. If the
medical examiner's report had claimed Floyd died as a result of Chauvin's actions the leftist
media would be quoting from it every night.
Instead it has been memory holed and the media myrmidons hope everyone will just forget
about it so they don't go looking for it to read it and learn they've been lied to for
months. This way they can convict the four officers in the media with damnable lies.
@anonymous le,
who had murder on their mind. All the Alt-Right and White Nationalists did was complain. No
competent defense attorney volunteered to defend him. Fields wound up with an incompetent
Public Defender who did nothing to try to get him off.
If Chauvin is found guilty, which I'd bet a thousand dollars he will be, again his White
supporters will do nothing but complain on the pages of Unz and like websites. IMO, there is
a much better case to convict Chauvin than there was for sad sack James Fields. Chauvin needs
a top notch Black defense attorney. Unfortunately Johnny Cochran is dead.
" the police dealt with Floyd with a level of patience and professionalism that I
certainly could not have mustered. would you have been able to maintain your cool in the same
situation? This video gives me nothing but respect for the police who have to deal day in and
day out with deranged criminals like George Floyd."
Yup. Browse among the literally thousands of hours of cam footage online showing how
blacks typically react to police in routine stops. Blacks love lying and shouting and
violently resisting. They genuinely believe they have a right to resist lawful arrest, and
have for at least the last ten years.
No way I could be a cop. I would never find the patience to put up with even five minutes
of it. God bless law enforcement.
@Sean It used to
be accepted that Black boys needed harsher punishments. This was accepted by both Blacks and
Whites.
Now modern egalitarians have decided that all children are the same. Well how is that
working out? Have you read the essay on what it is like to teach black children? For all
indications Black kids were better off in the 40s when Whites had lower expectations. In
today's classroom White liberal teacher lets a few of them run wild and then ruin the class
for the sake of liberal feelings. The Black kids with potential get to college and find out
they are well behind. This happens everywhere.
James Fields plowed his car into a group of protesters, killing one. Your point of view is
the result of the cognitive dissonance between your imagined reality and your observable one.
Taking such indefensible positions has to be understood in the context of your mind
protecting your ego.
Being on drugs did not make Floyd deserving of death. Neither did having a criminal past,
or resisting arrest. This entire situation, where police could apply arbitrary force against
Floyd, resulted from Floyd passing a fake $20 bill. I dont know if you've noticed, but the
FED has been passing trillions in fake twenties these last few months. How can you
counterfeit something that is worth nothing, backed by nothing, signifying nothing, endlessly
created out of nothing? If anything, by injecting his own worthless currency into the
economy, George Floyd was saving the FED some work. He was providing a valuable service,
which is keeping this dead economy afloat.
The author writes that knee on neck is an approved restraint technique, and thus cannot be
illegal, without seeming to realize that this is the CORE of the issue and why many people
are upset and protesting in the first place. George Floyd was not cooperating but he was also
not being violent. Whereas Chauvin used violence to subdue Floyd. It doesnt matter if Floyd
died of heart failure. Do you think his heart would have failed if he didnt have an armed man
kneeling on his neck?
Justice happens in a courtroom buddy, and it's the cop's job to make sure a perpetrator
makes it to a courtroom.
Of course its probably all psychological warfare from top to bottom. The cop's name is
practically Chauvinist for crying out loud. The end result is how we may judge the motive of
the incident. And the end result appears to be the defunding of police departments. Just as
COVID is defunding the rest of the economy.
Whoever is left holding the fake cash loses everything.
If the Feds abused their power in Waco and Ruby Ridge, then they also abused their power
in Portland.
As far as people flahing their high beams, I think it's a pretty clear sign that the people
who do it want the rest of us to avoid a bad encounter with the police.
Sadly, it continues to be fashionable to take whichever side of an issue makes you feel
better about your country and your identity. Here is where nationalism reveals itself as a
bankrupt ideology good for manipulating feelings rather than arriving at any useful
results.
Blacks love lying and shouting and violently resisting. They genuinely believe they have
a right to resist lawful arrest, and have for at least the last ten years.
Golly, I wonder (((who))) put those kinds of RADICAL ideas in their heads?
@Robert Dolan
unable to see through liberalism. If anything they used their intelligence to delude
themselves. This is mocked in the joke about how only someone born really smart can write a
book about how intelligence isn't genetic.
I would trust my local Mexican gardener to craft racial policy over any White liberal with
a Harvard degree. I don't think we are dealing with a lack of intelligence in liberals. I
think the theory of liberals having religious and egalitarian genes make the most sense. This
then overrules their rationality. So in that context I'm really not impressed with
intelligence tests.
Lol if George Floyd really threw the entire "Free World" into spasms of K*ll-the-Boerism
because he pulled a Juice WRLD and ate his stash (which happened to be, I assume, laced with
a lethal amount of fent) to hide it from the porkers welll, that's pretty darn funny. Besides
all the k*ll wypipo stuff, of course.
The truth is that the Leftists don't care what caused Floyd's death. The truth is
irrelevant. A negro died while a white cop was restraining him. The damage that Floydgroids
do to society is stuff we deserve, don't you see? There shouldn't be any cops, unless it's
gentile whites defending themselves, then there needs to be a police state to keep them
defenseless.
@John Johnson
have good jobs and live with wives and kids aren't good parents as a whole judging by the
criminal records drug habits etc the children of so many affirmative action blacks have.
But black fathers are strong, violent rageaholics
So they can keep the little ones in line. But once boy is 5'8 140, beatings I doubt more
beatings will import him. In the old days he could leave home and do farm labor or other
work.
Nowadays the 14 year old thug lives with mamma because of the welfare money. And if the
critters don't go to school, the welfare department cuts off the money.
@TimeTraveller e
an English class. Your I.Q. must be very low to not recognize the use of a simile.
Just the fact that you want this country to burn tells me that you are a looser from an
economic as well as an intellectual standpoint. You're on the bottom and you think if there
is revolution that some how things will get better for you. I can assure you, especially if
you are black, that things are never going to get better for you. As a matter of fact, if you
do happen to be black, things will probably get a lot worse for you before it ever gets
better.
Yes. I didn't comment much on this because, like pretty much EVERY OTHER "racist" incident
the last several years, I figured, if we waited long enough, the truth would come out. Of
course, waaaay after the narrative was set, and the damage was done. I'm curious. Are the
powers that be pushing this b.s. because they genuinely feel blacks face injustice or are
they using the blacks to aid in their attempt to destroy our culture? Either way, the blacks
will ultimately suffer. They're so put upon they have to manufacture countless "crimes"
against them. As if there eventually won't be a backlash bringing on the prejudice they
supposedly wish to stamp out. Lol. Popcorn indeed.
So, George Floyd is 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. That make sense because he kept saying
(lying) that he could not breath seems the beginning then those police will not trust him
anymore, and when he truly begin to unable to breath by the kneeing on neck with ton of human
meat on his back and butt, so those police think he lied and didn't trust him and they didn't
even think to double check.
(Note: There is other version with the conclusion is that the boy is eaten by wolf, not
sheep)
Sorry, the leak video:
1.George Floyd is an Temper Tantrum and his mind is really sane to me, he is not even in
the state of 'drug addict'.
2.It does not prove that George Floyd is killed by the Fentanyl. The leak video, in fact,
proves that Derek Chauvin had accidentally killed George Floyd due to the 'The Boy Who Cried
Wolf' effect, and ignorant on how dangerous kneeing on neck is. I think George Floyd is
killed by the combination of Fentanyl and Kneeing On Neck.
Question:
1.Why the police does not release the leak video from the beginning? The video, in fact,
can give Derek Chauvin more excuses to save him from being jail or just get him fire only or
he even able to keep his job due to the police qualified immunity and it can prevent
riot.
My own answer for this is that this is literally divide and conquer tactics, make those
anti-police, with many right reasons, like a bunch of idiot and the leak video also cover the
true problem, police abusing power. The police abusing power is usually unable to discussed
and the MSM always turn it into 'police beat black people'.
2.Why the redacted video, which is recorded at the same places, has the date '05/26/2020'
meanwhile the leak video has the date '05/25/2020′? Can anybody explain to me? I truly
curious about this.
That fat (360 pounds) tub of crap Eric Garner had the cops trying to get him to comply
with his arrest for 45 minutes before they laid a hand on him. He had been arrested more than
30 times by the NYPD on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny. Less
than a year before he died, in August 2013, he was charged with aggravated unlicensed
operation of a vehicle, false impersonation and marijuana possession. He was out on parole
for that.
He already had three more pending charges for illegally selling cigarettes–and then
was caught again the day that he died. He was (correctly) afraid that this time he'd be
busted on a parole violation.
He would not just sell the loose cigs–he positioned himself by the store's entrance
and threaten people who would go in and buy legal cigarettes inside.
He had no job due to his obesity and health issues-plus his own wife said on TV that he
was "lazy" (her word). Not totally–he did have 6 kids-with 4 different women.
He was being arrested for counterfeiting. The cops routinely cuff you even when they want
to interrogate you for a possible crime. I see it all the time. Then later they uncuff you
and let you go. What is so hard about that?
Too many cops have been shot going up to a car where they can't see the guys hands. That
is why there is always a cop in the back with his gun drawn in case you try to spin around
and take a shot. Sorry, but that is the way is is because of the people being stopped.
I also have no doubt that liberals would much rather divide children by IQ than
acknowledge that race exists. They would put well behaved White kids with unruly Black kids
for not scoring high enough.
It makes more sense to argue that Whites simply have a right to exist as a people and that
includes all Whites regardless of intellect. There are numerous European gene differences
that are related to cultural preferences and they should not be forced to subject themselves
to some egalitarian dystopia that hates them, especially when said Whites built the empire in
the first place.
@frontier y are
you speaking for cops? David Layman the ex cop and former supermax guard YouTuber, who
deliberately broke fingers until convicts submitted, and once was struck by a colleague to
get him to stop baton choking a rampaging convict to death said the duration of what Chauvin
did to Floyd was nothing like what would be done in the line of duty, clearly unnecessary,
and Chavin knew it because he was resting his hands on his thighs. Relative to the education
and amount of training required to qualify, cops are far better paid than nurses. But that is
going to change because even one Chauvin is too much.
Having a gun out shows they were self-dramatising cops in a fantasy world.
No, you see this all the time when there are two cops on a traffic stop. One approaches
the window and the other hangs back in the guys blind spot with either his gun already drawn
or with his hand on it.
@Sulu se
granddaughter killed herself because of meth isn't even able to grieve properly for his
granddaughter because conservatives declared her the enemy and declared a war on her for the
sake of law and order. His political ideology estranged him from his own seed, and any nation
that makes this the norm is doomed to failure. Its flags deserve to be burned and its
monuments deserve to be defaced.
I guarantee that the old man sympathizes more with Wall Street and Israeli Jews than his
own daughter, and sides with property against life and injury. Such a nation has an
appointment with famine and has no future.
He wasn't really trying to kill anyone if the only person he managed to kill was a
4′ 11″, 330 lb. chain smoker. If he had been black, a mestizo illegal alien or a
major D Party donor his sentence would have been no more than 10 years. The 419 year sentence
was the tell that this had been a political show trial.
Floyd was not "murdered" by the police. How simple to watch and conclude that.
Expose and expose and expose the restraint they show they used on a crazed, resistant and
potentially violent person.
If reason does not prevail here, if the crazed, resistant and potentially violent
person(s) still want to use this as an excuse for violence and destruction, then time to
arrest every one of them, by defending the police, not stupidly "defunding" the police.
To watch the wormy and pompous Jeffrey Nadler utter, "Shame on you," to AG Barr shows what
Nadler would do to efforts to maintain order: encourage rioting, violence and
destruction.
Go to Israel, Mr. Nadler. That's where you belong! And take Antifa with you.
@Alden ers are
just as bad as the media. They know full well it is a lie and hate that we don't go along
with it. That hate us more than anything. They would happily send us to camps and shut off
the internet in the name of equality.
So they can keep the little ones in line. But once boy is 5'8 140, beatings I doubt
more beatings will import him. In the old days he could leave home and do farm labor or other
work.
Well that is also when 8th grade was the goal and not high school graduation.
From what I have read Blacks really start having problems around junior high.
@TimeTraveller I
agree that America has major problems and a hell of a lot of it can be laid at the feet of
the Jews. But if things go to hell in this country(Civil War) your benefits won't be worth
the paper it's printed on. I don't think this country needs to burn so much as certain groups
within it need to burn.
But I suspect all this civil unrest is little more than poor Kabuki theater designed to
assist in getting Trump out of office. If Biden wins I bet Covid-19 and riots just magically
go away. If Trump is re-elected it's anyone's guess what will happen.
Almost a year ago exactly, yet another drunk-driving illegal alien killed another
American citizen. This time, it was Sarasota, Fla., and the vehicular killer will spend 13
years behind bars.
He pled guilty to the federal charges, not to the sate charges. Presumably he pled guilty
to the federal charges because he didn't want to face the death penalty.
And no, these people don't give a damn about justice. The idea of the great reset is to
continue to push the US into a collectivist state of mind and a China like economic set up
with a fully authoritarian government and no political freedom. Scamdemic lock down and media
manufactured race war are two ways to push us in that direction.
If it looks like a conspiracy and smells like a conspiracy .
I would invoke the Insurrection Act, then spend the next few weeks arresting the leaders
of BLM and antifa, as well as their collaborators in state and municipal governments,
You forgot to arrest the media owners. The one's who have for 4 years, made our
president's life miserable, through lies and innuendos. And, while you're at it grab False
Fauci and his master, Billy boy Gates, thereby putting to an end the entire charade.
There's enough video, and print evidence, available of powerful jews clamoring for the
eradication of white Christians. It's time for those who speak of our genocide, be it a
rabbi, a professor, politician, newscaster, or whomever, to be charged under the hate speech
laws that they themselves rammed through congress.
@John Johnson
inistrators big black mammas, black preachers, and NAACP ADL AJC ACLU lawsuits hovering
about, it's basically illegal to impose discipline on black kids. Just as it's impossible to
fire incompetent troublesome blacks in the workplace.
The White women are stuck in the classroom with the monsters . The black women sit in the
school district office as consultants, coordinators and counselors at high salaries. And
behind them are the Jewish legal foundations and administrators at the state level aiding and
abetting the savages who destroy the schools and make them unsafe for Whites.
Immigrants are fortunate. Most of them come from nations that are free of blacks.
Irrespective of their economic shortcomings, nations such as this offer a peace, security and
tranquility that once they arrive in the US they will never know again. And since so many
immigrants are destined to operate small businesses in the United States, their interactions
with this conflict and crime driven group will be a central part of their lives in the US.
But that's only if they decide to call the years they'll spend interacting with black America
as living.
I didn't have to use DuckDuckGo to find this vid. It was first, right at the top, using
the Carlson episode title as a search phrase. Enjoy:)
Once again, the cop didn't "point a gun" at George Floyd, which is clearly evident in the
video. The pistol is pointed slightly down and to the side. If the trigger had've been pulled
during that segment of the video, the bullet would've struck the hinge area of the opened
door. Look at the trigger guard to get a good idea of the pistol's long-axis alignment.
Tucker's Unreal George Floyd Comments The Young Turks
Aug 5, 2020
These teachers are no different than the scumbags in media in that they believe
egalitarian lies are better than admitting that those other Whites are probably
correct. They can't stomach that outcome so the unspoken plan is to lie and suppress while
hoping that miscegenation somehow evens it all out someday. The unspoken plan is to hope they
just breed out the curve.
Public teachers are part of the problem and they know it. All it would take is a dozen of
them to setup hidden cameras and the system would crash.
Chauvin will no more get justice than has James Fields (he of Charlottesville, Va.), whose
victim wasn't even black (and she wasn't his victim, either).
The mob is in full control, now.
Presumably, he pled guilty because he knew the evidence against him was insurmountable
(i.e., he knew he was guilty) . That would be the simplest presumption to make.
Along those lines you must face the fact that the Negro was made Numinous by Yankee
WASP Elites.
The Unz Jew haters can't handle that reality.
There must have been a Jew in the cupboard or something when Lincoln decided to go to
war.
The same Jew in the cupboard must have forced him to only give lip service to the Liberia
plan.
At Unz the Jews are able to magically transverse time and space, filling the innocent
minds of Anglo leaders with egalitarian delusions even where Jews didn't exist or didn't have
influence.
The guy is flippin' out and the officers have a handful, to say the least. I also have to
admit that according to this footage, they are being as accommodating as possible considering
the situation.
Like the author, I have to question the claim of claustrophobia, in particular. They are
not putting him in a prowler, but an SUV, as far as I can tell.
And for LAW God fearing common people that believe in karma divine justice and their
simpleton infantile mind that in the battle of good vrs evil and lies vrs TRUTH good shall
prevail over evil and only the TRUTH shall makes us all FREE that divine binary covenant has
been broken. LIES and evil reign supreme and their godless troops in the MSMedia,
politicians, and other lords of darkness not only claim victimhood but make profits in the
process..WE simple deplorables find it incredible that our sacred News media affirms lies,
glorifies lies, certified lies , and if you dont believe lies then you are racist, bigot,
conspiracy lunatic BUT then if LIES win then the truth is irrelevant then it follows that GOD
is a fraud Why is the Black god fearing communities so silenced? all moral religious
INSTITUTIONS whose main source of sustenance is their defense of PEACE, morality, ethics,
GOODNESS, etc.condened BLMANTIFA From Jesus Christ, to Thoreau, MLKING, Mandela, the JUSTICE
and TRUTH ha been the crux of their MORAL force Today the political, religious, civil, MEDIA,
allied themselves with the LIES .its shameful, repugnant While terrorists are financed with
millions$$$ and celebrated in MSM Hollywood WashDC, an honorable man probably alone
devastated with a lifetime career in ruins Derek Chauvin he probably made the same mistake
that most simple humans made ,he believe in GOD that was his demise..IF you believe and hope
in god .you shall perished waiting
@fnn out, and
turned into the wrong street. His car was mobbed, his back window broken out, and he
accelerated into, as it turned out, another mob. That's what happened, I studied the
video.
The acceleration was a panic response. The people responsible for the resulting death were
the people who induced panic in James Fields, not James Fields. Had he not been mobbed and in
justifiable fear of his life, there would have been no death.
Field's trial and conviction were simply not legal. They weren't even a lynching. they
were simply a demonstration of life and death power by the Charlottesville Left. We've seen
quite a few of those demonstrations since then.
One in the chest and one in the head. Sorts all kind of problems out.
Ok where I live, Sweden, the police would have beaten the shit out of him for resisting
arrest. Police don't easily draw their firearm here, but they are quick to draw their baton
and use it. But on the other hand, people arrested here do as the police say, making scenes
as in the video only worsens your case.
Policemen here are respected, and you can always ask a policeman if you are lost for your
way.
Most people here understand they do a hard and health wise taxing job.
I had a girlfriend a long time ago, who was a police officer ( 3,5 years education, minimum
college to entry) she got in a fracas, and was so much she had to quit. And she was not
petite 1,80 cm, really well built, athletic and of course a blonde.
She is now 30 years later a cripple, because of a bad arrest.
They should have shot the motherfucker! I would.
@UncommonGround
heir pods) encounter here on a regular basis, largely due to a black population unleashed by
liberal and media permissiveness. (You will soon though, when the levels of foreigners with a
migration background but no integration interest rise.)
There are some sadistic cops and they cause trouble (lots of white victims too) and
policing attitudes are bad, but blaming these cops on the death of a hopeless, disgusting
figure like St. George of the Gutter is unfair. Chauvin did ok, even if he did have priors. I
hope he doesn't get fucked over completely and I pray for him and the rest of us here.
Negroes are criminals. they may not have committed a crime yet, but they will soon.
"You can take a man out of the bush, but you can't take the bush out of a man"
Rhodesian proverb.
Niggars was a failed offshoot in making of the white man. It was a dead end, really. Just
like Gorillas and Chimps, will mostly not evolve further.
Once they they movi into your neigboorhood its time to move, same goes for bloody arabs,
sandniggars, bad people.
He didn't plead guilty for the state trial and was sentenced to 419 years by the
State/Commonwealth of Virginia. He risked the death penalty if found guilty in the federal
trial. I know it sounds crazy, but some guys would rather rot in prison than be put to
death.
@John Johnson
maybe they're more honest with me? They are also continually bullied by the black teachers
who just love to hear how the blacks curse defy and hit the White teachers.
A montage of videos showing black behavior in the public schools would be great great
great. If it were not taken down from the internet the first day.
I've seen plenty of internet posts and comments from White teachers describing the
horrendous behavior of blacks from K-12.
Once you've worked with blacks, whether kindergartners or attorneys, you realize the truth
about them.
@John Johnson
were bribed / financed by oil companies. No joke, no conspiracy theories, not "mystic
powers", just businessmen with oil/gas concessions that would go broke under nuclear
competition but managed to bribe the environmentalists to destroy nuclear. Granted, the word
"jewish" is never mentioned, and should have been if only as minor participants, but the
principals were not jewish.
Simple reality is horrifying beyond reason -- we are in a competitive society, like it or
not, and everybody competes ruthlessly. Far more comforting to believe that somebody
somewhere will prevent anything too bad from happening. The puppet masters need puppets, the
people complaining thus have a steady job.
Most ridiculous post I've seen in months. It's the black preachers who are the biggest
problem. They're not really clergymen. They're black racist activists using their churches as
a base from which to operate their political activities.
Mandela was a communist terrorist. MLK was trained at a communist activist school and was
a complete charlatan, grifter con artist and wife and sex partner beater.
The FBI had recordings in his home and there are many tapes of him pounding on his wife.
Source; retired FBI man a relative knows.
Fed Criminals commit crimes against countries, but it's the George Floyds us petty
assholes have to deal with on a daily basis and yes, he was being violent.
I guess replying to a "gay troll" makes me stupid too, but it won't happen again.
It's more likely that during interrogation they told him that the murder conviction was
cinched, that everyone at every level in the country, when they discussed the incident, they
prefaced it with "when the cops killed George Floyd" or some variation. They told him (like
they do people) that he needs to take the "smart" option that is least destructive and
"safer". To me, a plea-bargained acceptance of a penalty has little relation to the truth of
the matter let alone guilt.
It probably very safe say that those cops are under bizarre pressure and it's
semi-ridiculous to pontificate about what they should do, but they need to keep their traps
shut and go to trial. The video that's been released shows the majority of what actually
happened. They did nothing wrong. The only quibble is Chauvin using his knee to keep that
whigged-out nut in position, and it's a permitted technique according to the formal police
guidelines, used against people who are resisting arrest, as Floyd was.
But they all could be sacrificed, especially if the Democrats win (the trial is set for
next spring). Actually, that's probably what he was told. "They're going to kill you
[essentially] and you'd better agree to this before they have a chance."
"Presumably, he pled guilty because he knew the evidence against him was insurmountable
(i.e., he knew he was guilty) . That would be the simplest presumption to make."
@Ilya G
Poimandres ed use their fire arms under the law in that case and if they had the shooting
wouldn't have been a blip on the radar screen given King's actions. Instead, to save King,
they used batons as they were trained and brought a man stated to be under PCP, wildly strong
and deranged under control without killing him or inflicting permanent debilitating injury.
(The two other men with him complied and there was no problem). Officer Koon thought the
whole thing, being taped, would be used as a text book case of how to handle such a
situation. So basically they did what you suggest. How'd that turn out?
What scares me is the insouciance and apathy to the loss of a human life shown by the
white people here. BLM have a point.
Only psychopaths would dwell on the technicalities of how he died and the events that led
to it. Does it matter now? he is dead.
These are two fundamental questions for me.
Would George Floyd has died if he didn't had the encounter with Dave chauvin? Would he
have just died anyway?
Did he deserved to die?
Most reasonable people would say no. People here try to justify his death when there is
nothing to justify here. Watching white people justify his death with cold rationality and a
total lack of empathy gives me the shivers.
The Chinaman is probably just as racist as whites against blacks but George Floyd didn't
do anything to deserve this fate.
Think about how it felt like to die from suffocation under that knee for 9 minutes? What
if it were you ? Would you want someone to help you if you said " I can't breathe"?
She's the one who had a meltdown and had to leave the set and go smoke a big fat hooter
when Trump won the count on election night. And she's the one that bandies about the epithet,
"trash". It's on Youtube, somewhere. It's hilarious.
A montage of videos showing black behavior in the public schools would be great great
great. If it were not taken down from the internet the first day.
Vrettos: 1. We're waiting to see how the rhetoric of the new Biden administration will play
out in actual policies.
Hudson: Biden's long political career has been right-wing. He's the senator from Delaware,
the country's most pro-corporate state – which is why most U.S. corporations are
incorporated there. As such, he represents the banking and credit-card industry. He sponsored
the regressive bankruptcy "reform" written and put into his hands by the credit-card companies.
As a budget hawk, he's rejected MMT, and also "Medicare for all" as if it is too expensive for
the government to afford – thereby making the private sector afford to pay 18% of US GDP
for health-insurance monopolies.
Hardly by surprise, Biden has chosen cabinet members as corporate lobbyists, including the
new Secretary of Defense. And on February 9 he invited Jamie Dimon and other business leaders
to the White House and asked them what they recommended. These billionaires said that they
didn't need $1.400, so why should anyone else? They pretended that spending money might cause
inflation – yet we are in the midst of debt deflation and falling disposable income for
most families.
Biden's prejudices are why the Democratic National Committee pushed him as their candidate
over Sanders, and why Rep. Jim Clyburn made his pharmaceutical industry backers happy by
pushing Biden over the top in South Carolina, delivering the black vote in that state's big
primary.
What amazes me is the ability to attract this vote despite the degree to which Biden has
sponsored legislation that hurts blacks and other minorities: his cutbacks in welfare spending,
his anti-crime laws falling mainly on the black community, his bankruptcy laws, and of course
his denial of universal public medical care to that part of the population with the highest
death rates, shortest lifespans and worst medical care.
He has tried to cover up this history by appointing Neera Tanden as head of the budget,
claiming that she's a progressive presumably simply because she's non-white. Yet she's a
leading opponent of Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposals.
V: In our polarized economy, wages have stagnated since 1971 – home ownership rates
have fallen as foreclosures, evictions and homelessness have jumped dramatically during the
2020-2021 Covid pandemic.
The big decline in home ownership was the result of Obama's double-crossing his campaign
promises by bailing out the banks and leaving all the junk-mortgage debts and other fraudulent
loans on the books. This led to foreclosures and evictions of about 9 million American
families, most of them Hispanic and black. Home ownership rates plunged from 68 to 61 percent
of the population (an enormous and rapid 10% drop).
The covid epidemic is leading to enormous arrears mounting up – for renters and for
mortgage debtors. Evictions have been suspended by moratoriums that expire in March or April,
and unpaid mortgages have been added onto later due dates (with appropriate penalties making
this remunerative for the banks).
So the question is whether Biden can outdo Obama in reducing U.S. home ownership rates by
another 10% -- say, to just 56% of the population.
Let's look at what could be done – today and a decade ago. Obama and Biden COULD have
written down the junk mortgages to realistic market prices (and thrown the mortgage brokers and
bankers in jail for fraud). Instead, they supported the fraudsters against the voters who had
been promised "hope and change." Most of the millions of foreclosed homes were bought by
absentee owners and turned into rental property. Companies such as Blackstone were major
players. The evicted families entered the rent market – and U.S. rent charges have
soared. So consumer income has been spent much more on real estate, finance and insurance than
for goods and services.
V: It's most severe and unstable at the bottom of the housing market where tenants who have
lost jobs have amassed $11 billion in rental arrears -- a broader measure which includes all
delinquent renters puts the number at $53 billion.
There are two kinds of results. The first will be an enormous accrual of back-rent debts and
mortgage arrears to be paid off. For commercial businesses such as restaurants, these arrears
are so large that they probably will choose to go out of business rather than paying all the
profits for the next few years to their landlords.
Unless these debts are written down, most of the population is too debt-strapped to buy
goods and services. So corporate profits can come only from rising prices, or getting
government subsidy,
A second result is going to be a rise in homelessness in many cities. Entire camps of
evictees will be forming in tents, perhaps in the major parks – or on the subways as in
the past.
Many properties will be sold – yet housing prices are still rising.
V: What are some of the specific racial effects of this housing and job crisis, what's been
the Bidden administration's response so far and how does this relate to your own work on racial
reparations measures?
The low rates of black home ownership reflect a vicious history of red-lining. Limiting the
areas where non-whites can buy has gone together with charging much higher interest rates than
white buyers receive.
Housing is the basic criterion for joining the middle class. And for a century, blacks were
excluded, not only by banks but from the government mortgage-insurance programs dating from
FDR's reforms in the 1930s. That's what made black buyers "more risky" and hence charged higher
interest rates.
I grew up in Hyde Park, in Chicago. The University of Chicago and its property management
companies were among the worst abusers. For them, a "free market" meant a market free of
blacks. But in the late 1950s they saw that they could do "block busting," that is, selling a
home in a white neighborhood to a black buyer. This panicked the neighboring owners, who sold
their homes. The buyers were largely the speculators, who flipped them to black buyers at
marked-up prices.
That happened on my block, on 48th and Dorchester, a block from where Obama has bought his
home. Once a few houses had changed hands, Mayor Daley condemned the block. My house was torn
down, as were others, and the land is not gentrified.
To put the issue in perspective, think of the situation in 1945. That is when the great
increase in middle-class wealth – today's middle-class net worth – took off. It was
limited to white people, because they were the only people who qualified for the great increase
in net worth created by the house-price boom over the past 75 years.
The norm was that banks limited their mortgages to a level that would absorb up to 25% of a
buyer's salary. The buyer would get a self-amortizing mortgage, to be paid off in 30 years free
and clear. This limit on debt leveraging kept housing affordable.
You and I have spoken about the issue of black reparations before. It's very hard to pay
reparations for slavery, because the enslaved families have died long ago. The reparations need
to be paid to the living – and after all, it's the living blacks who remain injured.
There is one way to make the black population economically as resilient as the white
population has been. That is to give it the same deal that created most white middle-class
wealth. The government should buy or build homes – private homes, just like white
neighborhoods, not public housing. They should offer buyers the same deal that was given in
1945. Any black family would be given a home, with a mortgage of 25% of the household head's
income, to be amortized over 30 years.
Suppose the black buyer earns the minimum wage, or about $25,000 a year. Then 25% of this
would be $6,250 – just about $500 a month. Over 30 years, the buyer would pay $187,500
– much of it in interest, guaranteed by the FHA.
As a practical political matter, of course, such a windfall would have to be offered to all
Americans across the board. Hispanics and white poor would qualify.
That is the only way to create economic resilience of a class that has been excluded on
racial lines, and which remains excluded today.
Without special subsidy of this sort, there cannot be any serious talk of equality. Minority
buyers were the great victims of the junk-mortgage run-up and the Obama evictions.
V: In a recent N.Y. Times piece, David Leonhardt raises the question of why the U.S. economy
has fared so much better under Democratic presidents than Republicans?
In fact, he argues the gap is "startlingly large" when one measures annual growth rate, Gross
Domestic Product growth rate, jobs, incomes, productivity -- even stock prices.
Well, the New York Times has been the leader in "fake news," not least for its support of
real estate and financial interests, and of the Democratic Party.
The focus on growth rates as measured by GDP is a travesty of reality. Since 2008, GDP for
95% of Americans has actually declined. We are still in the Obama Depression – that was
the state of affairs when the covid-19 crisis hit. Pavlina Tcherneva at the Levy Institute at
Bard College has produced the statistics.
When debtors fall behind and have to pay penalty interest rates to banks and credit card
companies, this is counted as an "increase in GDP," classified as "financial services." As if
the banks are providing a service by charging higher fees to indigent debtors who are unable to
keep current on their living costs.
About 7% of GDP is hypothetical "homeowners rental value" – what homeowners would have
to pay themselves if they rented out their homes to themselves as tenants. As rents have risen
(largely by absentee owners who bought homes that were foreclosed), this increases GDP. It
leaves out minority owners, whose home ownership rate is much lower than that of whites.
What The New York Times and others looking at GDP leave out of account is how unequal the
distribution of wealth and income have become since 2008, and indeed since the 1980s.
Economists are now talking about a K-shaped recovery: up for owners of stocks and bonds (about
One Percent of the population owns something like 80 percent of these securities), and real
estate. But wage earners are being squeezed. The "recovery" is not a recovery for them. It's a
boom for the wealthy, for the rentier class, mainly in the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
(FIRE) sector.
That sector is the main audience for The New York Times. And most of the Democratic Party's
donor class comes from the FIRE sector. Despite this, the Democratic success at identity
politics has created a political situation in which only the Democrats can enact anti-labor and
anti-black policies, because their politicians are able to deliver the labor and black
votes.
I don't see how there can be real progress unless the Democratic Party is replaced, at least
with the DNC leadership that has turned its politics into demagogy. Its identity politics is
based on every identity except being a wage-earner.
V: Central to Biden and America's neoliberal vision of world order is an economic philosophy
of privatization and financialization. How do you think this will play itself out in the Biden
administration's foreign and economic policy of military spending and arms sales and use of
military threats and force if necessary, to enforce U. S. international dominance and
technological hegemony?
Biden has spent his career defending the financial sector, and its leading policy is to
privatize basic infrastructure. That means blocking governments from providing basic services
at cost or on a subsidized basis – education, health care, roads and communications. Yet
that is how America became the leading industrial economy from the late 19th century onward.
Financialization and privatization have left it a high-cost economy, uncompetitive in world
markets. that is why the economy is de-industrialized.
Privatized and financialized economies are high-cost. America spends 18% of its GDP on
health care – far more than any other country. And then there is the military budget. A
year ago January, Biden wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in January 2020 promising that his
incoming "foreign policy agenda will place the United States at the head of the table."
So what is he going to lead? He's already said that he's not going to negotiate with Iran,
but to keep the Trump administration policies in place. He's appointed neocon hawks to
leadership positions, especially Victoria Nuland and other anti-Russians. Biden seems to want
to use sanctions to isolate countries he sees as rivals or enemies – which is turning out
to be a rising share of the world's population, from Russia and China to Venezuela and
Iran.
The reality is that the United States is isolating itself! It is trying to block Europe from
importing Russian gas, and insisting on U.S. IT monopolies directed against China. And Biden
has as little respect for treaties as Trump had – that's why he's retaining Trump's
withdrawal from the Iran deal.
Even if Biden makes a new treaty, Congress would have to approve it. But Congress has
remained firm that no foreign countries can set policy for the United States. It therefore
insists on not subjecting itself to any international rule of law not drawn up by its own
political donors.
The looming global fracture is becoming a fight against the most basic organizing principles
of economies throughout history. All successful economies have been mixed. And to promote
survival and prosperity, it is necessary to subordinate private gain-seeking to public
objectives benefitting the 99 Percent, not just the One Percent.
That isn't Biden's policy or any other Democratic or Republican policy.
V: You see a basic conflict between financialized rentier economies and democratic-socialist
ones that seek to promote public objectives benefiting the 99 percent, not just the one
percent.
Privatized economies are high-cost economies. This is mainly because basic infrastructure is
a natural monopoly: roads and other transport, communications, the post office. When they are
privatized, they are run for a profit – consisting mainly of monopoly rent, over and
above normal profits, plus capital gains as these rentier claims are capitalized into stocks
and bonds at rising prices.
The policy of American industrial capitalism in the 19th century is the same as that of
socialism: to minimize the cost of living and doing business. Privatization is largely
responsible for de-industrializing the U.S. economy. While leaving 95 or 99 percent of the
population to stagnate, it has been a bonanza for the 5 to 1 percent.
V: Could you expand on what you mean by that conflict and where you see the Biden
administration heading on it?
The conflict often is put by juxtaposing Wall Street to Main Street – that is, the
FIRE sector to the industrial goods-and-services economy. Wall Street's objective is to
increase wealth. This is done largely by capital gains, not by hiring workers to produce more
goods and services – such investment is done mainly abroad by today's multinational
firms.
V: How does the $1.9 trillion stimulus aid package fit into this debate?
I don't think you should call it a "stimulus." It's disaster relief. The idea is to catch
up. The aim should be to at least put the economy back where it was before – that is,
still in the Obama Depression.
What WAS a "stimulus" was the $6 to $8 trillion created by the Federal Reserve to buy stocks
and bond, including junk bonds, to fuel the Wall Street boom. That is the essence of the
K-shaped recovery. Rising prices for wealth, falling wages and net disposable income for living
labor, after deducting the payments to the FIRE sector that families have to pay off the top
– rent and debts, medical insurance contributions, FICA paycheck withholding (the most
regressive tax), and monthly payments to privatized utility monopolies.
The $1.9 trillion checks of $1,400 or $2,00 actually should be sent out monthly, not part
time. Europe pays its laid-off work force 80 percent of their normal wages, so that they will
not be plowed under by the covid shutdowns.
V: There's profound disagreement about how to handle increased bankruptcies here and in
Europe.
Biden himself is largely responsible for the bankruptcy problem. He was the politician who
steered the regressive bankruptcy reform through Congress, making it harder for low-income
families to wipe out their debts – and making it impossible to wipe out student debt
through bankruptcy.
In that sense, he "owes" it to the economy to make up for his opportunistic water-carrying
for his campaign backers in corporate-run Delaware.
Will he do it? Can he do it? He's a deficit hawk, and has appointed deficit hawks such as
Neera Tanden to his cabinet. He also promised that "nothing will change." This is just how the
Obama administration was run (demagogically running on a slogan of "hope and change"). So will
Biden be Trump 2.0 or Obama 3.0? It really doesn't matter much. Because both Obama and Biden
were basically Republicans running with a different ethnic profile for the voters that they
delivered to their campaign contributors.
V: Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in the U.S. rose in the third quarter to the highest level
since the 2010 financial crisis. In the last week 900,000 Americans have filed new unemployment
claims.
John Williams' Shadow Statistics puts the real unemployment rate at 20 percent. Many people
have dropped out of the work force, as no jobs are available, at least, no jobs for them.
The rent moratorium has enabled many unemployed or low-income workers to remain in their
homes. If they're evicted and become homeless, how can they work? The real crisis is scheduled
to fall in March and April. Small businesses such as restaurants and stores will give up and
close.
V: Europe has been more receptive in extending national programs to keep troubled businesses
afloat, but there too a sharp debate exists as to whether a strategy of protecting businesses
and workers "at all costs" will cement a recovery or whether it will leave economies less
competitive and more dependent on government aid when the pandemic recedes.
Europe and other countries are trying to avoid disaster. U.S. policy is to see disaster as
an opportunity. It's easier to make fortunes in a disaster than in normal times, at least if
you are wealthy, liquid and have access to bank credit to buy up distressed businesses and
properties.
The aim of Europe – and of economies through the ages – has been to provide
resilience. That is what is missing here. The doctrine of "individual responsibility" is a
euphemism for letting the financial classes take control of economic and social planning. And
their objective is their own self-enrichment, not that of economies as a whole.
What is it that can be "recovered"? To most politicians, it means that creditors – the
economy's top One Percent – can "recover" the money that is owed to them by the indebted
99 Percent.
In Europe's system of parliamentary politics, third parties can arise to promote a social
policy of economic resilience. That isn't possible in the United States, because of the
two-party duopoly. Duopolies resolve themselves into monopolies, which is what we really have
today: pro-Wall Street and anti-labor, pro-creditor and anti-debtor.
Thanks for alerting me to the
new Hudson item : "The Democrats Role in Distracting with Identity Politics," which is
far more about economics that ID politics. An outtake:
"The looming global fracture is becoming a fight against the most basic organizing
principles of economies throughout history. All successful economies have been mixed. And to
promote survival and prosperity, it is necessary to subordinate private gain-seeking to
public objectives benefitting the 99 Percent, not just the One Percent....
"The policy of American industrial capitalism in the 19th century is the same as that of
socialism: to minimize the cost of living and doing business. Privatization is largely
responsible for de-industrializing the U.S. economy. While leaving 95 or 99 percent of the
population to stagnate, it has been a bonanza for the 5 to 1 percent....
"I don't think you should call it [the $1.9 Trillion] a 'stimulus.' It's disaster
relief . The idea is to catch up. The aim should be to at least put the economy back
where it was before – that is, still in the Obama Depression.
"What WAS a 'stimulus' was the $6 to $8 trillion created by the Federal Reserve to buy
stocks and bond, including junk bonds, to fuel the Wall Street boom. That is the essence of
the K-shaped recovery. Rising prices for wealth, falling wages and net disposable income for
living labor, after deducting the payments to the FIRE sector that families have to pay off
the top – rent and debts, medical insurance contributions, FICA paycheck withholding
(the most regressive tax), and monthly payments to privatized utility monopolies.
"The $1.9 trillion checks of $1,400 or $2,00 actually should be sent out monthly, not part
time. Europe pays its laid-off work force 80 percent of their normal wages, so that they will
not be plowed under by the covid shutdowns." [My Emphasis]
And there's much more. Hudson sees the real crisis as yet to come, and warns not to expect
any help from Biden as many of the bad policies now in place were his doing. One thing is
clear: Europeans won't suffer much at all compared with the Outlaw US Empire's citizens. The
Obama/COVID-Trump Great Depression will only involve one nation, although it will certainly
try to blame others for its failed policies; and given its great immaturity, might even end
humanity in a fit of pique.
What the hell is 'inclusivity' and how is that a principle?
I know what ethics is. And I know what fairness is. It means in meritocratic competition,
let the best person win. Don't favor someone based on family, color, or some such.
But what is this baby talk of 'inclusivity'? Doesn't fairness cover the rules of
acceptance or inclusion on the basis of qualification? The principle of fairness dictates
that one's admission into an industry or institution is incumbent on one's qualification and
ability.
By adding 'inclusivity' to the equation, it suggests that some people should be 'included'
despite lack of ability because what? They happen to be black, and that's qualification
enough?
Fairness means entry by qualification. 'Inclusivity' implies entry by something other than
qualification. Thus, it is not fair and undermines the very foundation of principles.
Btw, 'inclusivity' seems to apply mostly to blacks. I mean, NO ONE talks about how the NYT
should include a Palestinian American columnist or how the White House should hire some Arabs
sympathetic to Palestinians. And it's perfectly fine to suppress BDS, and it's never a
problem when there are TOO MANY JEWS. Or TOO MANY BLACKS. NBA is hardly diverse. It's mostly
black and lack diversity, but no one complains about how it should 'include' more non-blacks.
No one gripes about TOO MANY JEWS in Biden's administration.
Jews talk about Diversity, but they don't want diversity of opinions in NYT columns. How
many Palestinian-American columnists did NYT feature?
Well, hello there. I don't know if you've noticed, but we live in a vastly different worl d
than the last
time I posted here . The social landscape, political, and, it seems, everyday life is
trending vastly different since 2020, Covid, and the national elections.
A huge part of survival, prepping, and Nomad Strategies is getting done what needs to be
done with minimal interference or notice from those around us . The more eyes on your project,
the more people that can foul up our plans, throw a wrench in the works, or, nowadays, ruin
your life.
Have a secret identity.
So, we turn to lesson number one from the great bastion of literature: comic books.
What does almost every comic character have? A secret identity. And why? So they are not
having to fight, protect their family, and hide from the public all the time. That is a mighty
wise course of action. Life is not a movie. There are rarely times to take a bold, public stand
that will put you or your people in danger.
It is a blessing to live in the time and place we do that enables us to engage in such
vociferous debate levels with no real consequences. That is not the norm throughout history,
and, as we can see, it is changing in front of our eyes. All one needs to do is look at the
world outside of the U.S. for current or very recent historical examples. Take a look at
where Selco comes from
or Belfast just a couple of decades ago. Look at many areas of the Middle East, Syria , or Asia for current
displays of enforcement.
You don't have to share your opinions with everyone.
Keeping a low profile as long as possible is a crucial OpSec practice .
Note: I am not saying you are not allowed to have opinions. But, I am a firm believer in
only discussing them with known associates in private. It is also easier to keep seeing the
other party as still human if you do it in person. *Othering is a nasty thing to do and nastier
to be on the receiving end of. Remembering that the other side is not the devil incarnate helps
to identify actual enemies easier. Instead of jumping at every boogyman brought to your
attention, save your energy for real, in your face threats.
*The term Othering describes the reductive action
of labeling and defining a person as a subaltern native, as someone who belongs to the socially
subordinate category of the Other.
Choose your battles wisely, or don't battle at all
Another reason for concentrating on the mission: it's a waste of your time. Leave the
arguing and name-calling to others. Arguing lessens your productivity and may alienate
potential allies that could assist you. (Except for those pesky Facebook posts you made,
calling their kind evil and stupid.) Choosing not to participate in arguments and debates shows
that you have mental toughness, compassion, discernment, and, most importantly,
self-control.
In case you aren't aware, those and your integrity are essential things to keep intact. Both
for our own well being and for cultivating good, successful relationships. Keep your ego
intact, and if you can exercise the self-control required to not argue points with others that
don't matter in the day-to-day.
You will be more peaceful.
Fewer distractions = more time to work on numero uno
We want to give ourselves as much time as possible to work on various aspects of ourselves
that need the work.
Distractions from this can be costly. It can be costly in terms of time wasted on a needless
post, and at its worst, it can literally cost you everything you have worked for and built
up.
Stop throwing chum to the internet sharks.
An important but often overlooked aspect of any successful underground work is the ability
to escape notice. Therefore escaping issues that will negatively impact your ability to move
forward will help you complete whatever the mission at hand is.
Rather than willingly compromising your future, stop engaging with the sharks. Instead of
spending time engaged in activities that are not beneficial, use your time wisely. Allocate the
majority of your time to doing the work. Use your downtime to recharge, find the good, relax,
and keep your eyes on the prize.
There may be a time in the near future where we must elevate to a more offensive posture.
But now is not that time. What we do now is an important step in keeping us more even-keeled
and ready. Don't volunteer yourself for the enemies list. There are already plenty of people
that will gladly put some of us there.
1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners."
-- George Carlin play_arrow
Patmos 17 minutes ago
Ahhhh... George Carlin.... Back when liberals were liberals, and not "woke" regressive
morons.
Banker415 PRO 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
1. Get off Facebook
2. Delete your Instagram
3. Stop using douche apps like Snap and TikTok
4. Don't use WhatsApp--switch to Signal and Wickr
5. Migrate off of Google apps and Apple-related apps
6. Kill your Twitter
knopperz 1 hour ago remove link
Jack Dorsey is in cahoots with Signal.
He celebrated on Twitter when it went #1 after the Parler Ban.
Rather use Telegram.
Banker415 PRO 1 hour ago
I agree with you on Signal... but it's a short-term solution until better apps are
available. Telegram is ok but its subject to the same MITM attacks as the others.
Foe Jaws 1 hour ago
I have been using DuckDuckGo for a few years it is a fine replacement for Google.
AnonymousCitizen 58 minutes ago
You might want to look into the management team of DuckDuckGo. It may not be the search
engine you're looking for.
Onthebeach6 1 hour ago remove link
Sounds like the author is preparing to be a very quiet mouse and accept the coup d'etat
and the new illegitimate regime.
The new regime will consolidate quickly to eliminate any chance of organized resistance -
they may also try to make it impossible for states to secede.
Ted K. 6 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
So, is this where we're at? Now that we know 'political correctness' has grown up into
'cancel culture' with this takeover of the USA and Western society (because that's what it
is), we're simply reduced to understanding 'how to survive' in it?
For real? Really? REALLY?!?!
No fight at all? We're all just gonna lie down and show our bellies and accept this?
Some of New York's most prominent female Republicans derided and mocked Speaker Nancy
Pelosi's proposal to
eliminate gendered language from the official House rules.
"Instead of reviving the economy, restoring our Constitutional freedoms and delivering
results for the American people, Speaker Pelosi has chosen her debut legislation -- which would
ban words like mother, sister and daughter," upstate Rep. Elise Stefanik told The Post.
"Obviously she is triggered by the historic number of GOP women elected to Congress who will
fire Nancy Pelosi once and for all in 2022."
Staten Island's Congresswoman-elect Nicole Malliotakis also had words for the new rules.
"There are millions of Americans suffering, our economy is hurting, vaccine distribution is
lagging and Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats are worried about this nonsense," she said.
"Here's a gender neutral word to describe this legislation: ridiculous."
Proposed changes to the rules of the House of Representatives would "honor all gender
identities" by eliminating such specific terms as mother and father, son and daughter, and aunt
and uncle.
Instead, only gender-neutral terms such as "parent," "child," "sibling" and "parent's
sibling" would be allowed in the text of the House rules.
Outrage even made its way to the all-important Georgia Senate runoff, where Republican
Kelly
Loeffer warned it was reason enough to vote for her.
"The far-left's priorities, everyone. If you'd like to still be able to call yourself a
father, daughter, mother or son, vote for me and @Perduesenate on Tuesday," she tweeted
Saturday, adding, "Sincerely, A Proud Daughter."
Meanwhile, top Dems in Congress took credit for the new regulations.
"I'm proud to start the 117th Congress by drafting these historic rules changes," Rep. Jim
McGovern said in a tweet.
However both Pelosi and McGovern continue to use gendered terms to describe themselves on
their respective Twitter pages Saturday.
The new rules are expected to be voted on when the house reconvenes Sunday.
The rules also got a big boost from progressive Queens/Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
who said she
was "grateful for@RepMcGovern's leadership" during the process.
One Capitol Hill insider told The Post the idea for nixing gender from the new rules package
likely originated in the House's Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The same rules also
enshrined the office as a permanent new addition to the Capitol.
The agency was created by Democrats in one of their first acts at the start of the previous
Congress.
"This office is charged with submitting to Congress a diversity plan to direct and guide
House employing offices to recruit, hire, train, develop, advance, promote, and retain a
diverse workforce," reads its official about page .
Is this site really starting down this path? Isn't identity politics precisely the red
herring that will divert debate from real questions like the division of labour,
financialisation, consequences of economic and military imperialism and the question of the
future of the late capitalist West? Let's leave this one in the way-too-hard-basket as the
distraction it is.
Who are these people on opposite sides of the barricades?. Would the analogs
from past conflicts supposed to be the same as the root , recognize one another in
the modern context. Marxism was a pseudo religion, with blessings from the self declared
intellectuals of the day, and that is what gave then a degree of cohesion. yes many were Jews
which added another element of clan to the glue. Today, the WOKE religion and it's blessing
by those who would put this academic vanguard in charge, provide the unit cohesion for the
left. The poor and economic class warfare nonsense is kicked to the curb in the new left side
of the barricade. They fight for their "side", their clan, and the spiritual core of it is of
little consequence practically, but listen to their "I hate Ignorant Trump wall mart
deplorables" talk coming from those who embrace corporate and even foreign interests, without
a twinge of irony. The root enemy from a theoretical level, are the university lefties who
are hungry for the rest of us to recognize their wisdom and put them in charge where they
belong. There we have it. Same as 1917 in Russia and Germany in the street. Their graduates
seek to wear the mantle of learned and wise as their teachers. Go to the streets of Madison
and Ann Arbor and observe BLM and Antifa, see their afinity to WOKism and their teachers.
"It's the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for women
to deny the very biological existence of women," former Democratic presidential candidate
Tulsi Gabbard, who just might be the last Democrat in DC with a functioning brain, told
Tucker Carlson. "Instead of doing something that could actually help save people's lives,
they are choosing instead to say 'You can't say mother or father.'"
I would ask for an 'Amen!' at this point, but, thanks to the clown work of lawmaker
Emanuel Cleaver, who ended his congressional prayer opening of the very unsexy 117th
Congress with the words "amen and awoman," even that simple gender-free term (which simply
means 'so be it') is now tainted with foul political intrigue.
With these sort of unforgivable stunts under the belt, the Democrats should be very
grateful they have perfected the art of 'winning' elections, otherwise they would probably
vanish from the political landscape simply out of lack of doing anything positive for the
nation. Indeed, the term 'Democrat' may be on the way out faster than that of 'male' and
'female.'
A lot of talk here but no really effective strategy or tactics. Here is something that
might well work.
Larry Fink, do know him? You should,, you REALLY should.
Larry Fink heads Blackrock Investments. This firm has a massive $7.6 trillions of dollars
in investments. Fink is also the one person who was most responsible for successfully pushing
"wokeness" onto our present day American corporations.
Fink is the absolute czar of "wokeness". He is probably the biggest reason for American
corporations caving into this new trend.
He did this by first threatening to remove these corporations' heads using his massive
influence, (based his firm's stock ownership in these firms) on the companies' boards of
directors. If this threat failed to work he then threatened to dump Blackrock's massive
holding of these companies' stocks, thereby potentially crashing their stock prices.
Fink's tactics proved to be VERY effective. Virtually every US corporation folded under
such an onslaught. Then, these craven cowards were pressured to prove their newborn fealty
to"wokeness" by, among other things, financially supporting "woke" groups like Black Lives
Matter and The Antidefamation League and contributing additional funds to Democrat
politicians while also lightening up in their support to "unwoke" Republican candidates.
Blackrock has mutual funds and ETFs (exchange trade funds) that many UNZ readers might
own. "Ishares" are probably the best known ones. No patriot should hold any security
controlled by Blackrock. Boycott Blackrock. Fight back by hitting them in the pocketbook.
Here is a list of Blackrock investment funds. Go through it carefully. Do you own any of
these? If so, dump them and tell your friends to do likewise.
Agree, here is what Nathan Rothschild infamously said, I care not what puppet is placed on
the throne of England to rule the empire, for the man who controls the money supply controls
the British Empire and I control the British money supply.It is the same here in America.
The zionists who own the FED control America and until the FED is abolished nothing will
change, wars and debt all coming from the zionist owned FED.
Recommend the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, it can be had on amazon, and
also recommend reading The Protocols of Zion.
That's the essence of identify politics. The key idea is put various groups at each other
throat so that neoliberal oligarchs are safe. If you do not understand this you understand
nothing...
Journalist Matt Taibbi joined Hill.TV's "Rising" on Thursday and suggested that partisan
media circles resulted in echo chambers that have left many Americans without factual, reliable
sources of information.
Taibbi told hosts Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti that those who stormed the U.S. Capitol
grounds on Wednesday were victims of misinformation and conspiracy theories resulting from
these echo chambers.
"We have two basically conflicting media ecosystems...and what ends up happening when people
get an uninterrupted stream of information of this type for long enough, is they just
completely lose their ability to assess situations rationally, and they will eventually lash
out," Taibbi said.
Partisan media sources, Taibbi added, are driving "different groups to hate each other."
British comedy icon Rowan Atkinson has said online mob justice makes him "fear for the
future" and lashed out at the algorithmically generated outrage perpetuated by social media
platforms.
In a recent interview with the Radio Times magazine, Atkinson, 65, described online cancel
culture as the "digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for
someone to burn," while detailing what he perceives as the increasing polarization of the
world and how it's exacerbated by online discourse.
Atkinson previously fell foul of the 'woke crowd' when he manned the battlements in the
culture war to champion the cause of free speech, and the right to offend and to criticise even
the most sacred cultural institutions.
"The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends
up creating a simplistic, binary view of society," Atkinson said, adding that it's
important to be exposed to a "wide spectrum of opinion" in the modern world.
"It becomes a case of either you're with us or against us, and if you're against us, you
deserve to be 'canceled,'" he opined.
Atkinson's latest comments received plenty of support online, including from Australian MP
Tim Wilson, who described the remarks as a "hole in one!"
Others felt Atkinson's self-imposed exile from online life might preclude him from
commenting on it.
"I love Mr. Bean, but I feel he might've missed a few things. Or, more than a few,"wrote
one Twitter user.
The Mr. Bean and Johnny English actor described online life as "a sideshow in my
world," while also discussing in the interview his lengthy career in British comedy,
including playing his most widely acclaimed character.
Atkinson said he finds playing Mr. Bean "stressful and exhausting," given he alone
must generate the majority of laughs from the audience using a character who rarely speaks.
He also alluded to a possible return in the role of the only character he created that he
enjoyed playing: the iconic Blackadder. Atkinson wrote the show with Ben Elton and Richard
Curtis, and it featured such British comedy luminaries as Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie.
However, possibly in reference to his views on contemporary culture, he added that it would
be hard to recreate "the creative energy we all had in the 80s."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Slezzkolen 7 hours ago 5 Jan, 2021 07:42 AM
Imagine Mel Brooks creating his brilliant films in today's snowf1ake world.
TheFishh Slezzkolen 3 hours ago 5 Jan, 2021 11:17 AM
If Brooks tried to make movies today, we would never hear of him at all, ever. He'd be shut
down by the woke police squad before he even started.
Ice_Man Slezzkolen 6 hours ago 5 Jan, 2021 08:03 AM
imagine the torrents of offended people . lol think i want to watch blazing saddles now.
mongo like candy!
Leaders in the House of Representatives announced on Friday a rules package for the 117th
Congress that includes a proposal to use " gender -inclusive language" and eliminate gendered
terms such as "'father, mother, son, daughter," and more.
James McGovern (D-Mass.) speaks during a meeting at the Capitol in Washington, on Dec. 21,
2017. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Terms to be struck from clause 8(c)(3) of
rule XXIII , the House's Code of Official Conduct, as outlined in the proposed rules (
pdf
), include "father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew,
niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother,
stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, [and] granddaughter."
Such terms would be replaced with "parent, child, sibling, parent's sibling, first cousin,
sibling's child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild,
stepsibling, half-sibling, [and] grandchild."
According to the proposed rules, "seamen" would be replaced with "seafarers," and "Chairman"
would be replaced with "Chair" in Rule X of the House.
... ... ...
The rules package will be introduced and voted on once the new Congress convenes.
bloostar 1 hour ago remove link
What gender was the pig's head? Is it correct to refer to it as a pig?
researchfix 1 hour ago
Well, my father and mother are dead already. So they will never know, that they are not my
father and mother.
Al Gophilia 1 hour ago
These idiots should no longer be honorably idenified with the noun Represtenative.
judgement put 29 minutes ago
Actually, 'repressed-tentative' isn't so bad.
Ms No PREMIUM 1 hour ago
I think it was Lenin that said "The last enemy of Marxism is the family"
Et Tu Brute 1 hour ago (Edited)
When politicians cannot deliver a $2K stimulus that affects 30%+ of the population but
have time to promote laws representing the interest of less than 0.6%* but still affecting
the over 95% who do or will have a family, you know it's not just a matter of ineffective
governance and culture wars, it is deliberate Psychological Warfare, coordinated through
Mainstream Media, aimed at dividing and demoralising the population.
"*******" is an appropriate non-gendered term referring to all the Democrats in
Congress.
St. TwinkleToes 1 hour ago
So now we're supposed to appease 1% of the population who are gender confused freaks by
removing thousands of years of family relationships?
RocketPride PREMIUM 1 hour ago remove link
Democratic Congress continues to endear themselves to true American values. F-ing idiots,
I hope they are all voted out in 2022
sgt_doom 1 hour ago remove link
On Dominion voting machines?????
sgt_doom 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Exactly why there should be laws against geriatric dementia-suffering twits who once were
financially connected to Saddam Hussein in congress.
The twitch Pelosi wants to destroy the family unit: Job #1 of the Maoist agenda!
Itinerant 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Just look at how much they are improving the world, fueling inclusive economic growth
!!!
In France they've already moved to force you to fill in parent1 and parent2 instead of
mother and father.
Medical Experts are now saying that boy/girl should be removed from birth certificates as
clinically irrelevant.
Right, no need to check for descended testicles or abdominal hernia in little boys, or
anything else.
What you circumcise, may as well be your thumb, right?
I just had an operation on my testicle, of course it is clinically irrelevant to find the
right doctor for anything to do with your prostrate or testicles, or any gynecological
issues, for that matter.
We are going insane ... we are already in the lemmings rushing to the cliff stage.
Seeing those geriatric demonrats on their knees with their kente cloths, paying homage to
a dead drug addict was one of the more hysterical moments of 2020.
Ducks 8 hours ago
Its a disgusting image. and my Black American peers agree.
Is-Be 9 hours ago
The word missing is "chutzpah".
bobroonie 9 hours ago
Watching scummy democrats in pro slavery garb bend the knee for a POS that OD'd is comedy
gold.
u25dtp1 8 hours ago
Is that what they were doing, I thought they were looking for Nancy's Ben and Jerrys.
Sorry, My irrationality
radical-extremist 8 hours ago
They do it because it works. Democrats love the theater. They don't mind being lied to if
it benefits them. Many of them actually believe it's not theater and that their political
heroes are being authentic and sincere....with crocodile tears, feigned outrage and other
drama techniques. I would have to give Adam Schiff an Oscar, but Chuck Schumer definitely
gets second place.
There was a very specific plan in development since at least the mid-1970s by the Ivy
League fraternity secret society set (their right hand in action is the CIA so I usually just
refer to that organization for rhetorical shorthand). This plan was to finally bury the
threat of communism in the imperial heartlands by redefining to the population that conflict
in society is an identity issue rather than one of conflicting interests of socioeconomic
classes. This plan was going to be a massive multi-channel, multi-media affair involving
every aspect of contemporary culture. Sports, literature, music, movies and TV shows,
classroom content, workplace cultures, and of course political discourse all would be guided
to lead to this capitalist Utopia of a population fixated on their personal perceived
socially constructed non-class identities.
Of course, this project has been in development for some time now and those developing it
knew it would take decades to implement. That implementation process started its roll out at
the turn of the Millennium with accelerated changes in mass media products intended to soften
up the population. The changes were intended to transition from a largely media push to
tangible impacts on the broader population with the 2008 elections, accompanied by
over-the-top fanfare surrounding America electing its first woman president. This was to be
followed by a drumbeat of elections (and accompanying mass media priming of the population)
in which successive under-represented populations get represented. After Clinton's victory in
2008 gave cultural "representation" to women then in 2016 Black Americans would get
their "representation" by Obama, followed in 2024 with LGBTQXYZ identifying people
achieving "representation" with Butt-gig in the White House. With that America would
have finally arrived at the "End of History" and achieved the perfection of capitalist
culture.
Of course these plans went to shit because they are based upon the retarded nonsense
notion that capitalist culture can be perfected, which is patently absurd to anyone who
actually understands how capitalism works (Marxists, for instance). Obama was just supposed
to be getting his debut to national audiences like a political debutante at a kind of
national debutante ball in order to prepare for being installed in the presidency in 2016, in
exactly the same way that Butt-gig was debuted in 2016 for his/its installation in 2024.
Obama was scripted to sound rash and radical in 2008, which his image managers in the CIA
felt would sink in his chances for victory in 2008. Obama would then spend the intervening
years until his scheduled turn as President in 2016 "maturing" and being cloaked by
the mass media in artificial "gravitas" . In a surprise to the plotters, though, the
voters eagerly embraced the imaginary "radicalism" of Obama and took a pass on
Clinton's bland "maturity" .
The elites firmly believe in the moronic "identity" narrative that they are pushing
and think that they just have to educate and civilize the "deplorables" to bring them
on board with it. As a result these elites who are far less intelligent than they give
themselves credit for totally misinterpreted Obama's success with the voters. They were sure
the voters were demonstrating greater respect for Black people versus women rather than the
voters responding to Obama's more aggressive political rhetoric and promise of Single
Payer.
Well, the CIA's cultural engineering plan had some flexibility so they swapped Obama for
Clinton and moved Clinton's presidential installation date up to 2016. In the meantime,
though, Clinton had to be kept in the public eye so she could run again in 2016. Even more
important was that Clinton had already been brought up to speed on the empire's covert
"ratline" and "ratfucking" operations around the world and they needed someone
who already knew the script to handle the public relations side of those ops (Obama was still
too green at the time). Since the US State Department is nowadays nothing more than an
appendage to the CIA but with a high-profile public face, the Secretary of State was the
obvious place to plant Clinton.
Of course, Clinton losing in 2008 was a bit unsettling for the plotters. They thought they
had it set up just right. They were not willing to take any chances in 2016. To make
absolutely certain that Clinton won this time they frauded the DNC primaries to clear the
field on the left and cleared the right by making sure the most ludicrous buffoon running (in
their own perception) got that side's nomination.
Here is where their failure to comprehend Clinton's loss in 2008 came back to bite them.
Completely counter to all the bad analyses by the miseducated morons in their stink tanks and
newsrooms and boardrooms, the voters actually voted on issues rather than identity :
End war and create jobs.
[Aside: The Post Trump Stress Disorder victims will shriek in their typical
hysterical way and with ALL CAPS "But... but Trump never intended to do those things! I
know that because I am psychotic... uh, I mean psychic!" . It doesn't matter what Trump
intended to do. He was simply the only candidate in the general election to even pay lip
service to real issues and so he was the only one for the "deplorables" to vote
for.]
"Deplorables" are too stupid to vote on issues, aren't they? It is all just emotion
and knee-jerk behavior for them, in the elites perspective. The establishment had those sides
of things sewn up, so what could possibly have gone wrong? It must have been the
Russians!
In any case, that is why Clinton had to be installed at the top of the US State Department
in 2008. It might sound complicated but it is really quite straight forward.
There was a very specific plan in development since at least the mid-1970s by the Ivy
League fraternity secret society set (their right hand in action is the CIA so I usually just
refer to that organization for rhetorical shorthand). This plan was to finally bury the
threat of communism in the imperial heartlands by redefining to the population that conflict
in society is an identity issue rather than one of conflicting interests of socioeconomic
classes. This plan was going to be a massive multi-channel, multi-media affair involving
every aspect of contemporary culture. Sports, literature, music, movies and TV shows,
classroom content, workplace cultures, and of course political discourse all would be guided
to lead to this capitalist Utopia of a population fixated on their personal perceived
socially constructed non-class identities.
Of course, this project has been in development for some time now and those developing it
knew it would take decades to implement. That implementation process started its roll out at
the turn of the Millennium with accelerated changes in mass media products intended to soften
up the population. The changes were intended to transition from a largely media push to
tangible impacts on the broader population with the 2008 elections, accompanied by
over-the-top fanfare surrounding America electing its first woman president. This was to be
followed by a drumbeat of elections (and accompanying mass media priming of the population)
in which successive under-represented populations get represented. After Clinton's victory in
2008 gave cultural "representation" to women then in 2016 Black Americans would get
their "representation" by Obama, followed in 2024 with LGBTQXYZ identifying people
achieving "representation" with Butt-gig in the White House. With that America would
have finally arrived at the "End of History" and achieved the perfection of capitalist
culture.
Of course these plans went to shit because they are based upon the retarded nonsense
notion that capitalist culture can be perfected, which is patently absurd to anyone who
actually understands how capitalism works (Marxists, for instance). Obama was just supposed
to be getting his debut to national audiences like a political debutante at a kind of
national debutante ball in order to prepare for being installed in the presidency in 2016, in
exactly the same way that Butt-gig was debuted in 2016 for his/its installation in 2024.
Obama was scripted to sound rash and radical in 2008, which his image managers in the CIA
felt would sink his chances for victory in 2008. Obama would then spend the intervening years
until his scheduled turn as President in 2016 "maturing" and being cloaked by the mass
media in artificial "gravitas" . In a surprise to the plotters, though, the voters
eagerly embraced the imaginary "radicalism" of Obama and took a pass on Clinton's
bland "maturity" .
The elites firmly believe in the moronic "identity" narrative that they are pushing
and think that they just have to educate and civilize the "deplorables" to bring them
on board with it. As a result these elites who are far less intelligent than they give
themselves credit for totally misinterpreted Obama's success with the voters. They were sure
the voters were demonstrating greater respect for Black people versus women rather than the
voters responding to Obama's more aggressive political rhetoric and promise of Single
Payer.
Well, the CIA's cultural engineering plan had some flexibility so they swapped Obama for
Clinton and moved Clinton's presidential installation date up to 2016. In the meantime,
though, Clinton had to be kept in the public eye so she could run again in 2016. Even more
important was that Clinton had already been brought up to speed on the empire's covert
"ratline" and "ratfucking" operations around the world and they needed someone
who already knew the script to handle the public relations side of those ops (Obama was still
too green at the time). Since the US State Department is nowadays nothing more than an
appendage to the CIA but with a high-profile public face, the Secretary of State was the
obvious place to plant Clinton.
Of course, Clinton losing in 2008 was a bit unsettling for the plotters. They thought they
had it set up just right. They were not willing to take any chances in 2016. To make
absolutely certain that Clinton won this time they frauded the DNC primaries to clear the
field on the left and cleared the right by making sure the most ludicrous buffoon running (in
their own perception) got that side's nomination.
Here is where their failure to comprehend Clinton's loss in 2008 came back to bite them.
Completely counter to all the bad analyses by the miseducated morons in their stink tanks and
newsrooms and boardrooms, the voters actually voted on issues rather than identity :
End war and create jobs.
[Aside: The Post Trump Stress Disorder victims will shriek in their typical
hysterical way and with ALL CAPS "But... but Trump never intended to do those things! I
know that because I am psychotic... uh, I mean psychic!" . It doesn't matter what Trump
intended to do. He was simply the only candidate in the general election to even pay lip
service to real issues and so he was the only one for the "deplorables" to vote
for.]
"Deplorables" are too stupid to vote on issues, aren't they? It is all just emotion
and knee-jerk behavior for them, in the elites perspective. The establishment had those sides
of things sewn up, so what could possibly have gone wrong? It must have been the
Russians!
In any case, that is why Clinton had to be installed at the top of the US State Department
in 2008. It might sound complicated but it is really quite straight forward.
Even with direct and damning evidence, it is too late to expect the directors of major
media to give up their activist role. They have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the academic
collective. If I were King, academia would be the focus, the place to begin eliciting change
to the very radical and biased directions promoted at these institutions. For decades Che
Guevara, and others of that same ilk, have been heroes to the elitists in higher education.
It is the liberal educators who have embraced the revolutionary agenda, in their minds
finding a warped sense of purpose promoting today's mania of cultural revolution. Notice the
openly Marxist leaders of BLM, and the white, progressive followers. This group is not the
downtrodden seeking to redress wrongs. Many are spoiled rich kids looking for a life, a cause
to believe in, because they have been told they are special. But in the end, they are just
one of many with too much student loan, and a degree in art history which doesn't pay very
well.
BinAnunnaki 4 hours ago
As a Professor at a Tier 1 university. It dawned on me the damage of Critical Race Theory
indoctrination being taught by my colleagues when during a podcast two gender muddled 20 year
olds discussed banning Dr. Seuss from bookstores bc he didn't have people of color in his
stories.
I wanted to grab these two twerps by their necks and scream. Theodore Seuss devoted his
entire life to childhood development. What the foq have you little bastards done to improve
society?
Cancel Culture is their first arrow out of the quiver. By all means blame Academia for
this mess. 40 years of gender, race, and ethnic studies programs.
WorkingClassMan 6 hours ago
I dunno, I for one TOTALLY trust the corporate junkenpresse. They would never lie to me.
When they call Whites racists simply for being White...I believe them! When they tout
"systemic racism," as the cause of all the worlds' ills...I believe them! When they ignore
the astronomical black-on-White murder sprees from year to year and instead focus on the rare
White-on-black killings...I believe them! When they say Trump is the worst thing since
cancer...I believe them!
For the last four years, Americans have become increasingly polarised -- divided between
Democrat crusaders who are determined to save America from becoming a racist, sexist Nazi
dictatorship under Donald Trump, versus Republican crusaders who are determined to save America
from becoming a liberal Marxist state under a Democratic reign.
This fervour has become so extreme that families can no longer meet for the holidays without
a conversational blow-up. No longer are people "entitled to their opinions." This has become a
crusade between Good and Evil. ("I'm good. You're evil.")
The absurd nature of this dichotomy has reached the point that even Dr. Phil is increasing
his viewership by featuring disputes between siblings who are on opposite sides of the
political divide and are no longer speaking to each other.
At this point, all that remains to be done by the networks would be to air a Red versus Blue
television game show in which contestants compete with their own family members to "Win the
White House."
Until November, the great majority of Americans appear to have been hoping that the November
election would end this strife one way or the other.
My take on this has been that the opposite would happen after 3rd November. The fireworks
would increase exponentially after the election. The election would be hotly contested by
whomever was the apparent loser.
This should easily have been foreseen, as the media on the right have insisted for months
that the Democrat encouragement for mail-in ballots was a precursor to election fraud.
Similarly, the media on the left have insisted for months that Donald Trump's suggestion
that he may not accept the election results meant that he was planning a coup after he
(presumably inevitably) lost the election.
It's been estimated that 93% of all Fox watchers are Republicans and 95% of MSNBC watchers
are Democrats. Since neither side watches the other's news programme, each side is cognizant of
only its own team's heavily slanted rhetoric.
The conservative media is awash with details of voter fraud by Democrats, whilst the liberal
media states with equal conviction that Mister Trump and his lawyers have provided no details
whatever.
Therefore, those who voted Republican will conclude by watching their own "unbiased" news
channel that Democrats have tried to steal the election and thereby steal control of the
country.
And those who voted Democrat will conclude by watching their own "unbiased" news channel
that Republicans have tried to steal the election and thereby steal control of the country.
But how did this get to be so bad? Americans have not been so wound up -- nor so polarised
-- since 1861, at the beginning of the Civil War.
Indeed, the post-election fervour is as strong as though Fort Sumter had just been fired
upon.
More importantly, what will be the outcome?
Will the courts rule against the claims of Mister Trump?
If so, that decision will enrage an already angry right-wing crowd, refusing to vacate the
White House and defending it against the pinko mob.
Or will the courts rule in favour of Mister Trump?
If so, that decision will unleash nationwide riots, intent on bringing down the evil
dictator.
Either way, we can anticipate that the US will be in flames. If for any reason the level of
strife is insufficient, those with deep pockets will hire squads of shills as mercenary
soldiers.
The populace will be in terror. Republican voters will beg the federal government to bring
in the troops to contain Antifa and the BLM mob.
Democratic voters will beg the federal government to bring in the troops to quell the
Republican militias.
In such an upheaval, the one thing both sides will have in common is that they will both beg
for the creation of a police state.
And the federal government will answer that call. Martial law would be declared, possibly as
a "temporary measure," until normalcy has returned.
But what if normalcy does not return? What if pockets of violence continue to pop up all
over the map with regularity?
If that occurs, martial law would need to continue for as long as it was deemed necessary,
which would be likely to translate into a permanent police state.
At one time, the media was for the most part impartial and benign, but in recent decades it
has been bought out by four large corporations. And some of those corporations own and direct
both liberal and conservative networks, which would seem to be at odds with each other.
However, they are not. Today, the objective of the media is not to offer news. It is to
create strife -- to pit one half of the electorate against the other. In doing so, the ruling
elite have the justification to lock down the entire USA under martial law.
NEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Once that has been accomplished, the elite may do as they please. As in all countries where
a police state has been achieved -- such as Nazi Germany, Mao's China or Stalin's Russia --
once military control has been put into place nationwide, meaningful protest ends.
In each of the above cases, the populace was whipped up into a frenzy of hate and violence
against the Jews or the aristocracy or whatever other demon had been invented. But the real
objective and the result were the subjugation of the populace.
At this point, it's not too late for people to stand back, take a deep breath and ask
themselves if they're not being conned into their own subjugation. But it would appear that
they've been wound up so tightly that such objectivity is unlikely to occur.
However, if they do not, they risk losing what remains of their once-proud democracy.
* * *
Economically, politically, and socially, the United States seems to be headed down a path
that's not only inconsistent with the founding principles of the country, but accelerating
quickly toward boundless decay. In the years ahead, there will likely be much less stability of
any kind. That's exactly why New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just
released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey's Top 7
Predictions for the Raging 2020s .
he fallen Christopher Columbus statue outside the Minnesota State Capitol after a group led
by American Indian Movement members tore it down in St. Paul, Minnesota, on June 10, 2020.
(By Tony
Webster/Flickr)
In the general chaos of the summer of 2020, it was a typical moment. At the Minnesota State
Capitol in St. Paul, a band of activists -- primarily from indigenous-rights groups -- had
slung ropes around the neck of a statue of Christopher Columbus and pulled it down by
force.
The moment meant different things to different people. For the woke left, it was another
culture war victory in the age of 1619 and BLM -- a small and long-delayed comeuppance for the
colonial oppressors. For the right, it was the latest advance in the onslaught of the cultural
arsonists -- as cities were burning and statues falling down, it seemed that little would
survive the spontaneous rage inspired by the death of George Floyd in that same city just two
weeks before.
But it was hardly spontaneous, and it had little (if anything) to do with the death of Mr.
Floyd. The destruction of the Columbus statue on the Capitol grounds -- installed by Italian
immigrants in 1931 as a pushback against discrimination -- had long been an explicit goal of
the region's American Indian activists. The eruption of riots in the early summer simply
provided an excuse. As destruction reigned, Twin Cities native activists decided to join in,
taking the opportunity to follow through on something they had wanted to do for decades.
It's actually fairly representative of what happened in major cities across the country this
summer: local activists had an axe to grind, and the superimposition of a national narrative
gave them all the cover they could ever need. (Any outburst of disorder that happens to have
occurred after late May is qualified in the media as a "protest following the death of
George Floyd" -- a carefully crafted non-descriptor.) It's representative, too, of the
interplay among the unholy trinity of the modern activist left: grassroots radicals, big-money
donors, and the big money itself -- concentrated in funds where the donor foundations invest
their dollars.
The St. Paul statue-toppling was organized by a man named Mike Forcia, a member of the Bad
River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Forcia is also the chairman of the
Twin Cities branch of the American Indian Movement (AIM), and of AIM Patrol.
AIM -- the most prominent network of indigenous activists in the country -- is commonly
billed as a grassroots organization. In some ways this is true. AIM was founded in Minneapolis
more than half a century ago, as the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 and other federal policies
geared toward assimilation created sizable urban communities of Indians drawn away from
reservations. Over the years, much of AIM's public profile has been shaped by scattered bands
of activists engaging in highly visible stunts, such as the occupation of Alcatraz from 1969 to
1971.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.426.0_en.html#goog_1649891056 00:00 / 01:00
Loading Ad
Even today, the national network remains fairly decentralized -- sometimes ostentatiously
so. After Forcia's arrest, AIM's national president Frank Paro "was adamant that the rally was
not sanctioned by A.I.M. or associated with the organization," according to court documents
. Paro even went so far as to assert "that Mr. Forcia is not affiliated with the National AIM
organization" -- an interesting claim, given Forcia's identification as chairman of AIM of the
Twin Cities.
It's certainly possible, though -- AIM's decentralization leaves a door open for false
claimants, and even the recognized national organization underwent a schism in 1993. Whether or
not Forcia is associated with Paro's national AIM organization -- and regardless of who has the
strongest claim to the trigram -- it is certain that he is extensively connected in the
activist movement of the Twin Cities. The Facebook page he runs for the region under the AIM
banner has over 12,000 followers. As of 2010 he was vice chair of the Minneapolis American
Indian Center, one of the city's most important hubs of native activity (political and
otherwise). He revived and sustains AIM Patrol -- a sort of neighborhood watch on steroids,
founded to limit police presence in the urban Indian community -- which had been dormant for
decades. And at the very least, he commanded enough influence in the community to organize and
execute a protest which drew no small crowd and successfully destroyed a public monument that
had been standing for nearly a century. Mike Forcia is no mere unlovable rogue; he is a key
player in a network that remains as lively and robust as it was when Minnesota's first Indian
radicals began to organize three generations past.
But it would be a mistake to think that the Twin Cities' indigenous activism remains
"grassroots" in any meaningful sense. In fact, the cause is supported by some of the region's
biggest philanthropic organizations, which in turn support themselves by extensive activities
in finance capitalism.
The most notable of these is the Bush Foundation, founded in 1953 by Archibald Bush, a
childless executive at 3M. At his death in 1966, Archibald Bush left his fortune to be put
toward good works, with no political caveats. Over the intervening decades, the Bush Foundation
has shifted ever leftward in tandem with the philanthropic establishment at large; under
current president Jennifer Ford Reedy, the foundation has gone fully woke .
Institutional connections have been made with the flagship establishments of far-left big
money, such as Borealis Philanthropy and the mother
of all wokeries, the Tides Foundation. But the Bush Foundation is
especially known for its contributions to indigenous causes -- totaling just under $100 million
from 1982-2019, with most of that total concentrated in the last few years as the foundation
amped up its
focus on the cause. This includes over $1 million to the
Minneapolis American Indian Center, where Mike Forcia was vice chair.
Another of Bush's biggest beneficiaries is the Minneapolis Foundation, a sizable
organization whose scope is limited to the local community, and the recipient of over 40 Bush
Foundation grants. Interestingly, the Minneapolis Foundation's Director of Impact Strategy,
Economic Vitality -- as well as director of grant-making and special projects, according to her
LinkedIn -- is a woman by the name of Jo-Anne Stately who is active in indigenous affairs
herself, including a six-year stint as vice president of development at the Indian Land Tenure
Foundation. (The ILTF is another recipient of over $1 million
in Bush Foundation funds.) In 2013, the Bush Foundation provided a grant of $100,000 to the
Minneapolis Foundation to support the Northside Funders Group, a third impact investment
organization where Stately happens to serve as co-chair. (Whether Ms. Stately is any relation
either to the late Elaine Stately, co-founder of AIM and namesake of its Peacemaker Center in
Minneapolis, or Angel Stately,
associate of Mike Forcia and prominent witness
to the death of George Floyd, remains unclear.) What is clear is that the indigenous
activist network of the Twin Cities (and likely elsewhere) has moved far beyond the ragtag band
of urban Indian change-makers in the first decades after relocation.
Of course, like big philanthropy in general, these organizations aren't drawing their funds
from static coffers. Archibald Bush left the foundation endowed with just about $300 million, a
number dwarfed by current assets of more than three times as much. The Bush Foundation, and the
Minneapolis Foundation, and Tides and countless others, all rely on investment to sustain and
grow their resources. The Bush Foundation's 990 disclosures
show just how extensive that reliance is, including substantial investments in Sequoia, one
of the nation's leading venture capital firms. Such relationships are sure to raise questions
about the dependence not just of progressive groups on capital, but of capital on progressive
groups. How long could firms like Sequoia survive without groups like the Bush Foundation
underwriting them? That's a question that must be asked, and the exact same question should be
directed at the radical groups that this relationship enables, like those who took down
Columbus in St. Paul.
The lesson here is not that there's some massive, shady conspiracy behind the people who
destroy our cities. It's that no conspiracy is necessary. All that's required is a seemingly
innocent, and entirely unguided, process. Money falls into the wrong hands: the hands of the
woke, or even the merely progressive. Sustained by the kind of mega-scale investment that now
defines our economy, that money allows so-called community organizations to function without
any real dependence on the community, and thus without accountability to it. The connection to
such national networks also seems to muddy the mission of such organizations, folding them into
a broad and ever accelerating progressive agenda.
And when the cultural green light goes live -- this time George Floyd flipped the switch --
the combined power of big money
"Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even
communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace
impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful."
Surely so. But I'm not sure whether this was deliberately planned by the plutocrats as a
political strategy, or whether this bifurcation spontaneously emerged from tech company
algorithms designed only to increase their profits.
Clearly, the plutocrats have seized upon this bifurcation to keep the populace divided and
engaged in a kind of civil war, but it's sort of like the pandemic – was it a plot
hatched or an opportunity exploited?
This might not seem to matter at this point, but IMHO the answer helps to determine not
only what we're up against but also the best ways to fight the bastards.
SHOCKER / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
https://www.wakingtimes.com/tyranny-standing-rock-govt-divide-conquer-strategy-work/
`
"Divide and conquer.
`
"It's one of the oldest military strategies in the books, and it's proven to be the police
state's most effective weapon for maintaining the status quo.
`
"How do you conquer a nation?
`
"Distract them with football games, political circuses and Black Friday sales. Keep them
focused on their differences -- economic, religious, environmental, political, racial
[gender- pandemic] -- so they can never agree on anything. And then, when they're so divided
that they are incapable of joining forces against a common threat, start picking them off one
by one."
JWK / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
"We live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms whose only
criterion is how to maximise our attention for advertisers' products to generate greater
profits for the internet giants,"
Which precisely explains how we got the recent POTUS candidates, displayed as the "best and
brightest". Really? That's the best they have? You can look across the board at ALL of the
two party's leadership and get the same picture. These are far from the "best and brightest".
They may be bright, since psychopaths are often quite intelligent, but they certainly have
zero qualification for best.
KHATIKA / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
Regardless. The democrats ignored people like Tulsi Gabbard and Sanders to flock to Biden.
This is just a sign of how brainwashed the people have become. The propaganda is working
quite well.
ANARCISSIE / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
This raises the question of why these people were selected. I think Trump sabotaged the
Republican fix for 2016 by exploiting weaknesses in its pseudodemocratic primary structure,
but the choice of Biden is hard to figure from any angle. Someone should investigate. About a
year ago I was conversing with some deplorables about Biden and a perfectly intelligent young
Black woman hotly defended him against all criticism. Anita Hill, the crime bill, the
invasion of Iraq, his creepiness, just bounced off her shell. How do people get this way?
JULIUS SKOOLAFISH / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
in passing
. WESTERN VALUES™ . The country that judges other countries' elections just
had an election. Somebody won. One day a court will tell us who. Apparently counting votes is
a tremendously difficult task, requiring enormous amounts of time.
. http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=3183
.
See also (via Fort Russ – Matthew Ehret)
Ah, Ms Johnstone, my fellow United States citizens love their " echo chamber comas "
because it allows them to completely suppress any and all logic, justice, empathy, and shame
for the blood-thirsty Evil Empire that they cherish and support. The Evil Empire has no soul
at all; and it requires its subjects to be soul-less as well. Resistance is futile!
Damn, Krystal dropping one of her classic heaters today: "Affirmative action is the type of program that poses little
threat and only benefits to affluent white liberals. It's the college admissions version of identity politics: more
about getting brown faces in high places to make WHITE people feel good than it is about actually addressing the very
real problems it seeks to ameliorate." - Krystal Ball
As a black person I hate to admit that I've bought into the BS all of this time but she is absolutely right. All of her
data is correct. AA is just a tool for bourgeoisie blacks to get into better schools. Period. Nothing else. Stop trying
to sell it as some saving grace that it is not. The point about student loans is exactly right. If you want to help a
ton of black people with college then do something about this BS student loan situation.
"White Saviors" is a way to say what we've been saying all along. Affirmative Action IS racist. You are saying that
someone needs help because of their skin color, as if that makes them inferior. Racist.
When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, by Ira
Katznelson (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2005), preface, appendix, index, 238 pp.
Elizabeth Bartholet correctly point out blatant disregard of law and witch hunt atmosphere on MeToo movement. This aspect
is easily exploitable by female sociopaths who want to remove a men who did not reciprocate their "favors" or just represent
obstacle on their career path. Teachers are especially vulnerable to such a blackmail.
Notable quotes:
"... However, I am concerned that in the recent rush to judgment, principles of basic fairness, differences between proven and merely alleged instances of misconduct, and important distinctions between different kinds of sexually charged conduct have too often been ignored. Similar problems plagued the imposition of new sexual harassment guidelines for colleges and universities by the administration of former President Barack Obama. I was involved in attempts to push back against those guidelines and to develop at Harvard Law School our own policies, better designed to balance the important values at stake. ..."
"... My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts. ..."
"... Sometimes the alleged conduct is so egregious, or alleged patterns so suspicious, that suspension is warranted while facts are determined. Sometimes allegations are demonstrably credible by virtue of independent evidence. But where facts are in doubt or conduct is subject to different interpretations, efforts must be made to investigate what actually happened and how the different parties understood the events. ..."
"... I am also deeply troubled by over-expansive definitions of wrongful conduct. In the current climate, men are called out for actions ranging from requests for dates and hugs on the one hand to rape and other forced sexual contact on the other, as if all are the same and all warrant termination. ..."
"... The legal definition of sexual harassment in employment and education is a helpful guide to what sexual conduct should be the focus. It is illegal to engage in quid pro quo harassment, namely conditioning an employment or educational benefit on sexual favors. It is illegal also to create a "hostile environment" through unwelcome sexual advances that are severe or pervasive and that limit the victim's ability to enjoy employment or educational opportunity. ..."
"... Finally, I am concerned with the cynical exploitation of sexual harassment cases and related scapegoating of individuals. ..."
"... Corporate and political leaders, who must have been at least generally aware of these problems, did little to address them until this moment of public shaming. Now they dismiss alleged perpetrators overnight, often with no regard for the facts but clearly with significant regard for their corporate reputations and electoral strategies. ..."
"... All this puts real reform at risk. It undermines the legitimacy of action against serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power. It creates the potential for backfire. ..."
Like many others, I am outraged by the
egregious incidents of sexual misconduct made public recently through carefully documented journalism. I applaud the removal
of many alleged perpetrators who have clearly abused their positions of power, often through force and even violence. I celebrate
those who have stepped forward to call out sexual misconduct and demand changes in the degrading culture that has characterized working
conditions for women in too many settings for too long.
However, I am concerned that in the recent rush to judgment, principles of basic fairness, differences between proven and
merely alleged instances of misconduct, and important distinctions between different kinds of sexually charged conduct have too often
been ignored. Similar problems plagued the imposition of
new sexual harassment guidelines
for colleges and universities by the administration of former President Barack Obama. I was involved in attempts to push back against
those guidelines and to develop at Harvard Law School our own policies, better designed to balance the important values at stake.
My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of
claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts. Some argue
that women who speak out should simply always be believed. Others argue that if some innocent men must be sacrificed to the cause
of larger justice, so be it. I find this deeply troubling. I do not contend that mini-trials should always be required before action
can be taken. Sometimes the alleged conduct is so egregious, or alleged patterns so suspicious, that suspension is warranted
while facts are determined. Sometimes allegations are demonstrably credible by virtue of independent evidence. But where facts are
in doubt or conduct is subject to different interpretations, efforts must be made to investigate what actually happened and how the
different parties understood the events.
I am also deeply troubled by
over-expansive definitions of wrongful conduct. In the current climate, men are called out for actions ranging from requests
for dates and hugs on the one hand to rape and other forced sexual contact on the other, as if all are the same and all warrant termination.
I do not believe that all touching by a man in power is the same as touching that is clearly unwanted or the deliberate abuse
of power to obtain sexual favors. I do not believe that all romantic and sexual overtures should be banned from the workplace, even
between people on different hierarchical levels. Some recent cases involve
peremptory dismissal for behavior
that may involve nothing more than that. Women are not so weak as to need this kind of protection. Banning all such activity from
the workplace would reduce the quality of life for everyone, including women.
The legal definition
of sexual harassment in employment and education is a helpful guide to what sexual conduct should be the focus. It is illegal to
engage in quid pro quo harassment, namely conditioning an employment or educational benefit on sexual favors. It is illegal also
to create a "hostile environment" through unwelcome sexual advances that are severe or pervasive and that limit the victim's ability
to enjoy employment or educational opportunity.
Objective standards apply, so the question is whether a reasonable person in the position of the alleged perpetrator or alleged
victim would have thought the conduct was sexual harassment, not simply what the alleged victim subjectively felt.
Finally, I am concerned with the cynical exploitation of sexual harassment cases and related scapegoating of individuals.
The #MeToo movement has helped demonstrate to the world the toxic level of sex discrimination and sexual misconduct that have characterized
work life for too many women in business, entertainment, media, and government. Corporate and political leaders, who must have
been at least generally aware of these problems, did little to address them until this moment of public shaming. Now they dismiss
alleged perpetrators overnight, often with no regard for the facts but clearly with significant regard for their corporate reputations
and electoral strategies.
All this puts real reform at risk. It undermines the legitimacy of action against serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power.
It creates the potential for backfire.
Elizabeth Bartholet '62 is the Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
The left's latest ideological obsession isn't limited to BLM protests -- it's all the rage
in top law schools, and it's breaking into Congress.
There's a lesson I've learned: if it's a fad, be wary. The tulip craze in Holland in the
1500s led to one of the first economic bubbles. The internet replicated the problem in 2000, as
did cryptocurrency in 2019. At one time, the hula hoop was all the rage.
Today, there's a social philosophy that's building up a bubble of
its own: critical race theory (CRT). CRT has been around since the 1970s, but has blown up in
the past few years as terms like microaggression, white guilt, white privilege, and white
supremacy have come to dominate the popular lexicon. All of it is rooted in CRT.
CRT -- though it's known to most as a potent political force, and the ideological
underpinning of the Black Lives Matter organization -- has always been, first and foremost, a
legal philosophy. It starts with the premise that the United States is rooted in white
supremacy and that this white supremacy is written into the law. This inherent racism is
presented as the explanation for any disparity in outcome, such as that drug convictions and
death penalty sentences are more likely to be rendered on minorities.
Mari Matsuda, a CRT luminary, described it as "the work of progressive legal scholars of
color who are attempting to develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in
American law and that works toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of
eliminating all forms of subordination."
Far from being a grassroots philosophy formulated by radicals on the streets, it can be
traced back to the faculties of some of our nation's most elite law schools. From Critical
Race Theory: An Introduction :
Critical race theory sprang up in the mid-1970s, as a number of lawyers, activists, and
legal scholars across the country realized, more or less simultaneously, that the heady
advances of the civil rights era of the 1960s had stalled and, in many respects, were being
rolled back. Realizing that new theories and strategies were needed to combat the subtler
forms of racism that were gaining ground, early writers such as Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman,
and Richard Delgado (coauthor of this primer) put their minds to the task. They were soon
joined by others, and the group held its first conference at a convent outside Madison,
Wisconsin, in the summer of 1989.
All three -- Bell, Delgado, and Freeman -- were law school professors. Derrick Bell was
teaching at Harvard Law School when he published the seminal CRT treatise Race, Racism, and
American Law . Freeman taught at the University of Minnesota, the University of Buffalo,
and others. Delgado is currently teaching at the University of Alabama, and has previously
taught at UCLA, the University of Colorado, and elsewhere.
"The Law as Microaggression," another pioneering work on CRT, was written by NYU Law
professor Peggy Davis and published in the Yale Law Journal in 1989. One especially successful
CRT practitioner is Patricia Williams, who currently holds the title of Director of Law,
Technology, and Ethics at Northeastern University. From 2000-2005, she was the recipient of a
$500,000 MacArthur Grant. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, another CRT heavyweight, is the
Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.
Crenshaw, in addition to her professorial duties at Columbia, heads up the university's
Center for Intersectionality and Interpolicy Studies. That center advertises:
The Center for
Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies was established to examine how social
structures and related identity categories such as gender, race, and class interact on
multiple levels to create social inequality. The first such center of its kind, the Center's
research projects and initiatives will bring together scholars and practitioners from law,
sociology, feminist and gender studies, human rights, social justice, and other fields to
explore the relationship of intersectionality to their work, to shape more effective
remedies, and to promote greater collaboration between and across social movements.
It's a good gig, if you can get it. But it's far from her only one. Crenshaw is also the
founder of a 501(c)(3), the African American Policy Forum, which promotes CRT to both popular
and academic audiences. The forum's mission statement :
Founded in 1996, The African American Policy Forum (AAPF) is an innovative think tank that
connects academics, activists and policy-makers to promote efforts to dismantle structural
inequality. We utilize new ideas and innovative perspectives to transform public discourse
and policy. We promote frameworks and strategies that address a vision of racial justice that
embraces the intersections of race, gender, class, and the array of barriers that disempower
those who are marginalized in society. AAPF is dedicated to advancing and expanding racial
justice, gender equality, and the indivisibility of all human rights, both in the U.S. and
internationally.
Among other AAPF activities, Professor Crenshaw hosts a regular webinar, Intersectionality
Matters. One recent webinar, released shortly before the election, was entitled, "Black Men for
Trump? The Overdue Conversation on Patriarchy and Misogynoir in Black Politics." This
election's result, with the greatest share of black voters breaking for a Republican since
1960, is clearly seen by CRT advocates as a problem to rectify, rooted in internalized racism
or misogyny.
Another webinar which AAPF put on
recently -- "Under the Blacklight: Politics, Power, & the Struggle Against Black Precarity"
-- gives a good idea of the influence CRT is gaining. It's not so much the topic that's
interesting here as the guests.
Perhaps the most recognizable speaker was Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts congresswoman and
member of "The Squad." Pressley, as so many CRT advocates do, presented the legal movement and
the activist movement as inextricably linked: "If you believe that Black Lives Matter, then you
believe that Black healing matters and Black justice matters."
Joining Pressley were Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Kim Foxx, the Cook County State's Attorney
who let off Jussie Smollett. During the webinar, Foxx made it clear that she drew no lines
between her racial identity and her legal duties, professing, "I'm unapologetic that I come to
this role as a black woman."
Heather MacDonald looked closer at Foxx's identity prosecuting in City Journal :
Foxx is a leading figure in the recent national wave of progressive local prosecutors who came
to power by playing race politics. She campaigned on the Critical Race Theory credo that the
criminal-justice system is endemically biased. She inveighed against the so-called
school-to-prison pipeline and promised to reduce racial disparities in prosecutions. Last
month, she dismissed aggravated battery charges against a 16-year-old student who had
attacked two Chicago police officers; the Chicago police union argued that her dismissal of
the charges fit a pattern of favoring offenders over police officers. Foxx operates in a
cultural
milieu that holds that the fact that a hate crime is a hoax is less important than the
fact that it could have been true.
Two congresswomen and a district attorney is no mean collection of power and influence. Even
still, the devotees of CRT are far from attaining any kind of governing consensus in Congress
or in the criminal justice system. But radical progressive prosecutors like Foxx are sweeping
into offices across the country, and all four members of the Squad won reelection -- these
ideas, and their radical proponents, are on the rise.
The only question is, how much bigger will the bubble get before it bursts? BillDaytona
• 21 minutes ago Critical Theory has become entrenched in the universities. It's not a
bubble. It's a takeover.
Chris Pratt made a name for himself getting chased by dinosaurs in the Jurassic World
franchise films, but the woke are now out to get him for allegedly having what they deem to be
the political and cultural beliefs of a caveman.
Pratt originally shot to fame as the lovable lug Andy Dwyer on the NBC sitcom Parks and
Recreation , and went on to movie stardom as the leading man in the Jurassic World ,
Guardians of the Galaxy and The Lego Movie franchises. Unfortunately, he is now
squarely in the cancel culture crosshairs of the woke Twitter mob for potentially being a
secret, homophobic, Trump supporter.
This Pratt incident began when TV writer Amy Berg posted pictures of the four famous Chrises
– Chris Evans, Chris Pine, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pratt, on Twitter and said " one
has to go ."
In response, the Guardian readers of the Galaxy
attacked Pratt – claiming the star's Instagram bio ' radiated homophobic White
Christian supremacist energy '.
Pratt's bio that sparked that comment reads, " I Love Jesus, My wife and family! Seahawks
fanatic, MMA junky! " The horror. The horror.
This Pratt episode is amusing because while he is known for dinosaur movies, it is the woke
who are acting out of their lizard brains, as the evidence of Pratt being homophobic and a
white Christian supremacist is well entirely non-existent.
Last year, after actress Ellen Page attacked Pratt on Twitter for being a member of an "
infamously " anti-LGBTQ church, Pratt
responded , " It has recently been suggested that I belong to a church which 'hates a
certain group of people' and is 'infamously anti –LGBTQ.' Nothing could be further from
the truth. I go to a church that opens their doors to absolutely everyone ."
Of course, just because an emotionalist buffoon like Page says something doesn't make it so,
as she famously once gave a hysterical
speech on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert decrying the homophobia
and racism in America that led to the " attack " on Jussie Smollett. A claim that has
not held up particularly
well .
The lack of evidence regarding Pratt's homophobia hasn't deterred the Twitter mob from
marking Pratt for termination though, which is ironic since Pratt's father-in-law is former
Republican Governor of California
Arnold Schwarzenegger .
The other thing that seems to have galled the tiny Torquemadases of Twitter are Pratt's
ambiguous political beliefs.
Even though Pratt has never declared his support for Trump, the maniacal mob assumes he does
because he also hasn't said if he supports Biden. Although Pratt's wife, Katherine
Schwarzenegger, has publicly stated she will be voting for Biden.
The cancel culture clan point to Pratt's not attending an upcoming Avengers fundraiser for
Biden, and that he was also once photographed by a paparazzo wearing a
Gadsden Flag t-shirt that said 'Don't Tread on Me', as iron-clad proof of the star's evil
political intentions, but this seems like a short cut to thinking.
He was also
blasted by woke activists for joking about voting, with humorless morons branding him
insensitive and tone deaf. All Pratt had done was make a light-hearted quip about voting for
his kids' movie Onward at the People's Choice Awards. According to the fun police on Twitter,
this election is "too important" for such frivolity.
Pratt's lone, unambiguous statement on politics, besides his contribution of $1,000 to
Obama's campaign in 2012, was in 2017 in Men's Journal where he
said , " I really feel there's common ground out there that's missed because we focus on
the things that separate us I don't feel represented by either side. " What a monster!
The biggest issue with all of this nonsense is that people are furious not because of
anything Pratt has said or done, but because he hasn't said or done anything. Pratt isn't going
to a Biden fundraiser or a Trump fundraiser or a Groot fundraiser or a Thanos fundraiser he
isn't going to any fundraisers at all!
The idea that the mental midget McCarthy-ites on woke Twitter want to cancel Pratt because
he said and did nothing is absurd to the point of madness.
Chris Pratt has graciously kept his politics private, unlike a host of other
approval-addicted actors who flaunt their " fashionable " beliefs for 15 more minutes of
fame. Pratt shouldn't be excoriated for imagined beliefs that people project onto him, he
should only be judged by what he does and what he says in life.
For example, judge Pratt on his further
response to Ellen Page's baseless anti-LGBTQ claim,
" My faith is important to me but no church defines me or my life, and I am not a
spokesman for any church or group of people. My values define who I am. We need less hate in
this world, not more. I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want
free from the judgement of their fellow man ."
He then wrote, " Jesus said, 'I give you a new command, love one another.' This is what
guides me in my life. He is a God of Love, Acceptance and Forgiveness. Hate has no place in my
or this world. "
That statement speaks glorious volumes about the quality and worth of Chris Pratt as a human
being.
The recent unwarranted vilification of Pratt speaks volumes too, not about him, but about
the vapid, vacuous and venal villains partaking in it.
I've never been much of a fan of Pratt's acting but this whole Twitter Pratt attack has left
me admiring the man for his groundedness and humility.
The bottom line is Chris Pratt seems like a genuine and decent guy and his detractors seem
like vile and repugnant Twitter tyrants.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
Peter Chamberlin 21 October, 2020 21 Oct, 2020 11:29 AM
Trump was brought to power in the last election to disrupt the politically correct culture,
advocated by the Democrats as "Democracy", when it is in actuality, a hidden form of
authoritarianism, where the people are subjected and controlled through applied peer pressure
on a national level. Neoliberal mainstream media has been at war with American culture since
the birth of the monster called "political correctness." The rage reaction against Trump has
been orchestrated from his first day in office, building in intensity until today, when we are
all called to be witness to the "crescendo" of the culture war. Democracy used to be when
everybody was entitled to their own opinions, as long as they did not force others to change
theirs. The arrival of so much partisan violence on both sides testifies to the abnormality of
our current situation and to the dangerous position we have allowed ourselves to be maneuvered
into. Whoever wins in two weeks, wins. Accept it and move forward.
intolerantslob 21 October, 2020 21 Oct, 2020 04:25 AM
Trump has tried to make peace - Biden is a war monger Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. He
is a self-centered old man - why anyone thinks he would make a good president is beyond me. It
is time for the minor US parties, such as the Libertarians and Greens, to break the 2 party
domination of US politics
Flyingscotsman 20 October, 2020 20 Oct, 2020 11:56 AM
These woke keyboard warriors , should be held to account for slander or incitement to violence/
harassment. The fact they believe they can attack from the shadows and never be held to
account, is the problem .
T. Agee Kaye 21 October, 2020 21 Oct, 2020 06:25 AM
Why hedge with 'seems'? His attackers don't use 'seems'. Say it. Chris Pratt is decent guy and
his detractors are vile and repugnant Twitter tyrants.
Jenny Morrill writes the UK nostalgia blog World of Crap . Follow her here @ theworldofcrap Win or lose, the woke outrage mob are still
on the warpath. Everyone, everywhere, is in danger of being canceled for the injustice of the
week. In my opinion, the media are to blame for their childish good-versus-evil narrative.
Last week, I committed the ultimate unforgivable sin – I expressed mild support for
Donald Trump on Twitter. This was in the context of suggesting that the election, which even
the US Congress has admitted contains " the presence of extensive voter
fraud , " might have had some voting irregularities. This, obviously, translated into
me being a 'Nazi' and a 'far-right Trump enabler', whatever that's even supposed to mean.
It's a story we've heard many times before – someone fails to toe the far left's
ideological line, and they are immediately 'canceled'. It's happened to people far more
important than me, and as a result most 'normal' people just keep their mouths shut and stay
out of it. We're used to seeing the pitchforks coming after celebrities for their imagined
crimes (often the same celebrities who not five minutes ago were doing the exact same thing),
but be under no illusion that they save their venom for the rich and famous. I'm a nobody, and
still they were outraged enough to come after me.
For what it's worth, I don't consider myself right wing or left wing. For the most part, I
support things that benefit the average voter. Making sure elections aren't rigged is pretty
high on my list of 'things that benefit the average voter'.
Unfortunately, the generation who were rewarded with fake internet points for tweeting about
avocados and gender studies have decided that they are the new 'voice of the people', and the
rest of us can go to hell for not already agreeing with their deeply held beliefs they've had
since Tuesday. These people cry over the plight of the 'working class', but as soon as one of
them has an opinion they don't like, they are told to shut up and know their place. And god
forbid one of them should ever meet a working-class person in the wild – they will
wrinkle their nose and tell them off for 'liking football and sausage rolls'. These are the
people who refuse to acknowledge that most voters are not in favor of banning speech and
defunding the police, because they are stupid ideas.
You can spot these people immediately if you know the signs. Their Twitter username includes
a barked virtue signal, all in caps (John 'WEAR A MASK!' Jackson). They are the men who wear
T-shirts that say " The future is female ," and make sure the world sees them wearing
it. They have an open-mouthed selfie of themselves holding a Funko. It's always Funkos.
The problem with these people is that they get the moral prism through which they view the
world from Harry Potter, the Marvel movies, and other franchises aimed at children, rather than
the nuances of real life. They are infantilized by the corporate blanketing of the 'good v
evil, and by the way we're the good guys, buy our stuff' narrative. Being surrounded on all
sides by this simplistic world view inevitably reduces a person's ability to think critically,
especially when the punishment for doing so is being ostracized by your peers. It must be
difficult being a revolutionary when you're surrounded by every corporation on the planet
patting you on the back and charging you for the privilege.
And yet I can't really blame these people. The finger should be pointed at the media for
encouraging this one-sided view of the world to the point where all opposing views are banned,
no matter how harmless. The people who over-consume this media have lost whatever ability they
had to fairly judge a situation which might include various shades of grey. That's why they
react so furiously to someone disagreeing with them, to the point that they will make personal
threats.
Which brings me back to my deplorable crime of suggesting Trump might not be literally evil
incarnate. I don't mind losing some Twitter followers for what I said, but I do mind people
threatening to 'find out where I live and pay me a visit', people trying to get my (completely unrelated) blog shut down, and
generally trying to make my life a misery in all my online spaces. Perhaps most shockingly,
they threatened to get my Redbubble page shut down. I hope they don't do that, because I'd lose
a whole 30p a month.
I fully expect to get canceled even further after writing this. But quite frankly I'm past
caring. I just wanted to write about old TV. I just wanted to laugh at kids' shows from the
'80s, and talk about nostalgia. But the woke mob has a way of dragging you into its demented
world. Well, I don't want to be part of that world, and at some point they're going to have to
grow up and stop trying to be king of the playground. It's time to take social media back from
these oversized children.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Franc shadow1369 2 hours ago 16 Nov, 2020 12:25 PM
It's even worse than intolerance and bigotry, it's intolerance and bigotry under the guise of
acceptance and goodwill. They've been indoctrinated, and if they were more organized we could
call them a legit religious cult.
volch 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 01:49 PM
One of the best op-eds written. In my view people need to pay more attention to the social
biologists. Humans will accept their own irationality delusion and hysteria if they feel
their social standing is nevertheless enhanced . It's a fundamental problem that will plague
society forever. The woke mobs won't begin to question themselves while their dopamine levels
are elevated.
Sapphire1 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 01:50 PM
My son lives in the States and he said that Woke culture has taken over. People were afraid
to say that they voted for Trump. The media has been taken over by the left and will not
report anything that goes against leftist propoganda. It is the end of free speech.
Lacus_Magnus DoubleKnot 2 hours ago 16 Nov, 2020 12:42 PM
(((They))) control what we hear, see and now (((they))) try to manage what we may say.
Remember the Koni experiment about 15 years ago? Within a week of social media campaigning
they had the kids up in arms over some obscure warlord in Africa. That was an excercise in
mob creation and manipulation.
benalls 58 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 02:04 PM
All living things are skeptical of that which is different from yourself. Government forced
tolerance, and mandatory race ratios has made the parents of this generation,angry, bitter,
and feeling unable to change things. This generation has by a majority been raised by a
single parent, at the border of poverty. The families wondering if there is enough left on
the maxed visa card to get enough gas to go to work and back today. They also find that after
they graduate high-school the choices are limited, lowering the bar to prevent accusations of
racism, their 4th grade reading and comprehension level disqualifies them for most of the few
jobs available
allan Kaplan 2 hours ago 16 Nov, 2020 12:47 PM
"Emperor's has new clothes" is so befitting to the real peeled off layer of an onion
Democrats and the fraudulent liberals that there's no more pretense, charades, and pretexts
left to dwell upon in their long run of fakeries of democracy, equal rights, and the rest of
the garbage! Kamala Harris is the living devil in disguise with all the subtle nuances, and
an unashamed sanctimonious holier-than-thou devil who would surpass any female leader of any
country in the past in her devilish turpitudes and depravity that the world has seen!
This is the really scary part. There used to be an unspoken rule that defense attorneys were
not supposed to be judged for their clients, even if they represent a despicable person. Serial
killers, terrorists, pederasts, etc. should not be cut off from the ability to have
representation in court.
A good law firm would be suing the Lincoln Project for harassment and defamation instead of
rolling over and showing their bellies to a bully. So it would seem that the loss of Porter
Wright as a member of the Trump team is probably for the best.
A law firm representing the Trump campaign's efforts to challenge the Pennsylvania election
results gave notice late Thursday that they are withdrawing from one of the cases.
While no reason was given for the decision by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP,
Bloomberg notes that it was one of two law firms targeted by the Lincoln Project - a group
of 'never-Trump' Republicans devoted to removing Trump from office.
On Tuesday, the group encouraged people to join LinkedIn and target individual employees of
Porter Wright and another law firm, Jones Day, and "Ask them how they can work for an
organization trying to overturn the will of the American people."
" Leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers representing the President's campaign and
they buckled ," said campaign communications director, Tim Murtaugh. "If the target were anyone
but Donald Trump, the media would be screaming about injustice and the fundamental right to
legal representation. The President's team is undeterred and will move forward with rock-solid
attorneys to ensure free and fair elections for all Americans."
Here's another 'cancel' crusader bragging about the left's latest scalp:
Another attorney who is not affiliated with Porter Wright will remain on the case in
Williamsport, Pennsylvania. A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss the suit in federal
court is scheduled for Tuesday.
The suit claims the state's election results are suspect because the campaign wasn't given
adequate access to observe the vote-counting in Democratic-leaning counties. A hearing in
that case has been scheduled for Nov. 17.
Porter Wright has also been representing the campaign in a case heading to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly challenging vote tallies based on poll observers' access
to the counting process. It additionally filed several county-level challenges seeking to
disqualify ballots it claimed were defective. It's unclear if Porter Wright also intends to
withdraw from those representations. -
Bloomberg
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The firm's work for the Trump campaign was led by Pittsburgh office partner Ronald Hicks,
co-chair of their election law practice.
takeaction , 1 day ago
This is Soros/Clinton money and strong arming that is doing this.
We are in a full MAFIA exposure.
This is going to get real interesting.
I have said it before, this is the FIGHT OF THE REPUBLIC....if Trump ends up losing, all
hopes of exposure are gone.
Obama spying on Trump, No big deal...
Hunter corruption buried...
Clinton crime family, off the hook...
Seal Team 6...forgotten...
Biden family enrichment, no repercussions...
SETH RICH, a hero, wiped from memory...
There is a lot more at play here than just the "Election" and our taxes going up.
NAV , 1 day ago
Good riddance to Jones Day: this is just an excuse to further delay and hurt Trump's case.
Already that firm has leaked private case information to the New York Times. Both these firms
have sabotaged President Trump.
Jones Day, the most prominent firm representing President Trump and the Republican Party
in its legal battle challenging the results of the election, earlier backstabbed Trump in the
back by leaking case information to the New York Times.
The activist rag, the Times, says those inside the firm are concerned about the propriety
and wisdom of working for Trump.
Trump needed to fire these unethical lawyers and one wonders why he didn't. Maybe he's
being sabatoged on so many fronts he doesn't know where to start. And just maybe information
is being kept from him by his "advisers."
The Times says these Jones Day subversives fear "Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the
integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs."
(Notice that Trump always is Mr.Trump, not President Trump, while Biden is President-elect
Biden.)
"At another large firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, based in Columbus, Ohio,
lawyers have held internal meetings to voice similar concerns about their firm's
election-related work for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party, according to people at the firm
. At least one lawyer quit in protest."
Trump has had 4 years to take action. I used to think like you but gave up about ...
hmmm... 4 years ago. He is just as zionist as ziohedge and the dems. Elections are
irrelevant. The CHAOS was always the plan.
takeaction is absolutely right in both comments. Great info in the first comment and a
great point in the second. We have one life, if you're not enjoying it, what's the point?
TheReplacement's Replacement , 1 day ago
Ah, a fundamental point of propaganda from the progressives that has successfully been
anchored in the psyche of the west. You need to have fun...
Life is a struggle that everyone will eventually lose. How rewarding the struggle is
depends of the effort you expend.
There are protests all across the country today. You can put down your childish things for
a few hours and go out to physically show support for Trump and the rule of law. You can meet
like minded people, network with them, and perhaps even begin preparing for struggles
ahead.
Or
Just keep doing what you have been doing. It has worked out sofa king great that the
communists are in their final push to take over not just this country but the entire
world.
It's up to you. No big deal. Have fun....
U_Wish_U_Were_This_Cool , 1 day ago
I suppose you have one?
Mine was to pass a constitutional amendment to forbid members of Congress from having any
income producing assets or source of income other that salary of office. Simply owning one
would by law immediately end their current term and disqualify them from any public office
from that point forward. No more corporate grift or self serving representatives in
office.
Of course it is difficult to convince a troll to support anything other than being a
troll.
Soylent Green tastes the same no matter which side of the fence you are on.
konputa , 1 day ago
If I may add an item to your excellent proposal:
Immediately ban anyone from public office that holds a foreign citizenship. I know this
will "unfairly" impact a number of people with dual citizenship in a certain ME country but I
feel it's for the better and allows us to focus on more pressing domestic issues.
kharrast , 1 day ago
The Troskyists are supported by the banking cartel. You can't get rid of the tyrants while
still using their monetary system.
wizteknet , 1 day ago
The committee was announced on December 17, 2019, in a New York Times op-ed by George
Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, and Rick Wilson.[5] Other co-founders include Jennifer
Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid.[6]. Sounds like a bunch McStains from what I
read.
MoreFreedom , 1 day ago
Big Democrat and RINO money is going up against Trump, and threatening the law firm
they'll lose their business with the traitors who bring in lots of revenue. That's what's
happening, and you are right; they are strong arming threats of force as well. It shows how
bad their case is they have to resort to thuggery and economic boycotts.
Cognitive Dissonance , 1 day ago
The Deep State/CIA's color revolution/coup proceeding as planned.
Hey Assholes , 1 day ago
Methinks that the obviousness of the fraud was intentional. Media crowns bidet, Trump
calling out the fraud. Whoever wins, the country is split and irreconcilable .
If Trump prevals, riots ensue and marshal law follows. We lose. If bidet steal succeeds,
70+ million become ungovernable, and civil war ensues.
I am a Tump supporter, but I am also an individualist and despise tyranny. The controllers
are trying to overturn the chess board and the setup is heads they win, tails we lose.
skizex , 1 day ago
Chairman of the Federal Election Commission says 'I Do Believe There Is
Voter Fraud Taking Place'...'Making This An Illegitimate Election' https://rense.com/general96/voter-fraud.mp4
Tirion , 1 day ago
All sorts of criminality has been obvious since the last election, but what has been done
about it? Nothing! So what makes you think they will lose? The rule of law is a pretense
only.
palmereldritch , 1 day ago
The CIA, at the highest level, is a Bankster infiltration and enforcement agency.
Goldblatz' Monster , 1 day ago
The bigger question is who in Hell wants more Trump (Kushner and Bibi)? Doesn't matter.
Bibi and Gates won. Harris stands before AIPAC spreading her love to Israel. The goy ain't
never gonna get it.
skizex , 1 day ago
Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight has come out in support of Donald Trump's claim
that Joe Biden is falsely declaring victory in last week's presidential election.
"My fellow Americans, I stand here with all the feel as I do disgusted with this lie that
Biden has been chosen." Voight began. "As if we all don't know the truth. And when one tries
to deceive we know that one can't get away with it, there will be a price to pay."
Voight warned Americans that they are now facing their "greatest fight since the civil
war" as the left are Satanists:
The ones who are jumping for joy now are jumping towards the horror they will be in for.
Because I know that the promises being made from the left to the American people will never
come to be. My friends of all colors, races, and religions, this is now our greatest fight
since the Civil War. The battle of righteousness versus Satan. Yes, Satan. Because these
leftists are evil, corrupt, and they want to tear down this nation.
This is the really scary part. There used to be an unspoken rule that defense attorneys
were not supposed to be judged for their clients, even if they represent a despicable person.
Serial killers, terrorists, pederasts, etc. should not be cut off from the ability to have
representation in court.
But in this new Lord of the Flies zeitgeist, if you get designated as an enemy of the
state, they can bring you up on whatever charges they want and no defense attorney will risk
being associated with you. So you'll stand alone against the full weight of the
government.
StuffyourVAXX , 1 day ago
So wait, this was done on Twitter and LinkedIn?
Organizing coordinated harassment and threats aren't against their TOS? Huh.
Zorch , 1 day ago
Not against TOS because these are patriotic Americans fighting a fascist dictator.
/sarc
InTheLandOfTheBlind , 1 day ago
Conservatives, most Republicans, and most importantly, Christians, are considered subhuman
by Twitter. They have no rights
TechnoCaveman , 1 day ago
I feel for the law firm and its employees.
This happened for two reasons - lack of morals from those who harassed the firm and a lack of
push back from US
Not only should the police get involved, but can we know the names and companies of who did
the harassing so we can abandon them?
No violence - do not stoop to their level. Instead tell them they are on the wrong side of
justice and the wrong side of history.
Seek the truth.
Stand with Trump
Stand with Trump supporters.
Stand against evil.
rlouis , 1 day ago
A lot of the people on the Lincoln Project have links to John McCain...
Silentwistle , 1 day ago
Everyone is missing the big tell here. You don't send your mob out to harass if there is
nothing to hide. All they are doing is circling their wagons around this corruption
Quia Possum , 1 day ago
And it looks like they're succeeding in that effort. From the old John Harrington
verse:
Do not harass or bully: We don't allow bullying or harassment. This includes abusive
language, revealing others' personal or sensitive information (aka "doxing"), or inciting
or engaging others to do any of the same.
So everyone involved in the Lincoln Project should be banned from LinkedIn.
I'm sure Microsoft will get right on that.
Original_Intent , 1 day ago
and they call us Fascists - straight out of Saul Alinsky's book...
tunEphsh , 1 day ago
If the election had been run honestly, the Democrats and their Lincoln Project "friends"
would not be pushing so hard to end an investigation. Honest people would say "Go ahead and
investigate all you want to, you are not going to find anything."
Whoa Dammit , 1 day ago
A good law firm would be suing the Lincoln Project for harassment and defamation instead
of rolling over and showing their bellies to a bully. So it would seem that the loss of
Porter Wright as a member of the Trump team is probably for the best.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
Unfortunately the corporatists have a tremendous amount of power.
Whoa Dammit , 1 day ago
Only if the power is given to them by not standing up for one's self and for the law. The
British had a lot of power here 244 years ago.
el_buffer , 1 day ago
Using intimidation and violence to foment political change is terrorism by definition.
I know you guys hate Facebook, so feel free to let your freak flag fly on that note.
Anyway, I commented on a Sun Times article on FB stating that the only qualifications for
Kamala were ticking the boxes of gender and race. She won zero delegates in the primaries,
and I don't know anyone who can even stand to hear her voice, let alone the words she is
forming with it. So a guy took a screenshot of my comment, proceeded to visit my personal
page, and messaged my employer saying that I am a racist, have no business representing the
company, and need to be fired immediately. As the page administrator I laughed at how
pathetic the guy was and deleted it. These people are out there in full force.
Countrybunkererd , 1 day ago
Every action you do will be under the cover of darkness and secrecy. Every day. Every
hour. Every minute. Every word carefully weighed as to ensure you don't say anything with
emotion or conviction. You don't speak to anyone about your thoughts or feelings because they
may use you to get out of some trouble where they were simply misunderstood by the given
power hungry individual for the current day. You never know what day you will be in trouble
for some misunderstood statement or worse.
You will give to the government everything they want and keep what they deem is enough to
sustain your meager lifestyle.
You can't afford to make a SINGLE mistake. Ever. So you cease talking with others except
for a very very select few.
EVERY SINGLE DAY. The lockdowns were a walk on the beach if and when we go this path.
Enjoy the Bolshevism, If you don't stand now on constitutional law, you deserve it. You
leftists have been played and are soon going to be deemed a useful idiot and executed by your
masters. It happens every single time, don't you read?
"... "There's no denying," Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote in 2017's The Once and Future Liberal, "that the movement's decision to use this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and its law-enforcement institutions and to use Mau Mau tactics to put down dissent and demand a confession of sins and public penitence played into the hands of the Republican right." ..."
Early in the Trump years, moderate columnists and strategists held that the mechanisms for
accomplishing what Biden evidently has would be an aggressive critique of progressive identity
politics. It was agreed specifically that Black Lives Matter and progressive activism on
policing and criminal justice could be crippling.
"There's no denying," Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote in 2017's The Once and Future Liberal, "that the movement's decision to use
this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and its law-enforcement
institutions and to use Mau Mau tactics to put down dissent and demand a confession of sins and
public penitence played into the hands of the Republican right."
Despite Democratic victories in 2018's midterms, the argument lived on long enough to worry
moderates who criticized Biden this year in the wake of the demonstrations and riots over the
killing of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. "In the crude terms of a presidential
campaign, voters know that the Democrat means it when he denounces police brutality, but less
so when he denounces riots," The Atlantic 's George Packer wrote in a
piece about the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
"To reach the public and convince it otherwise,
Biden has to go beyond boilerplate and make it personal, memorable."
A little over two months
later, it's actually quite difficult to remember what exactly Biden said that week. And he
never delivered grand denunciations of cancel culture, White Fragility, the 1619
Project, or any of the other culture war material moderates and conservatives suggested he
needed to address to make large gains among whites and white men in particular. Those gains
were clearly made anyway.
JOHN: "Human nature does not change" ( 10:00 ) is not a conservative
insight. It is a 'religious' insight, which conservatism recognises. But no 'religion'
analyses human nature, and recognises it for what it is, better than the teachings of a young
Galilean around two thousand years ago. Unfortunately his teachings on our 'human-ness' were
important for the first two hundred years after his death and resurrection; but have, since,
been absorbed, and subsumed, into the image of the 'Christos', in order that the 'leaders' of
the Church might achieve POWER. We see these pathetic 'career-clergy' men and women clinging
to their 'clerical power' to this very day: but covid has found their empty gospel
wanting.
Very good interview and excellent questions. Dan is very intelligent and has a common
sense, down to earth, moral attitude to life and as a congressman. Do not agree with all of
his judgements politically but respect his thorough investigation and research into the
matter. Really respect his mature attitude and personal comport. Do not agree with his
disdain for the Pres even when agreeing with the Pres actions. There is a personal problem
due to an encounter or some other personal conflict on a deeper level. Credit due to
separating it from the office he holds.
"SYSTEMIC RACISM" EXISTS! 11:58 It's called "Affirmative
Action" -- allowing the skin color of an applicant to weigh in on whether or not to accept
the applicant.
As far as BLM and CHAD and racism is concerned look at South Africa today and what's
happened in South Africa since Mandela and the AMC took power in South Africa after
Apartheid!
It took to nearly the end of the interview to state what is truly missing from public
discourse, and that is the understanding that a person's moral compass, a party's moral
compass, a nation's moral compass, depends upon something higher than themselves, for some it
is God, for others it is themselves, in the form of the State. Therein lies the conflict -
between absolute truth and relative truth, between eternal morals and situation ethics,
between thankfulness and entitlement, between forgiveness and condemnation, between love of
country and betrayal. And right now that conflict in the USA is reflected on the political
battlefield between Republicans and Democrats.
The one thing you never hear from the left today, is the idea of personal responsibility
for your own actions and behaviors, which is the cornerstone of freedom. I recently saw a
video of a drug store, where two men came into the store and shoplifted from the store, the
store manager called the Police. The Police had the shoplifters give back what they'd stolen
and were not arrested for their actions. Afterwords a woman got out her phone to record and
began to badger the store manager for his actions. She said to him that he was endangering
the lives of black men because they could have died at the hands of the Police that day.
Never once did she acknowledge that they shouldn't have shop lifted and it was their actions
that should be in question, not the store manager. She got downright nasty with the manager
and later people protested in front of the drug store for the injustice of calling the Police
on shoplifters. Think about that for a second, we've swung completely upside down as a
society with this type of thinking. Recently a Policeman shot and killed a crazed man as he
came charging out a front door wielding a knife over his head running at the officer to kill
him with the knife, the officer ran away but eventually had no choice but to turn and shoot
this man, and people came out in large numbers and protested the officers actions. I guess he
was supposed to sacrifice his life to the black lives matter movement. So in the vocal black
community there is absolutely no need for personal responsibility anymore, no matter what
someone does it's always everyone else's fault, or our racist societies fault, but never
their own due to their own behavior. Now that's some scary shit.
13 minutes "Systemic Racism" Let me start by saying I'm self educated, my observations my
own, I follow no one, and I have no followers :) People are misunderstanding the reasons for
their economic problems (meaning poverty), and inability to ever improve conditions, and
describing it as Systemic Racism. Truth is we all have limited horizons. Parochial, whether
by geography or class, or both. Where I live I see a mix of all race/ethnic- mostly caucasian
(white) Americans, impoverished , homeless, miserable, who tried and failed so much they have
given up. Black people see the same thing but it's mostly black people where they chose to
live. Same with Asians, South Americans, Somalians (Ilhan Omar :( and so forth. Whats stuck
everyone in the mud is called NAIRU (natural anti inflation rate of unemployment), a rule
adopted by all the central banks around the world including the USA and Australia in the last
half of the 1970"s. Search & find dozens of varying descriptions of what NAIRU is about.
That was when or first homeless appeared (generally "overpaid" union American farm workers at
first) It means permanent high unemployment, adjusted by the central banks, leaving workers
in surplus, in order to keep wages flat or slightly declining. In the USA add to that mass
runaway immigration of low skilled workers accustomed to minimal wage. Think of it as a game
of musical chairs. The number of chairs (jobs) is slowly increasing, but the number of people
looking for chairs increases faster. Thus our large and seemingly permanent population living
in alleys and street sidewalks, never able to find employment, and given in to despair. Trump
has turned off NAIRU at our central bank, and greatly slowed the excessive and illegal
immigration, and until the Pandemic shutdowns, turning everything around. A tighter labor
market had employers rehabilitating older homeless workers and employing them, plus raising
wages to attract workers
16:48 Fascism- characterized by
dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and
of the economy. Anarchism - is a political philosophy and movement which is skeptical of
authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. Communism - a
socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production
and the absence of social classes, money and the state. It looks like the congressman is
putting negative words together without understanding they are opposites of each other. He's
become a politician.
Yes! FINALLY someone is contradicting the false claim of "both sides are doing it" with
censorship and cancel culture. Now, if only people would talk specifically about how CRT
fuels the insanity, we would have a chance to pull our country out of this spiral of
destruction. A sane person in Portland needs a little help here!
For 40 years I paid a large chunk of my Paycheck into Social Security. How can Dan call
this an Entitlement. I guess the paycheck that I worked for is an Entitlement too. When did
the labor that I provide become an entitlement. Entitlements are when something of value is
given to those that did nothing to earn it, like welfare checks.
Interesting analysis! Systemic racism is everywhere,🙄 is in the institutions?,
**but it's in you 😳and you don't know it?** So you have to change the institutions
and make the UNEQUAL👹? in order to create
equality🥴😂🤣😂😆😂😂 Isn't Radical Left =
Socialism?
The defunding of the police is to set the way for a national police as proposed by
President Obama in 2009 governed by DC. In its place temporarily, the strong arm of this
movement are Antifa and BLM. I equate these groups to the Brown Shirts of the Nazi party in
the 1930s. Once the German police were pacified and converted to the ideals of the party an
SS was created along with a Ghestappo which made the Brown Shirts an irrelevant and dangerous
group. It was destroyed in The Night of the Long Knives. Now you truly have the recipe for
central control and the tendency towards repression of those that will not conform.
Crenshaw spoke disingenuously about "the debt crisis, " blaming it on seniors. Surely he
realizes we have a fiat money system -- the bankers and other mega-corporate interests seized
TRILLIONS recently in two massive "Covid" heists." Bankers got trillions in October in a REPO
rescue, which was barely reported. Add their 2008 bailout, costing $21 trillion. And don't
forget defense industry payouts PLUS an even larger stealth siphoning revealed in the
delinquent Pentagon audit -- it exposed more TRILLIONS missing! And #Unappropriated by
Congress ! Their excuse: oops, "clerical" Why doesn't Rep Crenshaw complain about trillions
disappeared by the military? Or going to rich bankers? Yeah. Blame it on Boomers living on
Social Security... and who had FICA taxes removed from their paychecks for decades.
Social security is not an entitlement but money that the working class had taken out of
their paychecks for the time they worked for me 35 plus years but maybe your too young to
know about that...do your home work
The globalist technological revolution that we are in the midst of has pulled the economic
and cultural rug out from under the vast majority of citizens of western capitalist
democracies. Many people feel as though they no longer have anything of value to provide
others in a society based on the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services, or if
they do, that someone in China will provide it for far less. This reality has set the stage
for the attractiveness of Marxist ideology. We have made the average person in the West
obsolete or superfluous.
John Anderson
101K subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on
contemporary politics for the National Review and The Washington Times and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson
Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He and John analyse the current culture war and the effect it is
having on our geopolitical strategy especially in relation to China, in light of the current pandemic. If you value this
discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel by clicking this link:
https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnAnderso...
As someone who wasted his youth on a worthless law degree, I can tell you that the US has way too many lawyers, and way too
many law schools. The job market for lawyer collapsed about 10 years ago, and law schools responded by pushing social justice
activism as a recruitment tool. They're training movie lawyers, instead of real ones, and jacking up tuition to ridiculous
levels. The graduates come out financially ruined, propagandized, and barely employable. I repaid my loans by leaving the
field and working construction, and I wish I'd never wasted my time on it. They send me alumni donation request forms,
trumpeting their new social justice initiatives.
Interesting conversation. Regarding "racism" it is an empty charge against America today from those of African descent. Like
America has always been racist and AS IF their ancestors came from a place that was not. I have visited several countries in
Africa and read much of history. What is called "racism" hardly compares to the brutal "tribalism" that is in Africa. Often
one tribe wiping out other tribes. Of course, we are aware many tribes sold "other tribes" into slavery. Now this follows all
of history and other places in the world. There is no nation and no tribe on earth that hasn't been guilty of
racism/tribalism/nationalism, etc. Why do we let organizations like BLM distort history? What history is taught in the USA
schools? Seesm we horrible suffer much from superficial schooling regarding the history of racism/tribalism/nationalism/religionism/slavery/abolitionism
and so on. Seems it will never change until we realize there is none righteous, not one. So - let us all confess past sins and
be determine to improve from where we are now as much as humanly possible. Equality and fairness is a forever quest worth
pursuing.
Marxists will stimulate and inflame and exaggerate any potential group resentment or conflict or difference within society -
race, gender, sexuality - in order to bring about as much confusion and chaos as possible in the hopes that "capitalist"
societies - and families and individuals - will fall apart from within so that they can then step up and "save the day" with
their brilliant Marxist framework - the same Marxist framework that has worked so brilliantly in the past in the Soviet Union,
East Europe, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Ho's Vietnam, etc., - gulags, walls, repression, stagnation and well over 100
million dead through starvation, worked to death in labour camps and mass executions, but, hey, don't let that stop you.
The
individual counts for nothing and the collective within the brilliant framework counts for everything. Human life counts for
nothing and the ideology counts for everything. Evidence counts for nothing because, hey, you know, if anything ever went
wrong, it was "not real Marxism". "So let us try again and next time we'll get the gulags and walls and executions right."
Behind all this is the spirit of resentment and vengeance, a spiritual war that will not allow for anything that transcends
their limitations, anything that transcends materialism and bureaucracy, like creativity, innovation or free enterprise. Free
spirits must be shot down. Individual responsibility must not be allowed.
Everything must be collectivised. You are not an individual, you are a soulless member of a collective according to your race,
gender, sexuality and nothing more. You are a locked-in member of a bureaucratic category and nothing more! There is no "you"
apart from the category we place you in. So give up all hope, all striving and all spiritual and aesthetic and intellectual
growth, and just accept your impotent, inevitable, irrefutable future as a zombi worker slave to the Central Committee that
will make all decisions for you. History has a plot and you are just a meaningless iota in the grand sweep of history.
And
if you don't go along with this narrative, we will work on your guilt feelings, your sense of fairness, your fear of losing
your livelihood, by calling you a "racist", "sexist", "fascist", "something-phobe", "anti-something" and bureaucratically
moving you out of your position. The soulless, heartless, godless bureaucracy is everything and you are nothing. Until there -
literally - is nothing.
Their end goal is not something like power, prestige, money; their end goal is nihilism, nothingness, the lights go out, the
pain stops, the "unfairness" stops. "If I can't have it, then you can't have it either." And their vengeance against life,
spirit, God, glory, joy, beauty, is complete Th- th- th- That's all folks!
All really interesting. The linking of what is happening in the States with the French Revolution is astounding. One thing
that stands out is the godlessness of the French during the Revolution, they publicly, through the National Assembly declared
themselves atheist and set up the Cult of Reason using a dancing girl as their object of worship and worshipped her in Notre
Dame. The anarchy in the States from the left is just as godless and is seeking the same. Problem is is that it led to the
Reign of Terror. If anyone is interested, read the chapter on the French Revolution in the book 'The Great Controversy' by
E.G. White. Then read the the 24th chapter of the Book of Matthew. We are in for extremely interesting and worrying times.
1:15
"Decolonization of post war British Empire"? People! What is the predominant accent you hear in our media today? It is
British. We are still their colony. We're like children being patted on the head by our guardians. Our enemies: Our
government at all levels; Britain; Israel. We are being attacked from within. When that happens we must divide or be
conquered. Emigration is today's Trojan horse. The antidote to globalization is secession. The solution: Iterative
secession. We are not homogeneous and shouldn't desire to be. The solution to neighbors who don't get along is not to force
them to live in the same house. We need many more spaces. Just look around. Who do you want to be equal to? Who do you
think is your equal?
This country was being destroyed from within by losing the skills of the people in the manufacturing sector. Go into stores an
find nothing produced in USA. Even simple things like clothes hangers. My dry cleaners asked me if I could bring any I had to
them because of supply disruption from China. Thank God we have a strong agricultural sector. That is our strength. China's
weakness. A billion more mouths to feed. China has to look outside there country to feed there people. Our weakness was energy
Independence. Trump changed that along with new technology like fracking. He allowed the horses to run by removing excess
regulation. Now we have new LNG plants an pipelines an opening new areas to drilling. We need to work with Taiwan an Japan to
help neutralize China in the East. An Germany needs to stay on board with USA to check Russia expansion. Putin wants to
restore the old Soviet Union. We need to support countries like Ukraine an Poland. We have many strengths. USA is not racist.
That was proven when we elected an African American candidate with blacks representing less than 15% of population. Americans
need to stand up for there country an not be labeled by a radical group like BLM or Antifa. Stop the destruction of our
culture an monuments. Enjoy VDH talks.
Actually s/he complained about the 'misuse' of the phrase 'white supremacy', a phrase
which can be very easily defined by the apparently bizarre and abnormal activity of
'looking up the phrase in a dictionary'. It literally has no 'hidden' or 'non-standard'
definition.
The motte definition of "white supremacy" is Mirriam-Webster: "the belief that the white
race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over
people of other races".
The observation that white supremacy, under this definition, has been influential in
American history, is not controversial. (Controversial: claiming that the American revolution
was fought to protect slavery, as claimed by the 1619 Project, before the, ah,
clarification was issued.)
This outlook is influential; it, or something much like it, is part of the training of all
New York school employees, as
George Packer notes:
De Blasio's schools chancellor, Richard Carranza, has answered critics of the diversity
initiative by calling them out for racism and refusing to let them "silence" him. As part
of the initiative, Carranza has mandated anti-bias training for every employee of the
school system, at a cost of $23 million. One training slide was titled "White Supremacy
Culture." It included "Perfectionism," "Individualism," "Objectivity," and "Worship of the
Written Word" among the white-supremacist values that need to be disrupted. In the name of
exposing racial bias, the training created its own kind.
The meaning of the words has expanded, too. Ten years ago, white supremacy frequently
described the likes of the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke, the neo-Nazi politician from
Louisiana. Now it cuts a swath through the culture, describing an array of subjects: the
mortgage lending policies of banks; a university's reliance on SAT scores as a factor for
admissions decisions; programs that teach poor people better nutrition; and a police
department's enforcement policies.
So Mirriam-Webster is behind the times on the evolving and ever-expanding meaning of
"white supremacy"; an update is anticipated.
"... It is the great con game. The super rich use the blacks especially, but also most of the browns, as excuses, weapons, and tools to batter the white middle class and white working class into utter submission. Tyranny of the worst sort seems to be end game. ..."
There is no agenda to "work together" with people who are trying to steal our freedom by
replacing our heritage as the world's first secular republic with a Christian theocracy. When
Christians took over the demoralized remnant of the Roman Empire they ushered in a thousand
years of repression and intellectual stagnation. We will not allow them to repeat this crime
in our land.
While we are selectively quoting the mendacious propaganda of the Federalist articles, let
us recall that in Federalist No. 10, Virginia aristocrat James Madison argued that
democracies were "spectacles of turbulence incompatible with the rights of property
[owners]." He was especially frightened of the mass of landless Americans, who, not unlike
his own slaves, "labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal
distribution of its blessings."
In Federalist No. 35, the future first US secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton,
wrote, "The idea of an actual representation of all classes of people by persons of each
class is altogether visionary." Anticipating the infamous line in Orwell's "Animal Farm", he
continued, the "weight and superior acquirements of the merchants render them more equal"
than men of ordinary means.
The usual account of anti-federalism tells of the activism of wealthy men who feared a
strong central government would encroach on their local power and privilege. All but
forgotten is the opposition of rank-and-file Continental Army veterans who gathered in
protest at a number of locations nationwide to burn copies of the new constitution. They
declared it was a betrayal of what they thought they had fought for. Captain Daniel Shays, a
leader of the western Massachusetts militiamen's abortive uprising the previous year, spoke
for all American patriots when he said "we did not overthrow a wise king to be ruled by
shopkeepers" but their voices have long been silenced in conventional histories of those
turbulent times.
Recall also that in the first election of 1788-9, only 43,782 men were able to cast votes
for Presidential electors, out of a total American population of nearly four million.
And Hamilton is now lionized as being the great hero for blacks and browns.
It is the great con game. The super rich use the blacks especially, but also most of
the browns, as excuses, weapons, and tools to batter the white middle class and white working
class into utter submission. Tyranny of the worst sort seems to be end game.
You're like some Guelph who flopped out of a time machine yelling about the bucket and
everybody's like, What the fuck is he talking about?
Do you really want to piss away the rapidly dwindling rest of your life fixating on some
bullshit stereotyped melodrama? It's three words of one article of one clause of one of the
nine core human rights instruments. (You don't know what I'm talking about but bear with me.)
Both parties are in perfect agreement about screwing you out of every other human right you
got.
Nobody gives a rat's ass about Jay. Your founding fathers are Allen Dulles and Frank
Wisner. The conflicts you're trained to emote about are wholly synthetic. Apparatchiks of
both parties concur on impunity. That's all your country is. The United States of
Impunity.
Trump and his backers have been accused of mass murder.
And during the summer of 2020, the Black Lives Matter- and antifa-fueled riots, looting,
arson and assaults on cops went on for weeks, destroying billions of dollars in property
and ending with demands to "defund the police."
Scores of statues have been toppled and destroyed -- statues of explorers, missionaries,
Founding Fathers of the republic and presidents on Mount Rushmore.
Now, not only are we fractured over ideology, religion, race, culture and morality, but
also our country's history has become a cause of irreconcilable conflict.
Leftism, no matter what you call it, has always been dysgenic and always will be. It is a
"philosophy" embraced by those unable to surrender their dream for an impossible to achieve
perfect world for an imperfect and achievable good one.
Recall also that in the first election of 1788-9, only 43,782 men were able to cast
votes for Presidential electors, out of a total American population of nearly four
million.
Fewer than that. Almost all the states had their legislatures choose the electors back
then.
Regarding your last observation, Observator, the fact that the right to vote has become
nearly universal for all adults, has made the country's dire situation and short and
long-term outlook much worse. Too bad we can't go back to the days when only well-educated
male property owners could vote and hold office. Too much democracy contains within it the
seeds of its own destruction, which we are witnessing in spades today.
@The
Alarmist extreme left have been a disaster for Europe, at least since 1990. They have
destroyed the high standard of living Europe built up after the war and they have destroyed
Europe's competitiveness. Same for the USA. And the left has done much more warmongering than
the right the last 30 years. Neo-Cons (Republicans) are former leftists, mostly Jewish, that
promote war for Israel's security and strength. When Europe's right wing parties gain power
then Europe can begin its turnaround and perhaps become competitive again. They also want
good relations with Russia. That will benefit everyone. Hopefully this happens before the
left makes Europe a shithole no one wants to live in.
We have, for instance, Lieven focusing on the current top two, great interlocking
challenges: climate change and the fact that "350 years of Western and 250 years of
Anglo-American predominance are coming to an end."
I was under the impression this was about serious topics, not liberal claptrap. My
mistake.
Every problem [neo]liberal cockroaches claim is a calamity -- discrimination against
"transgender women of color", police brutality, systemic racism, COVID-19, the Chinese
crackdown on Uyghur militants and the Hong Kong chapter of Antifa, and, of course, "climate
change" -- is imaginary, inconsequential, or an actual positive.
Everything liberals claim to be a positive or dismiss as inconsequential -- "diversity",
mass Third World immigration, Moslem barbarity, BLM and Antifa riots, rigged elections, the
normalization of sodomy, feminism, sexual liberation -- is a calamity.
Judging from comment ZH audience does not like Critical Race theory one bit :-). Does this
mean Trump 2020-2024?
It is also clear that the tide of white public opinion that's to BLM and Critical Race Theory
turned against the blacks and turned drastically. In a way founders of BLM did a very bad service
to community. It proved to be extremely divisive for the country.
Schools that teach " white privilege " as fact are breaking
the law , the equalities
minister has told MPs.
MP Kemi Badenoch said the underpinning ideology of critical race theory "sees my blackness
as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression."
"This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory," she
told MPs during a debate on Oct. 20 in which Labour MP Dawn Butler had called for the
curriculum to be "decolonised."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KtXshJDqJOw
Badenoch, MP for Saffron Waldon and also minister for equalities, said the rise of
critical race theory was a "dangerous trend in race relations."
"We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and
inherited racial guilt," she said.
"Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory or which promotes
partisan political views such as defunding the police, without offering a balanced
treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law."
The defunding of police has been a demand of many key members and supporters of Black
Lives Matter.
"Some schools have
decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware
that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial," said Badenoch. "Black lives
do matter -- of course they do. But we know that the Black Lives Matter movement, capital
B, L, M, is political."
Some Black Lives Matter leaders and groups, including the UKBLM group, are explicitly anti-capitalist.
"What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are
accepted facts," said Badendoch.
"We don't do this with communism. We don't do this with socialism. We don't do it with
capitalism."
'Not America'
Badendoch also warned against importing the rhetoric on race from America.
" Our history of race is not America's history of race. Most black British people who
have come to our shores were not brought here in chains, but came voluntarily due to their
connections to the UK and in search of a better life. I should know. I am one of them.
"We have our own joys and stories to tell. From the Windrush generation to the Somali
diaspora, it is a story that is uniquely ours."
During the debate on education and race, MP Dawn Butler had earlier called for the
curriculum to be "decolonised," saying that "history is taught to make one group of people
feel inferior and another group of people feel superior."
Former Windrush passengers and members of the RAF Donald Clarke, George Mason, Sam King
MBE, and Allan Wilmot in the Imperial War Museum in London on June 12, 2008. (Cate
Gillon/Getty Images)
But Badenoch said the curriculum did not need decolonising for "the simple reason that it
is not colonised," adding, "We should not apologise for the fact that British children
primarily study the history of these islands."
In the United States, the Trump administration recently
banned agencies or contractors from "conducting training that promotes race stereotyping,
for example, by portraying certain races as oppressors by virtue of their birth."
"This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an
irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race
or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our
common status as human beings and Americans," Trump wrote, later calling the ideology
"divisive."
The UK government last month issued guidance
which says schools should not use resources "produced by organisations that take extreme
political stances on matters."
Examples of unacceptable stances include "a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow
democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections," as well as opposition to free
speech or the use of racist or anti-Semitic language. Materials "promoting divisive or victim
narratives that are harmful to British society," were also included as an example.
Lt. Frank Drebin , 1 hour ago
A rare example in these surreal times. I salute you ma'am.
Nothing , 36 minutes ago
Not that rare. Ive heard numbers of blacks and latinos speak out like this. But these
voices are systematically suppressed by Google, by Facebook, and also by the blocking of
peaceable assemblages and by simple conversation with strangers without being muzzled with
the excuse given of coronaphobia.....
Dickweed Wang , 1 hour ago
If all races are so equal why is it that when Europeans first went to the African
continent the people there were not using the wheel?
Yippie21 , 1 hour ago
Now do American Indians; same
CriswellSpeaks , 1 hour ago
If whites are superior to blacks then why didn't the white race completely supplant the
black race in Africa? Short answer, same reason the black race never built any great cities
in Africa, tropical diseases. Geography is destiny and being located at the equator,
tropical diseases have prevented black Africans from creating any great civilizations until
the present era. When the whites of S. Africa attempted to migrate north much past Rhodesia
they were stopped dead in their tracks(literally) by tropical diseases. Imagine what a
society would look like if it got hammered by the Black Death every century and you have
black Africa.
DeathMerchant , 1 hour ago
********! There was no enviromental incentive to progress in equatorial regions. No need
for warmth, food or advanced tools to progress beyond ability to provide basic necessities
which were available to them year round. Compare that to the northern climes which had
minimal seasonal opportunities to provide those things and the development of capability to
cope with such.
CriswellSpeaks , 1 hour ago
Critical Race Theory is a form of back handed racism directed at minorities. According
to CRT, as a white person I possess this magical power to oppress all black people that I
was born with. No matter what black people do, they are powerless is the face of my absence
of skin pigmentation. Seriously, if you do a little digging into the founders of CRT you
will probably find the law firms/lawyers/political lobbyists who were responsible in the
1960's for opposing the abolition of Jim Crow laws. After they lost to color blindness and
integration, they infiltrated the Communists, claimed racial harmony was preventing a
Marxist revolution and had to be reversed for it to happen. CRT would drag race relations
back to the post civil war era.
PCShibai , 32 minutes ago
Ask yourself this, " if ' white privilege ' is the real reason
why blacks cannot get ahead in the US, then why aren't blacks successful in all the other
black-lead nations on the planet?" I mean...... there's ZERO history of ' white privilege '
keeping down Uganda, or the Congo, or ANY other black-lead nation...... and yet they are
all failing their people miserably and have ALWAYS failed their people miserably!
WHAT DO ALL THOSE BLACK NATIONS BLAME " THEIR " CONTINUOUS FAILURE ON? The
Samoans???
" White
privilege " is the CRUTCH that is used by the black race for their own failures.
Failure to maintain a family that raises children properly, failure to insist that their
children are properly educated, failure to integrate into the successes of the surrounding
culture, failure to accept the fundamentals that make people economically successful.
Until they eliminate the CRUTCH and accept their responsibility for their own success
& their own failures, they will continue to be the one failed culture throughout the
entire world!
cvp , 9 minutes ago
I do not disagree with the point your making; I would like to add, the people who
migrate from the African continent to the United States are some of the happiest people
I've met and worked with in my life. They are not interested in what BLM is selling! Jus
say'n...
5onIt , 40 minutes ago
None of the black people in this country were brought here in chains either. They are
free to leave whenever they damn well please.
greatdisconformity , 30 minutes ago
The institution of slavery gave black lives a value they did not otherwise have in
Africa.
Africans simply sold the losers of tribal wars, or their own slaves, to the coastal
markets.
It was either the auction block, or the killing fields.
I do not feel any guilt at all.
Without slavery, these people would not exist in any form; here or with descendants in
Africa.
They owe their existence in its most fundamental form to slavery.
They should be glad.
Whitey is being played. Big time.
Spetzco , 19 minutes ago
Especially as most of the major slave traders in Africa were BLACK themselves.
greatdisconformity , 35 minutes ago
The language of Critical Race Theory is the language of Genocide.
Historically, when an ethnic group is singled out for a savage take-down like Critical
Race Theory, it has been a prelude and pretext for mass killings.
Of course, this time things will be different.
Shifter_X , 14 minutes ago
It's the same playbook the Boshies Nazis and Maoists used. Yes, genocide and wiping out
history, that's their specialty.
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
When you're a race hustler filled with the dripping hatred of Whitey, and all you have
going in life are endless victim grievance bs regurgitated to get a head in life, it all
makes sense. It's not enough that Blacks have their own BET, endless Black This & Black
That Awards, staring roles in most all feature films, Two term POTUS, no, they want it all.
They want Whitey to live in imaginary Black World Wakanda as indentured Servants as
reparations for slavery 150 years ago. They want to drag us in chains down roads of endless
Persecution until we are no more.
Phuc Critical Race Theory, and Phuc Black Lives Matter.
SunsteintheSodomite , 58 minutes ago
Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa showed the world that you can build a complete
NATION with infrastructure, economic supply routes, trade deals, agriculture, technology,
EVERYTHING...
...then drop off the keys and an instruction manual...
...and within 5-10 years it will be beyond repair.
Throughout their history, blacks have had only one route to civilization:
Follow WHITEY.
Rest Easy , 23 minutes ago
And van jones has the nerve to say white people have a virus. Maybe so van. We are too
nice.
Is there a US city and unfortunate surrounding suburbs that has a large percentage of
black persons not causing havoc? Ruin. Just generally weird stupid bs. Morning noon and
night. Tip toeing through the daisies trying to keep the young black kids fun down to a
dull roar. If you are "lucky". Get a little uppity and the klan with a tan comes a
knocking. Sometimes just being white around black Nazis is more than sufficient.
At least teach students about what happened in Rwanda.
play_arrow
Misean , 4 minutes ago
Or Rhodesia, the bread basket of Africa.
After changing it's name to Zimbabwe, the black rulers have reduced the nation to abject
poverty. From feeding much of sub Saharan Africa, the nation now depends on massive food
imports, most of which is given by western nations at great expense.
The population of productive whites and blacks have either left or been killed by roving
bands of bandits. The bandits "reclaimed" commercial farms at gun point, took girls as
slaves killed all makes, and raped then murdered the women.
Having no clue how commercial farming works, but assured by their leaders that
traditional African farming was superior, they sold the farm equipment to smarter thugs,
for dimes on the dollar (the buyers exported the equipment to better run countries, for
sizable profits, this depleting the country of the farm capital necessary to turn things
around).
The farm bandits, with stone age farming techniques, destroyed the soil quickly. Most of
the fertile top soil has washed away, what's left is exhausted.
nsurf9 , 1 hour ago
The only "privileged" our country is suffering under - is not already ending the
Affirmative Action Act of 1986. It had it place 25 years ago. Now, it is nothing more than
a prima facie Government sanctioned systematic discrimination against Caucasians - that's
now well past being justified by any stretch of a "compelling state interest" argument.
If you are being wrongfully discriminated, you have the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment and State law to pursue your claim - like the rest of us.
SmokingArgus , 25 minutes ago
If you have a "Minister of Equalities" you've already lost.
Shifter_X , 1 hour ago
"" Our history of race is not America's history of race. Most black British people who
have come to our shores were not brought here in chains, but came voluntarily due to their
connections to the UK and in search of a better life. I should know. I am one of them"
What a steaming pile of ********.
The settlers who came to America in 1560 (not 1619 as the fictitious farcical revised
"history" claims) and thereafter brought their slaves WITH THEM FROM THE UK
The UK was happy to pass the slave trade on to the colonies.
But make no mistake, the UK was up to its *** in slavery well before the colonies were
even formed.
DieSocialJusticeWankers , 1 hour ago
A Biden win and there will be affirmative action and CRTheory on steroids. The USA will
die for young white people. Vote Trump white people, or you're fkkkkked!
1. As recently as June of 2019, Biden praised the "civility" of the segregationist
senators he worked with in Congress to pass anti-busing legislation.
2. Biden praised the notorious segregationist politician George Wallace, boasted about
how Wallace once honored him with an award in 1973, and told a Southern audience in 1987
that "we [Delawareans] were on the South's side in the Civil War."
3. Biden opposed busing in the 1970s and expressed fears that it would lead to a "racial
jungle."
4. Biden voted to protect the tax-exempt status of private segregated schools.
5. Biden told black radio host Charlamagne tha God, "If you have a problem figuring out
whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
6. Biden told the Asian and Latino Coalition of Des Moines that "poor kids are just as
bright and just as talented as white kids."
7. While delivering remarks before a black audience in Delaware, Biden launched into a
meandering story about a gang leader named Corn Pop and claimed that he "learned about
roaches" while working at a community pool in a black neighborhood.
8. In 2008, Biden referred to then presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the first
sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."
9. In 2006, Biden told C-SPAN, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless
you have a slight Indian accent."
10. Biden falsely claimed to have "marched" in the civil rights movement.
Still waiting on Trump's racist comments, been like 6 years.
Brits had slave's just as almost every other country in the world has, in the past even
white slaves (Irish). Brits have no higher ground to stand on than anyone else looking at
their indiscretions in India and China and elsewhere. Such as the opium wars in China.
Silly British. They should realize it has NOTHING to do with race. It's all about
COMMUNISM, they are just as in danger from the cancer of communism as anyone else.
rmogabe , 27 minutes ago
She said it is a political movement.
artytom , 1 hour ago
Thank Goodness. Very surprised to see this coming out of the UK government - but...
Is the tide turning.
Have the World Bank run out of bribes?
Have we passed the tipping point and they have taken off the pressure because they know
there is no going back?
Are they satisfied that the economies are in free fall and won't bounce back?
Are they simply covering their asses (the most likely of all).
DeathMerchant , 1 hour ago
In 1959, AAMD set the IQ threshold for mental retardation at < 85. The civil rights
movement of the next decade forced psychologists to rethink this boundary, because half the
African American population fell below it. In 1973, responding to this concern, AAMD (by
then AAMR) changed the threshold for retardation from IQ < 85 to IQ < 70. The
boundary moved south by one standard deviation! The proportion of blacks below the
threshold instantly dropped from about 50 percent to 12 percent. Subsequent refinements
made it still more difficult to meet the criteria for retardation.
When Binet in 1905 produced the first IQ test, it promised to revolutionize the diagnosis
and treatment of mental retardation. A half century later it came under attack for reasons
Binet could not have imagined. Could any of the pioneer psychometricians have foreseen
Larry P. v. Riles (1979), a California class-action suit that focused on IQ testing of
young black children? The court held that IQ tests were not valid for African Americans. It
banned California from using the tests for placing black students in classes for the
"educable mentally retarded" or equivalent categories on the grounds that the tests were
biased. After a series of appeals, the district court ruled that no special education
related purposes exist for which IQ tests could be administered to black pupils. Though
only a California ruling, the case began a political assault on standardized testing that
has spread beyond the IQ test to college entrance exams, promotional exams and more.
A Case History of Government Intervention
In 1996, The Office for Civil Rights placed 16 school districts nationwide under review for
potential discrimination. The districts were charged with violating the civil rights of
minorities, especially African Americans, because blacks were found to be overrepresented
in special education programs, especially those for the mentally retarded. Five of the 16
districts were in Maryland. Ironically, Maryland is a very liberal state very much in tune
with the goals of the Civil Rights Office. Maryland is also almost 30 percent black. The
offending districts included Baltimore, Howard, Harford, Montgomery and Prince Georges
counties. OCR detectives uncovered "discrimination" by looking at school records. The
offending data appear in Table 1. The irritant is in the last column. Black children were
classified as retarded at 1.5 to 2.2 times the rate of whites. OCR ordered the counties to
find a "remedy."
Fortunately teaching Critical Race Theory or any other invented marxist propaganda is
going to get a lot of people killed.
They'll find they deployed the subversion before gaining a sufficient majority, or
sufficient technological control among a highly educated peasantry.
And by the end of all that killing, there will be a brighter future for European
descendants, darkness relegated to its corner of the Earth.
By that time, all the people who would otherwise wish they'd never uttered a word of
critical race theory will simply be no longer.
Fight back.
You have the moral law on your side and you will win.
GreatUncle , 18 minutes ago
UK Government ... ROFL.
The UK government last month issued guidance
which says schools should not use resources "produced by organisations that take extreme
political stances on matters."
Because see we the UK government do that ... ain't you noticed? So as we do it then it
is all legal like mass immigration to destroy the indigenous population...
MadameDeficit , 1 hour ago
Oh boy, can't wait for the hypocrites to tell her why she's wrong.
Maghreb2 , 1 hour ago
She's right but she should shut her mouth either ways because she's a tory sell out
bitch and we know that because we know the Tories and the
Freud-Murdoch run P.R firms they get their polices from . Real racial theory would have
David Lammy lynched by everyone but the Chinese. Starting teaching the little white boys
about
Jimmy Savile in Leeds infirmary and we'll have them ready to suicide bomb Buckingham
Palace and go after the nearest member of "the people who will n
ot be blamed for nothing " minority .
Tell them that is what Mi5 are for.
To protect White Privileges and the weaker ones will kill themselves when they see what
they have planned for them in the future. By the Divine right of the Windsors suicide isn't
even legal and just remember that is why he was in the infirmaries. She should remember how
similar the white monkeys are to the black monkeys in their natural habitat .
The west is past imported racial talking points. Blood for the money will be new mantra
after the war starts but we wouldn't expect the people in parliament to have ever
understood that in way because they can't see the real world. Rivers of Blood Libel these
days. Play them this song and we'll see which music turns them into hardened killers over
night. Tell them Guy Burgesses and Rothschild used to go to the
Gargoyle club and the stories about Dolphin Square .
Victim ideology as broadcast by media, politicians and schools is the true divider and
oppressor that reinforces the odious legacy of slavery. The only way people move beyond
what was unacceptable in the past is to release and bury it. Those who are vested in
maintaining the old ugly status quo are the ones who won't let it go. that's the cabal and
all their minions. Enough.
GeezerGeek , 1 hour ago
How many black slaves were needed on Britain's cotton plantations? Duh...
How many black slaves were brought to Britain's colonies in America (not just on the
continent) before it became an independent (at least that's the story) nation? Duh...
As an aside, isn't one particular candidate for VP this year the descendant of a slave
owner in a former British colony?
Compare slaves brought to British colonies against slaves brought into the USA after
independence. Which number is greater and which process lasted longer?
For fun, we can then consider black slaves brought to other places in the Americas, both
North and South, plus the nearby islands.
At least she had the courage to attack CRT, which strikes me as another example of the
soft bigotry of low expectations. How long do you think it will be before she finds herself
looking for a new job?
What is never mentioned is that poor whites suffered from slavery. Depressed wages.
Being forced to man "slave patrols" or risk jail time. That system robbed everyone
Faustus B. , 2 hours ago
The left got so worked up about intelligent design being taught in the classroom, but
apparently it was just political. We must never forget that they'll ram racial
pseudo-science down kid's throats the minute they get the chance.
Christina Jordan is a Malaysian-born British politician. She served as a Brexit Party
Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South West England from 2019 to 2020.
A Lib Dem parliamentarian's bill to legalise race-based candidate lists is undemocratic,
patronising & will undo the decades of progress Britain has made.
I was so irked by an elected public servant's recent declaration, that paraphrasing a great
man's quotation was the only response I felt could touch my exasperation.
My comments will not attract much attention in the crowded Twitterverse, but I felt that if
there was even half a chance that a few might notice, then I should use the opportunity to do
so.
In 1954, while trying to explain what it was to be a parliamentarian, Winston Churchill
defined it as, "The first duty of a Member of Parliament is to do what he or she thinks in
his or her faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and
safety of Great Britain. Their second duty is to their constituents, of whom they are the
representative but not the delegate."
Instead of understanding the primal importance for representative democracy exemplified by
those words, on October 14, an elected Member, the Lib Dem Wera Hobhouse, proudly affirmed that
she would present a bill that went against that very goal. She wants to make it legal to select
politicians based solely on the colour of their skin. Ludicrously, she claims that the bill is
necessary to beat racial injustice.
Her attempt to allow non-white only shortlists will do the exact opposite. Bringing forward
a bill which makes it legal to discriminate against candidates just because they are white is
undemocratic and downright patronising. It implies that non-whites are incapable of being
selected on merit unless Caucasians are sidelined. It is 'one insignificant step for national
unity, one giant leap for racial division and disharmony'. Any candidate selected on this basis
will be open to justified ridicule.
It is extraordinary that in our democratic country, in the mother of parliaments, a place
less happy parts of the world can only eye enviously, we have elected politicians seeking to
legalise racial discrimination.
Quotas do not work. Short lists that favour colour over merit do not work. Parliamentarians
who push these divisive agendas should not work for us. Far from eradicating or helping racial
injustice, this bill would only serve to stoke the flames of resentment. Our country should,
and must, demand that only the best are sent to Westminster. We want candidates to prove to the
electorate that they deserve their place and have been chosen on merit, not on a nod and a
wink. The message must be that discrimination is always wrong, whatever the skin colour.
I fear that some politicians are taking our country on a destructive path in their crusade
to right historical wrongs. In trying to put their new world order into practice, they risk
tearing the very fabric of our peaceful and cohesive society. They are saying to our citizens
that they are not to be trusted when it comes to fairness and justice for all. Diversity,
equality and anti-racism does not mean we divide people of different races, beliefs,
backgrounds, religions and ancestry into two groups, i.e. white and non-white.
I write as a person of colour, an immigrant, a democrat and a believer in fair play. I am a
staunch and loyal citizen of this great country. One who believes that the majority wants to
see us move forward together. But how can we when we have politicians telling us that we cannot
be relied on to look out for, and after, each other? It is bad enough that some, through
all-women shortlists believe that we should be politically divided by sex. Now they claim only
non-whites can better represent non-whites. What message does that send to our friends, peers,
children and visitors to our shores?
When I stood for election in 2019 for the European Parliament, I naively believed that I had
faced optimal vitriol and abuse. Nothing would ever match the overflowing vat of bilious hate
my colleagues and I faced. I had not appreciated however, that in pushing back against our
country's navel-gazing, knee-bending, finger-pointing, supine acceptance that white people are
privileged racists and black/brown/mixed/Asian/none of the above-skinned people are victims in
dire need of saving, I have leapt into a den of hate and scorn.
I do not parade the following messages to elicit sympathy. I just want to expose the fact
that, as a woman of colour who rejects victimhood labels, I receive pretty vile abuse from both
the white and non-white contingent of the virtue brigade. In the last few days alone, some of
these have included:
You've sold your soul because you're so desperate to be accepted by the Right yet no matter
what you say your skin colour will always be the major factor.
So desperate to be liked by the flag waving mob that she'll happily throw her self-respect
and morals out the window.
Christina is just a hypocrite and a sell out to get the flag waving bigots on her side.
How can such a dark face have such a white name?
This "christina" seems to be of Asian descent and claims to be an immigrant, not sure how
she ended up with an English name
Pulling up the ladder after her to prevent immigrants from entering the country.
Impressing her bully boy, flag shagging fash mates.
Off you pop good immigrant, probably have some bootlicking that's overdue to show how
grateful you are to be here.
These, and other comments, only make me more determined to stand up for our country against
the monotonous, wearisome and never-ending bashing she undeservedly receives. Creating division
is not the answer. Most of us live outside the political, institutional and media bubble and we
get along just fine, thank you.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
In Greek mythology, men used to fear the stony gaze of the snake-haired Gorgon. Today, men
once again feel such fear – but, ironically, no campaign has done more to impair women's
opportunities either.
A seven-foot statue of Medusa holding a man's severed head was
unveiled in New York this week. For six months, this sculpture, made by the
Argentinian-Italian artist Luciano Garbati, will be situated facing the Manhattan Supreme
Court, where Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted and
convicted of sex crimes against actresses and female film-production staff.
The statue is being used in this position as a symbol of justice enacted against male
rapists. However, it more accurately – and unintentionally – symbolises the
difference between the public triumphalism of the #MeToo movement and its negative
repercussions for women in the United States.
The most famous painting of Medusa – a female character from Greek mythology who had a
hair of snakes and could turn men to stone if they met her gaze directly – was painted by
Caravaggio in
1596. He was inspired by Vasari's account of a lost painting by Leonardo da Vinci. It has been
a common subject for artists since. Garbati's statue was made in 2008 and adopted by the #MeToo
movement subsequently. From moral outrage to financial advantage
The #MeToo movement hit prominence in 2017 and was initially primarily concerned with
incidents, and allegations, of sexual abuse in Hollywood. It quickly grew to include cases of
sexual impropriety in many fields, mainly in the US. However, as it expanded, it encompassed
rape, sexual abuse, inappropriate sexual contact, unwanted advances, and transactional sex.
By refusing to draw distinctions between actual crimes, ethical/professional infractions,
and consensual (but regretted) sex, the movement became diffusely broad. Allegations of sexual
abuse led to the accused losing contracts, jobs, and marriages; in some cases, it contributed
to suicide. In the ensuing storm of moral panic, actual rape was conflated with Ben Affleck's
groping of an actress
in a video interview , a woman complaining
about a date with Aziz Ansari and Louis CK
exposing himself to colleagues (with their consent).
By failing to distinguish between levels of seriousness, the movement lost what moral
credibility it had and became a means of gaining revenge and exacting extortion. If crimes have
been committed, then they should be reported to the police, not aired in a public forum. The
accused need anonymity just as the victims do, until justice can be served.
Sexual accusations have long been weaponized in American pop culture. It has already
been proven that a whisper network of female comic-book professionals has targeted male
colleagues with – alongside actual crimes – unfounded accusations, in order to
provide more opportunities for female creators. This is not a male/female problem; using deceit
and exaggeration to advance oneself is as old as language itself.
In American television and film production, #MeToo gained control of productions via Time's
Up, enforcing quotas of women and extracting payments. It became a grab to secure lucrative
work for women, relying on goodwill from the public and the fear of executives. The Time's Up
movement is co-led by Katie McGrath, who runs production company Bad Robot Productions with her
husband J.J. Abrams. Bad Robot has a history of presenting itself as a pro-social-justice
company. This summer, at a time when rioters were burning shops and destroying historic
monuments, Bad Robot made an
infamous announcement that there had been " Enough polite conversation. Enough white
comfort. "
By presenting a company as an ethical, socially conscious body, that company is an ideal
position to benefit from major firms being pressured into making decisions not based on
competence but politics. Individuals and companies have seen how they can manipulate public
sympathy about sexual abuse to their own advantage. But firms are now realizing this
danger.
No event has done more to impair women's opportunities in the workplace than the
#MeToo/Time's Up movement. Production companies – even those led by women – now see
female colleagues as a source of potential extortion and compensation claims. As a result, they
now
avoid hiring women in order to avert the possibility of costly legal claims and
reputation-impairing social-media campaigns. Following decades-long attempts to persuade
male-dominated industries that hiring women brought advantages and an expansion of the talent
pool, the moral panic of #MeToo has served only to reveal the disadvantages of employing
women.
When male executives see women today, they fear them, just as heroes in Greek mythology
feared the gaze of Medusa. Ironically, rather than celebrating female power, Garbati's statue
is instead a fitting symbol of the way a campaign that began well has, once again, made men
mistrust women.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Alexander Adams
is an artist, art critic and author. His book 'Iconoclasm, Identity Politics
and the Erasure of History' is published by Societas. Follow him on Twitter @AdamsArtist
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
I'll join the chorus calling New York Times columnist Bret Stephens "brave" for last week's
takedown of his
newspaper's "1619 Project." But I'd also like to ask him: What took you so long?
The 100-page collection of 18 articles that infamously claimed America's "true founding"
date is not 1776, but 1619 – the year enslaved Africans were first brought to these
shores – has received withering criticism since it was published
in August 2019 .
Ten months ago some of the nation's leading historians – including Pulitzer
Prize winners Gordon Wood and James McPherson –
wrote the Times to challenge a wide array of its claims, which the newspaper and its
partner, The Pulitzer Center, were disseminating free of charge
in the nation's classrooms . The historians were especially troubled by its assertion that
the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery and the project's near total erasure of
the contributions of whites to dismantling slavery and working for freedom. Their letter
described these failings as "a displacement of historical understanding by ideology."
Their criticisms were
echoed and extended by others including
Leslie M. Harris, an African American professor of history at Northwestern University, who said
she "vigorously disputed" some central claims of the project when she helped fact-check it
before publication. "Despite my advice," she
wrote in Politico seven months ago , "the Times published the incorrect statement about the
American Revolution anyway."
Stephens' sharply written broadside breaks no new ground. What it does provide is a skillful
synthesis and endorsement of these voluminous critiques in the Times – by a Timesman.
That is significant. But his decision to write the essay so long after the project's mistruths
have been laid bare – and months after it was honored with a George Polk Award and a
Pulitzer Prize – suggests more rot at the Gray Lady and in American journalism.
As Stephens (pictured) himself suggests, the precipitating event was Phillip W. Magness'
Sept. 19 article in
Quillette , which revealed that the Times has "taken to quietly altering the published text
of the project itself after one of its claims came under intense criticism." Most significant,
the paper had scrubbed the claim that 1619 was "our true founding" from the online text without
acknowledgment.
This is not mere editing, but stealthy expurgation intended to cover up the paper's
journalistic malpractice.
This sketchy conduct, presumably approved by New York Times Magazine Editor Jake Silverstein
and others, warrants far more than a column. It demands a published response from the paper's
executive editor, Dean Baquet, that acknowledges the misdeed and states whether Baquet knew of
and/or approved the secret changes. Baquet must also detail the paper's response and explain
why the Times still stands by the project, given the need for such major corrections.
In this context, a column by someone with no authority at the Times beyond his opinion seems
part of a strategy to acknowledge a problem without fixing it. For all his bravery in writing
this piece, Stephens is the perfect foil for the Times, one that creates an escape hatch for
1619 acolytes.
It is relevant that Stephens – a conservative who came to the Times after a Pulitzer
Prize-winning stint at the Wall Street Journal – is the columnist whom so many liberal
Times subscribers love to hate. One of the few scribes at the paper who does not incessantly
preach to its woke choir, he has generated strong pushback from colleagues and readers for his
opinions on
climate change and the
Middle East . This may explain why the
New York Times Guild initially felt comfortable sending a now deleted Tweet criticizing the
editors for running Stephens' 1619 piece, which, it said, "reeks."
Stephens' standing makes it easier for many Times readers to dismiss or ignore his
devastating critique. Imagine the impact a similar piece might have had if it been written by
David Brooks or Nicholas Kristof.
Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger appears to be unconcerned by the allegations. The man who
forced editorial page editor James Bennet to resign because he ran a
controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton , issued a brief statement
Sunday that ignored the journalistic and factual issues raised by Stephens and others, and
instead insisted that the 1619 Project was "a journalistic triumph" whose publication is "the
proudest accomplishment of my tenure as publisher."
[ Baquet echoed Sulzberger's
comments in a note to his staff on Oct. 13, when this column was posted. Without directly
addressing the ethical and factual issues raised, he asserted that "the project fell fully
within our standards as a news organization" and that it "fill(s) me with pride."]
The deeper issue raised by Stephens' column is that the 1619 Project is just one example of
the degree to which the Times and other mainstream news outlets have displaced traditional
journalistic practice with ideology. Informed by the tenets of social justice and
critical race theory that have long dominated the humanities departments at leading
universities, journalists have abandoned a commitment to the elusive ideal of objectivity for a
naked embrace of results-oriented activism masquerading as reportage. In this regard,
journalism is a symptom, rather than cause, of the deep-seated cultural relativism that
pervades American culture.
The essence of the 1619 Project is the idea that America is a permanently racist nation
whose founding ideals were lies. This is the capital T truth it seeks to advance. It dismisses
facts that undermine that narrative, distorting the historical record because they are seen as
roadblocks in the arc that bends toward justice. This approach relies on one of the most
dangerous engines of dishonesty in human history: the notion that the means justify the
ends.
That the Pulitzer board would bestow its prize for commentary to the lead writer of the 1619
Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, despite damning scholarly critiques, suggests how deeply this
activist approach has infected journalism.
This impulse now drives much of the coverage in the Times, the Washington Post, the New
Yorker, NPR, and other prestigious news organizations. The clearest example is reporting on
Donald Trump, whom the left sees as an existential threat. This is the capital T truth they
advance through stories that insistently eschew nuance to portray the president as a
monster.
From climate change to identity politics, examples of their tendentious coverage are legion.
But none is more thoroughgoing and dishonest than the years-long coverage claiming Trump
colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
My RealClearInvestigations colleagues are among those
who followed the leads and dug up the facts mainstream outlets refused to and, so, got the
story right. Tom Kuntz, a former Times editor who leads RCI,
detailed how the Times and the Post relied on untrustworthy anonymous sources, unfair
innuendo and cherry-picked facts to advance this narrative in a series of stories that won both
papers a Pulitzer Prize in 2018.
This effort to distort the truth continues unbowed and unabated. Last week,
New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins wrote that Christopher Steele's dossier – opposition
research paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign that claimed the Russians had been
cultivating Trump as an asset for decades – "has been neither proved nor
disproved."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In fact, much of it has been debunked and the key parts of it that haven't been probably
never will because you can't prove a negative – one can't ever prove that there is no
videotape showing Trump paid Russian prostitutes to pee on a Moscow hotel bed the Obamas had
slept in.
Shane Harris of the Washington Post encapsulated the ongoing dishonesty in an article last
week acknowledging, after a fashion, damning new intelligence tying the Clinton campaign to
Russiagate. In a single paragraph he both denied overwhelming evidence that the Clinton
campaign helped generate that now debunked scandal while also insisting that the conspiracy
theory was legitimate. Harris wrote:
"Trump allies have seized on the intelligence as evidence that Clinton was in some way
involved in ginning up an investigation of Trump to tie his campaign to Russia. The president
has consistently denied the charge as a 'hoax,' even though multiple investigations have
documented numerous instances in which his campaign sought Russian assistance in damaging
Clinton."
There is hardly any evidence that the Trump campaign "sought" such assistance. The most that
can be said is that it was receptive to offers of dirt on Clinton at the infamous
June 2016 Trump Tower meeting . Her campaign, by contrast, used people like Steele to
actively seek compromising material on Trump, which appears to have included Russian
disinformation.
Such reporting is so brazen that it suggests a far deeper problem than any one story.
Indeed, the deeply misleading Trump/Russia coverage and the 1619 Project are not deviations
from the norm. They are the new standard at prestigious outlets that are committed to pursuing
their notion of the capital T truth – inconvenient facts be damned.
The problem with the venture capital industry, a sub-sector of private equity in which
deep-pocketed investors bankroll cash-hungry startups, is the lack of black representation
– or
so says venture capitalist Frederik Groce, who co-founded BLCK VC in 2018 to increase black
representation in the sector.
Surfing the wave of 2020's diversity-mania, Groce launched the Black Venture Institute on
Tuesday with two other big-name venture capital firms and the University of California at
Berkeley's Haas School of Business. Odinsson ariadnatheo 1 day ago Insulted by it? Hardly.
Blacks don't want equal treatment; they DEMAND special treatment! ScottMc3 1 day ago Not enough
woman in jail, should try and arrest enough so 50% of prisoners are female, obviously prejudice
against men.. TWOFilms 15 hours ago There's not enough Black Eskimos. I think they're
anti-Eskimo. Reply ariadnatheo TWOFilms 10 hours ago nor black swimming champions. I think the
water is racist Odinsson 1 day ago I can just see the Democrats' solution to this problem now.
They will give out $13 trillion dollars and distribute it equally among the 13% of America's
population that is black. The solution won't work, of course, for the money will be spent on
partying and luxury goods and at the end of a year most blacks will once again be living on
social welfare. Reply 3 fozbotz Odinsson 1 day ago Actually the demos will appropriate the 13
trillion dollars say they are lending it out to black entrepreneurs launder the money and put
it in their back pockets just like they do with foreign aid. Karl_Benz 1 day ago what about
more diversity in the NBA ? we need more diversity in the 100 m Olympics, its all blacks
running. we should put more whites & asians in there . it can't be dominated by one race -
thats not fair. sammy11 23 hours ago If you haven't had the pleasure of a affirmative action
boss, it's an experience ColdFacts 19 hours ago there are 40 million blacks in usa, those
diversity fanatics will only be happy when there are 400 million black venture capitalists out
of this number
"... The hatred of Donald Trump, which certainly to some extent is legitimate if only due to his ignorance and boorishness, has driven a feeding frenzy by the moderate-to liberal media which has made them blind to their own faults. ..."
"... Just as the Israel Firsters in Congress and in the state legislative bodies have had great success in criminalizing any criticism of the Jewish state, the mainstream media's "fake news" in support of the "woke" crowd agenda has already succeeded in forcing out many alternative voices in the public space. ..."
"... This type of "thought control" has been most evident in the media, but it is beginning to dominate in other areas where conversations about policy and rights take place. Universities in particular, which once were bastions of free speech and free thought, are now defining what is acceptable language and behavior even when the alleged perpetrators are neither threatening or abusive. ..."
"... Recently, a student editor at the University of Wisconsin student newspaper was fired because he dared to write a column that objected to the current anti-police consensus. ..."
"... The worst aspect of the increasing thought control taking place in America's public space is that it is not only not over, it is increasing. To be sure, to a certain extent the upcoming election is a driver of the process as left and right increasingly man the barricades to support their respective viewpoints. If that were all, it might be considered politics as usual, but unfortunately the process is going well beyond that point. The righteousness exuded by the social justice warriors has apparently given them the mandate to attempt to control what Americans are allowed to think or say while also at the same time upending the common values that have made the country functional. It is a revolution of sorts, and those who object most strongly could well be the first to go to the guillotine. ..."
Once upon a time it was possible to rely on much of the mainstream media to report on
developments more or less objectively, relegating opinion pieces to the editorial page. But
that was a long time ago. I remember moving to Washington back in 1976 after many years of
New York Times and International Herald Tribune readership, when both those
papers still possessed editorial integrity. My first experience of the Washington Post
had my head spinning, wondering how front-page stories that allegedly reported the "news" could
sink to the level of including editorialized comments from start to finish to place the story
in context.
Today, Washington Post style reporting has become the norm and the New York
Times , if anything, might possibly be the worst exponent of news that is actually largely
unsubstantiated or at best "anonymous" opinion. In the past few weeks, stories about the
often-violent social unrest that continues in numerous states have virtually disappeared from
sight because the mainstream media has its version of reality, that the demonstrations are
legitimate protest that seek to correct "systemic racism." Likewise, counter-demonstrators are
reflexively described as "white supremacists" so they can be dismissed as unreformable racists.
Videos of rampaging mobs looting, burning and destroying while also beating and even killed
innocent citizens who are trying to protect themselves and their property are not shown or
written about to any real extent because such actions are being carried out by the groups that
the mainstream media and its political enablers favor.
The hatred of Donald Trump, which certainly to some extent is legitimate if only due to his
ignorance and boorishness, has driven a feeding frenzy by the moderate-to liberal media which
has made them blind to their own faults. The recent expose by the New
York Times on Donald Trump's taxes might well be considered a new low, with blaring
headlines declaring that the president is a tax avoider. It was a theme rapidly picked up and
promoted by much of the remainder of the television and print media as well as "public radio"
stations like NPR.
But wait a minute. Trump Inc. is a multi-faceted business that includes a great number of
smaller entities, not all of which involve real estate per se. Donald Trump, not surprisingly,
does not do his own taxes and instead employs teams of accountants and lawyers to do the work
for him. They take advantage of every break possible to reduce the taxes paid. Why are there
tax breaks for businesses that individual Americans do not enjoy? Because congress approved
legislation to make it so. So who is to blame if Donald Trump only paid $750 in tax? Congress,
but the media coverage of the issue deliberately made it look like Trump is a tax cheater.
And then there is the question how the Times got the tax returns in the first place. Tax
returns are legally protected confidential documents and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is
obligated to maintain privacy regarding them. Some of the files are currently part of an IRS
audit and it just might be that the auditors are the source of the completely illegal leak, but
we may never know as the Times is piously declaring "We are not making the records
themselves public, because we do not want to jeopardize our sources, who have taken enormous
personal risks to help inform the public." Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation
wryly observes that when it comes to avoiding taxes "I'll bet that the members of the
Times ' editorial board and its big team of reporters and columnists do the same thing.
They are just upset that they don't do it as well as Trump."
Just as the Israel Firsters in Congress and in the state legislative bodies have had great
success in criminalizing any criticism of the Jewish state, the mainstream media's "fake news"
in support of the "woke" crowd agenda has already succeeded in forcing out many alternative
voices in the public space. The Times has been a leader in bringing about this departure
from "freedom of speech" enshrined in a "free press," having recently forced
the resignation of senior editor James Bennet over the publication of an op-ed written by
Senator Tom Cotton. Cotton's views are certainly not to everyone's taste, but he provided a
reasonable account of how and when federal troops have been used in the past to repress civil
unrest, together with a suggestion that they might play that same role in the current
context.
This type of "thought control" has been most evident in the media, but it is beginning to
dominate in other areas where conversations about policy and rights take place. Universities in
particular, which once were bastions of free speech and free thought, are now defining what is
acceptable language and behavior even when the alleged perpetrators are neither threatening or
abusive.
Recently, a student editor at the University of Wisconsin student newspaper was fired
because he dared to write a column that objected to the current anti-police consensus.
Washington lawyer Jonathan Turley
observes how the case was not unique, how there has been " a crackdown on some campuses
against conservative columnists and newspapers, including the firing of a
conservative student columnist at Syracuse , the public condemnation of a
student columnist at Georgetown , and a
campaign against one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country at
Dartmouth. Now, The Badger Herald , a
student newspaper at the University of Wisconsin Madison, has dismissed columnist Tripp Grebe
after he wrote a column opposing the defunding of police departments." Ironically, Grebe
acknowledged in his op-ed that there is considerable police-initiated brutality and also
justified the emergence of black lives matter, but it was not enough to save him.
The worst aspect of the increasing thought control taking place in America's public space is
that it is not only not over, it is increasing. To be sure, to a certain extent the upcoming
election is a driver of the process as left and right increasingly man the barricades to
support their respective viewpoints. If that were all, it might be considered politics as
usual, but unfortunately the process is going well beyond that point. The righteousness exuded
by the social justice warriors has apparently given them the mandate to attempt to control what
Americans are allowed to think or say while also at the same time upending the common values
that have made the country functional. It is a revolution of sorts, and those who object most
strongly could well be the first to go to the guillotine.
Podcaster Dave Rubin has the custom of going "off the grid" for a month each summer, to gain
some perspective on changes. As a scientist who has been retired from the lab for more than ten
years, I feel in a similar position vis-à-vis the state of academic science. To this
campus Rip-van-Winkle, things now look very different.
I didn't notice much until the current anti-racism crisis, when I found that academe, as a
place for free exchange of ideas, had become almost unrecognizable . Higher education has begun
a transformation along the same lines as the 1966 Maoist "Cultural Revolution" in China. Like
the cultural revolution, the energized identity-politics movement presents itself as a
cleansing force. Pure Maoism was being corrupted by covert capitalist sympathizers. They had to
be rooted out.
In U.S. academe, the problem was similar. The "party faithful" took for granted the
permanence of "White privilege" and "systemic racism" which, for many, was also their
livelihood. But then, in the decades following the civil rights acts, things got better.
Measurable indices of racism seemed to be improving: People of color were well represented on
city councils, police forces, and state and national legislatures; Black faces were on many
magazine covers and in ads for prestigious products; interracial marriages increased; Black
entertainers and even opinion leaders were beloved. A Black president was elected and
re-elected. A survey showed a steady decline in
objective measures of racism up until 2014. What's not to like?
Plenty, as it turned out. The "woke" party saw its anti-racist cause going down to
anti-racism! They have fought back, with some success. A survey published
in 2017 showed that from 2014 onward people increasingly agreed that "more needs to be
done" to achieve racial equality. This tendency was exaggerated in academe. From being
relatively content with the state of race relations, administration, faculty, and students have
become
increasingly doctrinaire in their stance against racism. Unable to point to objective
measures of increasing racism, they have turned their attention to something much harder to
refute: systemic (aka institutional, structural) racism.
Systemic racism in higher
education, a petition
One bit of evidence for this is a currently circulating petition/op-ed that, Science (one of
the two leading general-science journals) has apparently agreed to publish about combating
systemic racism in STEM. You can read
Systemic Racism in Higher Education here but I will just discuss a few of its key
assumptions.
Quoting from the petition:
Everyone in academia must acknowledge the role that universities -- faculty, staff, and
students -- play in perpetuating structural racism by subjecting students of color to
unwelcoming academic cultures The misuse of standardized tests, like the GRE, excludes
students who could have otherwise succeeded. [emphases added]
Structural (aka systemic, institutional) racism is not defined. The words could be replaced
by evil spirits without loss of meaning. The idea seems like a way
of deflecting attention from identifiable causes of racial disparities. Careful examination of
a specific context (such as police brutality )
can usually point to measurable causes with no need to invoke an abstraction. Nevertheless, we
all must acknowledge that the GRE, like any predictive test, is not perfect: it fails some good
people and passes a small number of weak ones. But the study cited in the petition seems to
fault the STEM-related GRE more because women and minorities do worse on it than men than
because it is an imperfect predictor of success in graduate school.
What does the petition mean by "unwelcoming academic cultures"? There are two obvious
possibilities: racism, pure and simple, and a problem with the type and level of academic
discussion compared with the environment to which some students are accustomed.
The evidence for any kind of overt racism in academe is negligible and if it emerged would
surely lead to strong correctives. What remains is just that the disciplines of STEM are
difficult, possibly too difficult for students who have been admitted with weaker-than-average
qualifications. Human beings are not equally good at everything. Mathematics, particularly,
separates the wheat from the chaff in dramatic fashion. Some people (your humble correspondent,
for example) just can't handle
tough math . If this is the "unwelcoming academic culture" some students will either drop
out or - and this is the pressure now - will clamor for a simpler curriculum. If such changes
are made, the results will likely be disastrous for the quality of science education.
Reducing structural racism in higher education will require evidence-based,
institution-wide approaches that focus on achieving equity in student learning. If we abandon
the perception of "fixed" student ability, more BIPOC students will succeed.
The petition assumes that essentially any student is capable of succeeding. But at what? Not
at everything. People are not equal; not everyone can master quaternions. The petition assumes
that ineradicable individual differences -- "fixed" student ability -- do not exist, which is
simply false. By all means, give the best education you can. But do not expect to educate
everybody, especially in tough STEM subjects. People are not all equally able. An educational
system aimed at this kind of "equity" is likely instead to end in mediocrity.
[These changes] will require making tenure dependent not only on excellence in research,
teaching, and service, but also meaningful contributions to promote equity and inclusion .
Every scientist should commit to reporting unfair practices All faculty should examine their
courses for performance disparities based on ethnicity and gender
Ready to submit? It is apparently not sufficient to teach well and do excellent research,
faculty must also commit to eliminating disparities, disparities which are as likely to be the
result of differences in interest and talent as inadequate teaching. Faculty are to scrutinize
their grade distributions to see that BIPOC do not fall behind. What if they do? The temptation
to adjust evaluation so as to eliminate disparities will be strong -- will teachers act racist,
but in a good way! They may be "reported" if they don't! This is totalitarianism. not science.
There's more, but you get the idea.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If these efforts to eliminate disparities in everything, to match racial proportions in STEM
to those in society, if they succeed, it will be a cultural
revolution indeed. Science is already in trouble; a successful effort to make it conform to
political ends will destroy academic freedom and wreck the nation's science base.
* * *
John Staddon is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience
RobbieSmith , 3 hours ago
The persistent so-called "achievement gap" reveals the same racial IQ hierarchy on
standardized academic exams. The SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores
on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and
like IQ scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching,
or practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small -- on average,
no more than about 20 points per section.
Even after decades of focused attention to the achievement gap, it has remained
unchanged.
Vanderbilt University researchers tracked the educational and occupational
accomplishments of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search and
determined that scores on the SAT correlate so highly with IQ that they are described as a
"thinly disguised" intelligence test.
The persistent so-called "achievement gap" reveals the same racial IQ hierarchy on
standardized academic exams. The SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores
on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and
like IQ scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching,
or practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small -- on average,
no more than about 20 points per section.
Even after decades of focused attention to the achievement gap, it has remained
unchanged.
Vanderbilt University researchers tracked the educational and occupational
accomplishments of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search and
determined that scores on the SAT correlate so highly with IQ that they are described as a
"thinly disguised" intelligence test.
Year White Black Gap
1985 1038 839 199
1990 1031 849 185
1996 1052 857 195
2000 1060 859 201
2005 1061 863 197
2010 1063 855 208
2015 1047 846 201
The new SAT introduced in 2017 was "designed to inspire and increase access to college"
by creating "a more equitable exam". The new SAT cannot be compared to previous
results:
Year White Black Gap
2017 1118 941 177
2018 1123 946 177
The 2017 "college readiness" scores (ability to earn a C or higher in an entry-level
course) showed the stark racial achievement gap; Asians scored 70% college readiness,
Whites 59%, and Blacks only 20%.
SAT scores are highly correlated to intelligence test scores. The SAT correlates with an
IQ test at 0.86, almost the same as an IQ test correlates with itself. For this reason, we
can very reliably take SAT scores and convert them to IQ scores.
Results of psycho-metric IQ and scholastic tests are highly correlated. Rindermann &
Thompson (2013, p. 822)
In the 20 year period from 1994-2014 the Black-White difference increased on both the
verbal and math SATs despite targeted efforts to close the race gap. On the reading test,
it rose from .91 to .96 standard deviations. On the math test, it rose from .95 to 1.03
standard deviations.
In fact, the truncated nature of the SAT math score distribution suggests that these
race gaps would be even larger given a harder exam with a bigger score variance. Note, for
example, how the Black score distribution is cut off at the bottom while the Asian score
distribution is cut off at the top. That suggests that a redesigned exam might feature even
more pronounced race gaps.
Percent by Race Reaching the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark:
15% = Black
24% = Non-White Hispanic
35% = Native American
53% = White
56% = Asian
Source: The College Board, 2014
RobbieSmith , 3 hours ago
Blacks and Whites with Equal Educational Attainment Differ in Cognitive Ability
Black and White Americans with the same formal level of education differ significantly
in their cognitive abilities. Specifically, within any given level of formal education
Whites consistently outperform Blacks. Moreover, this effect is so strong that Blacks often
underperform Whites who have lower levels of formal education than they do.
Consider the following data from the General Social Survey. This public data is
frequently used in social science research and contains a test of verbal intelligence as
well as measurements of participant's self-identified race and highest educational degree
obtained. Verbal intelligence tests correlate at around .75 with full-scale IQ and so this
data can also be taken as a fair measure of intelligence in general (Lynn, 1998). If we set
the White mean score on this test to 100 and the standard deviation to 15, we can come up
with an "IQ" style scale.
As can be seen, using this method Blacks with a graduate degree have a level of verbal
intelligence indistinguishable from that of Whites with a junior college degree. Blacks
with a four-year degree are roughly on par with Whites who never went to college at
all.
IQ BY RACE AND HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED (1972 - 2014):
Highest Degree White IQ Black IQ Gap
High School Drop-out: 89 82 7
High School Diploma 98 90 8
Junior College Degree 102 95 7
Bachelor's Degree 108 100 8
Graduate Degree 113 102 11
This data is consistent with evidence from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)
which administered tests of cognitive ability to 26,000 US adults in 1992. These tests were
designed to measure how well people could take information and use it in a way which would
help them function in modern society.
Blacks are such poor academic achievers that the National Achievement Scholarship
Program was created with lower standards for Black candidates only, instead of the National
Merit Scholarship Program which is open to everyone else.
THE SMARTEST STUDENTS: The National Merit Scholarship Program was founded to identify
and honor scholastically talented American youth and to encourage them to develop their
abilities to the fullest.
BLACK STUDENTS ONLY: The National Achievement Scholarship Program was initiated
specifically to identify academically promising Black American youth and encourage their
pursuit of higher education.
They are both measured on the PSAT.
Minimum score for National Merit: 220
Minimum score for National Achievement: 190
Roughly, PSAT x 10 = SAT (out of 2400)
The U.S. government's PACE examination, given to 100,000 university graduates who are
prospective professional or administrative civil-service employees each year, is passed
with a score of 70 or above by 58% of the Whites who take it but by only 12% of the Blacks.
Among top scorers the difference between Black and White performance is even more striking;
16% of the White applicants make scores of 90 or above, while only one-fifth of one percent
of a Black applicants score as high as 90 -- a White-Black success ratio of 80/1. IQ
differences become more pronounced with greater g-loading.
Blacks score so poorly on academic exams that colleges give them 230 "race bonus" SAT
points to help them qualify for admission:
"Personal scores" are the new subterfuge for artificially assisting Blacks gain
admission to universities. Asian-American applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal
score more than 20% of the time only in the top academic index decile. By contrast, white
applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time in the top
six deciles. Hispanics receive such personal scores more than 20% of the time in the top
seven deciles, and Blacks receive such scores more than 20% of the time in the top eight
deciles.
An otherwise identical applicant bearing an Asian male identity with a 25 percent chance
of admission would have a 32 percent chance of admission if he were White, a 77 percent
chance of admission if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance of admission if he were
Black.
typeatme , 3 hours ago
Clearly this guy comes from one of those "Fact" based Universities....
Where "Science" and "Statistics" are used to make "Rational" decisions.....
Imagine the gall....
RAT005 , 2 hours ago
Robbie, there was another ACT (and/or maybe SAT) score translation change before the
recent one you list. It was around year 2000 that the test resulted in higher scores such
that you can't compare a 1980 score to say year 2000 score.
Just a guess from your listed results that it was done around 1995.
It wasn't an SJW type change, it was just a calibration change and a weighting
difference to increase the verbal section to an equal 50% of the scoring.
RobbieSmith , 2 hours ago
Yes, it's in the first post-
"The new SAT introduced in 2017 was "designed to inspire and increase access to college"
by creating "a more equitable exam". The new SAT cannot be compared to previous
results."
RAT005 , 2 hours ago
I found the info for you. Like I said, there was a score inflation adjustment done
before the one you listed. I actually didn't know about the recent one. I only knew about
the mid '90s score inflation adjustment.
RobbieSmith , 2 hours ago
My guess is they will eventually eliminate all standardized testing because the racial
IQ hierarchy is too obvious.
August , 3 hours ago
Hard to believe that the average IQ among whites with a graduate degree is only 113.
They must be including those with degrees in Education, Economics and Journalism.
RobbieSmith , 3 hours ago
IQ 113 is the 80.6 percentile.
Umh , 2 hours ago
Of what? Sorry to be dense.
neopolyidus , 2 hours ago
Sorry, you have to have an IQ of greater than 100 to 'get' bell curve math.
Excellent post. In the real world- the working world- "adjusted success" will go over
like a lead balloon. Square peg + round hole = failure, no matter how creatively you
attempt to cheat the system.
TheTrumanShow , 2 hours ago
"... adjusted success" will go over like a lead balloon."
For now, yes. But given the current BLM bsh*t conformity, for how long?
One possible bright spot might be that the currently BLM bsh*t conforming
companies/institutions will end up being outperformed and overtaken by new, no-nonsense
startups.
eternal_sarcasm , 43 minutes ago
When you combine this data with FBI crime statistics it doesn't paint a rosy
picture.
acetrumchura , 3 hours ago
Yeah, but this is why they attack the actual tests as being culturally bias. ALL THEY DO
IS MOVE THE GOAL POSTS.
Yagyu Jubei , 3 hours ago
This is why leftists believe that facts are racist.
factoryworker , 2 hours ago
Don't forget about jimmies.
I just got a birthday cake with jimmies. I should have tossed it on the floor in disgust
but blew out the candles and begrudgingly ate my piece in silence.
I'm so ashamed.
Trident5000 , 3 hours ago
If I see you got your degree from a "woke" campus with racial quotas, I simply won't
hire you.
J S Bach , 2 hours ago
I DEMAND that we eliminate disparities in all sports, to match racial proportions in BBF
(Basketball, Baseball, Football). There are far too few whites in these sports with regards
to their actual numbers in our society. If we demand quotas with STEM, then we must have
the same quotas for professional and college BBF as well.
fishpoem , 2 hours ago
Furthermore, it shall be mandated that the final scores in all athletic contests shall
be exactly equal...even if that means that one team has to sit on the bench throughout most
of the game.
NO WINNING IS ALLOWED IN A LAND OF LOSERS.
Hapa , 1 hour ago
to be totally fair, we need to include women as a percentage
HopeToLearn , 3 hours ago
As soon as the MLB, NFL and NBA adopt racially-proportionate hiring practices, we can
talk about fact-based SCIENCE.....
oellinas , 2 hours ago
50% of trash collectors must be women = no trash collected.
RAT005 , 2 hours ago
I think an entirely automated playing field with 1,000s of linked sensors to move the
"goal posts" instantaneously on an infinitely wide range. When a guy less than 6ft shoots,
the basket lowers......when a 7ft goes to stuff, the basket goes up :-)
Yagyu Jubei , 3 hours ago
If it's so cool and woke to lower the bar to create equal outcomes in academics it
should be equally as cool to:
1. Have basketball hoops at different heights for those that are shorter or less adept
at jumping
2. Require quotas of unattractive people for acting and modeling jobs
3. Require quotas of stupid people for jobs in the media.....oh never mind they already
do that
ChrisPatriot , 3 hours ago
LOL, you're about 4 or 5 decades late buddy. They only solution now is burn it all down
and recreate it.
typeatme , 3 hours ago
So....who do you want building your bridges, your airplanes, your vaccines, your
economy??
How about the most qualified.....???
Wild Idea, I understand...but...it has been proven to work better....
I KNOW! Strive to be better, instead of whining about not being good enough!!!
YEA! WILD THOUGHTS....
August , 3 hours ago
You're brim full of hate... and privilege!
marx , 3 hours ago
women hate STEM. they go in and hate it.
minorities are in the Bell Curve
quanttech , 3 hours ago
so basically just hire asian men and be done with it, seeing as how they're on the
higher end of the bell curve, right?
RobbieSmith , 2 hours ago
"so basically just hire asian men and be done with it, seeing as how they're on the
higher end of the bell curve, right?"
Asian IQ scores cluster around the mean; thus, the greater cognitive variation among
Whites produces more geniuses, but also more morons.
Umh , 2 hours ago
I have noticed the same relationship between men and women. There seem to be more bright
men and more male dummies too.
RobbieSmith , 1 hour ago
Mans' accomplishments have been documented according to the number of times they were
cited by others. Over 97% of the most important scientists and 74% of the most important
artists and authors were White, almost all males, and most from only four countries, Great
Britain, Germany, France, and Italy; the remainder were mostly Asian, and none were
Black.
RobbieSmith , 2 hours ago
Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis.
Lynn, Richard (2006)
ABSTRACT
It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but no consensus has
emerged on whether these have any genetic basis. The present book is the first fully
comprehensive review that has ever been made of the evidence on race differences in
intelligence worldwide. It reviews these for ten races rather than the three major races
(Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians) analyzed by Rushton (2000). The races analyzed here
are the Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans,
Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples,
and Native American Indians. (PsycINFO Database Record, 2016 APA)
****'s hard and you to sacrifice to make it. Women are better off making babies unless
they have an undeniable natural talent. Having been part of various physics departments for
20 years, this does happen, but it's rare.
fightapathy , 2 hours ago
School girls hate it too. I was reviewing coding progress for 5-8 graders today: all
boys were exceeding expectations, all girls were lapsing. Well, a few boys were screw-ups
and failing hard. But that's to be expected.
GeezerGeek , 3 hours ago
The goal seems to be equality of outcome, regardless of talent. They sometimes blame
K-12 schools as being at the root of the problem, because K-12 schools are segregated by
class to some extent. Rich folks can send their kids to private schools, regardless of
color of skin. Just ask the previous president.
But of course these Maoists/Bolsheviks don't really want equality, they just want to
tear down what had been an incredibly successful system. If they really wanted to match
racial proportions in occupations, etc., to those in the general population regardless of
talent they would insist that sports teams be balanced like they want STEM to be balanced.
And speaking of balance, anyone else here notice the proliferation of blacks in commercials
these last few months? Or the increase in the number of multi-racial couples?
These are parts of an all-out attack on America, Western Civilization, and at its root
on Christianity. Its no wonder so many American Christians want to be raptured out before
SHTF. (Not that I think it will work out that way.) Who, after all, wants to make hard
choices?
August , 3 hours ago
The nearly-all-black TeeVee commercials have certainly proliferated over the last
half-year or so.
I actually watched TeeVee a few days ago, and there were at least six consecutive
commercials featuring African-Americans, with the only non-blacks shown being attractive
young White or Asian females.
Nothing to see here!
Promethus , 2 hours ago
I've noticed the increase in AAs in commercials, interracial couples and same sex
couples. This is to make them the new norm and traditional white Christian families racist
freaks.
Delving Eye , 56 minutes ago
Commercials with Blacks flooded the networks the second Obama was elected in 2008. I
watched the returns and noticed the shift immediately. I was amazed that there was
virtually NO commentary about it.
Didymus , 3 hours ago
it's really an attack on white people, more than america, the west, or christ.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 2 hours ago
Ding ding ding. Look at how they took out the white people in South Africa.
awesomepic4u , 3 hours ago
They took over long ago, now they're mobilizing.
"Structural (aka systemic, institutional) racism is not defined. The words could be
replaced by evil spirits without loss of meaning.
Lack of a definition is only part of the problem. I have noticed that---without
exception---claims of systemic racism, especially coming from POC students, never provide
any examples. Never.
The Dean of the University of Massachusetts School of Nursing was summarily fired for
publicly stating the Hippocratic Oath on Twitter.
She was fired for stating that all human lives matter.
That Oath is required of all members of the medical profession.
Except that all human lives no longer matter. That is now official dogma in elite US
institutions.
Just like in 1930s Germany. History does not rhyme. It is a replay.
Get ready if you have a clue. The lives that do not matter may be those of you and your
family.
It was a long crawl through the attic to retrieve and sight-in the SKS.
If someone tries to take your gun away, you have a solemn Duty to perform.
I will do mine. With regret, but I will do it regardless of the consequences.
America began July 4, 1776. A lot of people died. It had nothing to do with Blacks, but
with Tyranny.
Never forget that. Teach your kids. The Bible is not a bad book.
Dying-Of-The-Light , 2 hours ago
We are already seeing more and more completely stupid white and black people with PhDs
and Professorships. If the Cancel Culture goons get their way then dumb cluck whites won't
be getting doctorates but more and more blacks who can barely count will. The West will end
up being run by the victim, hate culture we see in the worst white and black citizens right
now but it will become black only. Already more and more truly nasty and un intelligent
blacks and asians are beginning to infest Western politics. The ones who are Left Wing are
in every instance anti white and anti Western culture, despite the fact that many come from
parents who fled to the West to escape the brutality of their own shXt hole nations. They
are the true racists, hating all whites without any true justification.
rodguy911 , 2 hours ago
Don't look now but its already happening.
greatdisconformity , 2 hours ago
The language of BLM and Critical Race Theory is the language of genocide.
Substitute the word of any other ethnic group for the word 'white' in their manifestos,
and you are in 1930s Germany.
Sadly, most college educated young Americans have no clue what was going in 1930s
Germany.
But they can talk your ear off about normative Gender praxis post-modern
colonialism.
That is by Design folks.
That is by Design.
In N Korea, young people get brainwashed for free. Here, we pay for the privilege.
Captain Phoebus , 3 hours ago
The Great Leap Forward, American style.
GeezerGeek , 3 hours ago
Right off the edge of a cliff...
JD Rock , 3 hours ago
"Systemic racism"🙄
RattieNomNom , 3 hours ago
wankerfistings
Kreator , 3 hours ago
Yeah, they did....
in 1968.
acetrumchura , 3 hours ago
Thanks for already commenting with my answer.
acetrumchura , 3 hours ago
Conservative colleges are growing. Not sure many companies show up to their job fairs
though :/
Lather Rinse Repeat , 3 hours ago
Total BS - these soros paid marxiturds are being videoed and will be erased when the
time is right.
Didymus , 3 hours ago
people have expecting a reaction since 1946.
Make_Mine_A_Double , 2 hours ago
Rotten poisoned fruit of Affirmative Ape-tion.
Let these yard munkays on campus where they are too stupid to learn anything and with
nothing to do they start agitating to lower standards and close down debate least their
obvious inferiorty become blatantly obvious and the Big Lie be revealed.
30 years of this nonsense and now our higher ed institutions are completely gutted.
My kids are done thank god, but if you have them in their teens I would seriously look
at Russia or Eastern Europe - maybe Colombia or Uraguay. But it would abuse to send them to
US campus until all this is destroyed.
Didymus , 3 hours ago
Read Revilo P. Oliver's "The Education of a Conservative" or Henry Ford's "the
international ___" and you'll see that this has been going on for a hundred years.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 2 hours ago
It is also in the "Hope of the Wicked" by Ted Flynn published in 2000. Dewey was a
commie.
chubbar , 3 hours ago
Why is it we can only select the most qualified if it is a sport but not if it's a
critical job like a doctor or scientist? Why is it important to me, the consumer, that the
person I hire to make me well has a specific skin color or gender?
None of this **** works and the morons pushing it know it doesn't. When less than the
required number of race "X" applies that are qualified, the standards have to be lowered to
bring in the balance. Why is that a good thing?
If there exists equal quality of applicants then the racial equality of outcome would be
assured, but that isn't reality and these idiots driving this narrative know it.
There is no reason to continue to point out that all races have different genetic
differences in IQ, but it's fact. It's also fact that IQ is a significant predictor of
success in many endeavors, STEM being one of those. So without significant concessions in
order to accommodate those of lessor IQ's, you are never going to have equality of outcome.
You can have equality of opportunity, but that doesn't appear to be the goal of these
people.
My suggestion has always been to scrub every application of race & gender and take
every possible step to ensure that information isn't revealed during the application
process. Then pick those candidates MOST qualified, period. I don't give a **** if the
whole class is south pacific islander, just quit with this nonsense about racism being the
reason for STEM classes being mostly X or Y race/gender.
Promethus , 2 hours ago
I would be happier watching a sporting event with white Affirmative Action players than
being treated by a minority AA doctor.
Cabreado , 3 hours ago
This is the rise of the Self-Absorbed -- the Narcissist and Sociopath -- to a critical
mass of places of influence and control.
The only! antidote is a vigorous protection of a righteous rule of law.
The People are failing from every direction.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 3 hours ago
After a few years of starvation they'll be humming a new tune.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 2 hours ago
The US should have never given out food stamps. They should have given out seeds,
shovels, and access to plots of land.
oellinas , 2 hours ago
nah not really... take a look at zimbabwe... starvation is the new normal
ZENDOG , 3 hours ago
Burn the Witches.
emptybeercan , 2 hours ago
Maybe it's time to just defund higher ed. We're defunding things and cancelling them
these days, so, let's say goodbye to the land of $1,500/credit hour 'tuition' and tweed
jackets with leather elbow pads and people that speak in tongues to avoid being understood
by the lumpen proletariat.
Online is the Great Equalizer. The computer does NOT care what you look like, how much
money you have, who you are related to, gender, religion, political affiliation,
nationality, age, whatever. Either you can use the equipment and access and make sense of
the stored information and perform computations and measurements and analysis and such not
and so on, or you cannot. Either you have the mental capacity to learn and experiement and
study, or you do not. There is no 'equal opportunity', there is only opportunity, and
information.
College, university, is an opportunity to study the higher subjects. Advanced
mathematics, the sciences, art, music, languages, and other than in the context of a
political science class, politics really has no place in it.
I think all colleges and universities should have their own independent admissions
testing standards, and develop their own in-house tests. Either you make the grade, or you
go and study somewhere else, with no respect to any of the items listed above. Go shake
your fist someplace else, come back when you are ready to be a serious student. If you want
to get drunk and spend 4 years screwing off at a party school, that option is also open.
But reserve higher education for those who have earned the privilege of going. Some people
are stupid. And you can't study your way out of that. Or legislate it. Period.
Bastiat , 2 hours ago
The are Marxists--it's their religion. Many of them are fanatics.
greatdisconformity , 2 hours ago
Defund so-called 'Social Science'.
Defund it and evict it from State supported campuses.
This thing will unravel in less than a decade.
We feed this thing that seeks to destroy us.
Templar X , 2 hours ago
Some people are just better at certain things than others. This has always been the
case, and it will always be the case.
You can't force a square peg into a round hole.
Pigs will never fly.
Monkeys will never do calculus.
Arnold Schwarzenegger will never become a ballerina.
Well, you get the picture, or you should anyway.
littlewing , 3 hours ago
One college in Texas had 100 professors on China's payroll.
China bought everyone, which is why they are bankrupt now.
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 3 hours ago
I can see why colleges had so many active shooters in the past. Insanity havens for
brainwashing dems. You learn nothing, get nothing besides an exchange for some worthless
paper. Its not even worth it, for anybody. Corporations, students. It distorts the labor
market and time of people who really don't need to go. I hav edone a calcution: The added
costs for labor for corporations is $100,000,000,000,000 for a bunch of idiots who do not
even know what they are doing.
Blondefire , 2 hours ago
I'm a conservative professor at a small private college. Occasionally I get strange
looks from my colleagues but they have not persecuted me for anything yet. Fingers crossed.
Still teaching students how to think rather than what to think. The air is tense here but
still breathable.
fightapathy , 2 hours ago
Higher education? What about lower education? Da Home Dogs don't want to become
teachers, so white-*** states like CT and VT are giving out BIG scholarships and preferred
places for blacks who want a free ride but look like they're working. Hell, its downright
embarrassing in all these democrat ****holes that all the teachers are white and all the
dropouts are black. Will black teachers make for more successful black students? Maybe. Or
else they will be properly positioned to radicalize the students for mass strike actions
even before college.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 2 hours ago
Higher education has begun a transformation along the same lines as the 1966 Maoist
"Cultural Revolution" in China. Like the cultural revolution, the energized
identity-politics movement presents itself as a cleansing force. Pure Maoism was being
corrupted by covert capitalist sympathizers. They had to be rooted out.
Through the sweeping and indiscriminate indictment of oppression that it makes against the
American republic, wokeism poses the first serious challenge to our constitutional democracy
since communism.
Wokeism aims to remake American constitutionalism root and branch, to transform economics,
politics, education, and other institutions and practices. The free and equal individual under
the rule of law will be replaced with monolithic voices, united by perceived oppression, who
demand a mutating law and politics that reward their grievances with punishments against
alleged oppressors and redistributed resources for supposed "victims."
The first thesis of wokeism is that persons are reducible to their affiliated identity:
above all, race or gender. In this view, we understand ourselves solely through these prisms
and we apply that understanding to others and to institutions.
The second thesis is that no person, no idea, and no historical account can be understood
by independent human reason unfiltered by race, gender, and stories of interlocking
oppression , or, as the case may be, by the acts of oppression one has shared in as a member
of the dominant group. Everything comes to us and is either understood or projected by us
through our racial or gender identity.
The third thesis is that those who have identities that can be grouped under "persons of
color" or LGBTQ possess greater authority to speak -- owing to the various oppressions they
have experienced and the cosmic redress required for justice and liberation -- than oppressor
groups in almost every sphere.
America's national DNA, according to the New York Times' 1619 Project -- wokeism's
anti-American document par excellence -- has been encoded with slavery and anti-black racism.
Indeed, America left the British Empire for the purposes of retaining the slavery regime, the
project's lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones proclaims (against historical evidence). White males
stand as the grand artificer of this oppression, which has been transmitted throughout American
history, informing our constitutional documents, politics, and social structures.
The 1619 Project leaves no space or opportunity for redemption, for forgiveness, or for the
statesmanship of someone like Abraham Lincoln. It cannot acknowledge that American
constitutionalism is a contested space. The 1619 Project cannot understand the succession of
witnesses like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr., who call
upon Americans to understand in full the principles of our Constitution and Union. Consider
that, while American soldiers were still fighting the Civil War, and much of the Democratic
Party was arguing against the abolition of slavery, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was
passed by Congress on Jan. 31, 1865, later ratified by the requisite number of states in
December 1865. Its central premise stands on the equality language in the Declaration of
Independence, the same principles that outlawed slavery in the lands regulated by the Northwest
Ordinance of 1788. This is part of our heritage, too.
Our political institutions and our Constitution stand or fall ultimately by their
willingness to uphold us as free people pursuing the broad purposes of human existence.
Contrast this with the regime that wokeism would build. It would reject any notion of
individual integrity or distinctive notion of personhood. Intellectual freedom would be
nonexistent. Speech would be filtered through a relentless and constantly evolving set of
censors, who would punish or bless our words according to ideological criteria. Consequently,
our thinking and speaking would revolve around an endless loop of testimonies to oppression --
either committed against us or by people with whom we share tribal traits. In the latter sense,
we would confess our shared guilt and accept whatever punishment is deemed necessary.
Steve Nash, the recently named head coach of the New Jersey Nets, confessed that he had been
given the job unfairly because of his white privilege. He wanted to work for "change," he said.
Many will make similar pronouncements under more stringent conditions or risk becoming
untouchables. Ibram X. Kendi, author of the best-selling "How to Be an Antiracist," asserts
that the point of being an anti-racist is not to refrain from discrimination but to know whom
to discriminate against -- largely whites and Asians, if the woke polity is to become a
reality.
Under wokeism, the function of political institutions would not be to facilitate individual
flourishing but to enforce individual sameness, subsuming us all in an egalitarian stew of
grievance, redistribution, and retribution. The traits that define a decent community, such as
forgiveness, humility and compromise, will not be possible, and those suggesting them will be
accused of racism. Wokeism's social-justice constitution would fuel a federal government built
for one purpose: the evisceration of the freedoms that Americans have always known.
If the progressive notion of a "living Constitution" threw the law in doubt, woke
constitutionalism will destroy all fixed or limited notions of law. How could it be otherwise,
when the operative principle is the elimination of all forms of oppression, as measured by an
endlessly moving set of ideological markers? Man can organize the world without sufficient
notions of virtue, justice, and freedom, to say nothing of the biblical God, but as theologian
Henri de Lubac noted, when man does this he organizes the world against himself. One Nation
Under Woke would make this vision a reality.
* * *
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Richard M. Reinsch II is the editor of Law & Liberty, host of "Liberty Law Talk," and
co-author of "A Constitution in Full." He and over 1,000 similarly concerned scholars and
citizens recently made common cause in an open letter published at
RealClearPolitics. This article is part of an ongoing " Liberty and
Justice for All " series. Kat , 2 hours ago
I'm originally from the USSR. This is just Socialism and Communism under a different
banner. Where we were fed a constant stream of anti-capitalist and anti-bourgoisie BS, now
it's anti-capitalist and racist BS. But it's all the same thing and they can kiss my behind.
All this does is fan the flames of xenophobia and racism.
Kat , 2 hours ago
I just wrote it in my comments. I'm originally from Moscow, back when it was in the USSR.
This is exactly the same ****e.
chubbar , 2 hours ago
White privilege is being used as an excuse for losers who can't cut the mustard of life
and need someone or something to blame to make them feel better about themselves. It isn't
going to work, we all know they are losers and we aren't giving them our **** just because
they suck at life. Sorry, better luck next time.
Yes, The USA Today is now fact-checking memes detailing black on white crime, to
try and downplay the reality of just how bad black on white crime is in America. [
Fact check: Rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black crime are similar , USA Today,
September 30, 2020]:
A
viral meme purports to list homicide statistics by race in the United States, as
follows:
Whites killing Blacks -- 2%
Police killing whites -- 3%
Whites killing whites -- 16%
Blacks killing whites -- 81%
Police killing Blacks -- 1%
Blacks killing Blacks -- 97%
The page behind one viral version of the post, I Support Law Enforcement Officers, had
over 611 shares on its post. USA TODAY has reached out to the page for comment.
Some versions of the meme include this line: "America does have a problem. But it's not
what the media tells you it is."
Rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black homicide are similar, at around 80% and 90%
Overall, most homicides in the United States are intraracial, and the rates of
white-on-white and Black-on-Black killings are similar, both long term and in individual
years.
Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
In 2018, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed by white
offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
In 2017, the
FBI reported almost identical figures -- 80% of white victims were killed by white
offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
Though the numbers differ year-to-year, the stark difference that the viral post attempts
to portray between the rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black homicide -- which it puts
at 16% and 97%, respectively -- is inaccurate.
Both numbers tend to hover between 80% and 90% and remain within 10 percentage points of
each other.
Rates of Black-on-white and white-on-Black homicide also within 8 points
Likewise, the post attempts to portray a gulf in the rate of Black-on-white and
white-on-Black homicide -- which it lists at 81% and 2%, respectively.
Statistics from the FBI in 2018 and 2017 contradict that claim.
In 2018, 16% of white victims were killed by Black offenders, while 8% of Black victims
were killed by white offenders.
Similarly, in 2017, 16% of white victims were killed by Black offenders, while 9% of Black
victims were killed by white offenders.
In both years, the numbers remained within eight percentage points, a much smaller gap
than the 79% alleged in the viral post.
Black on white crime isn't as bad as white people believe it to be on social media, when
they share viral memes, but as The USA Today admits, it's still pretty bad.
But white people noticing how bad it is well, that's the real crime in the eyes of The
USA Today .
Speaking of whites killed by blacks, an attractive white lady working at a 7-11 has been
shot and killed in Waldorf, MD, which is one-third orc. The description of the murderer left
out the race but mentioned a hoodie, a strong indication that it's another dindu crime,
especially since she was killed despite the fact that she was cooperating with the killer's
demands.
Excerpt: Richardson said the suspect was dressed in a hooded sweatshirt, surgical mask and
jeans.
"He approached her, he produced a gun, it looked like she was complying and he shot her at
that time," Richardson said.
I have read of countless similar encounters over the years. Being a white woman working
alone at 1 a.m. in a convenience store must be one of the most dangerous jobs in America.
(((fake news ))) will either do nothing and let the facts fade from normie memory, or
goysplain that all black crime is YT's fault, even black-on-black violence, because YT
exists.
Put nothing past them. Hell, they're gaslighting antifa's riots as 'right-wing
violence.'
Could it be possible that we could learn some important lessons by looking back at how
Americans lived 70 years ago?
Of course there has never been any era in our history when everything has been perfect. But
without a doubt, things are vastly different today than they were back in 1950
In 1950, Texaco Star Theatre, The Lone Ranger and Hopalong Cassidy were some of the most
popular shows that Americans watched on television.
In 2020, a Netflix film entitled "Cuties" is so trashy and so disgusting that four states
have sent a letter to Netflix asking for it to be removed because it is "fodder for those
with criminal imaginations, serving to normalize the view that children are sexual
beings."
In 1950, television networks would not even show husbands and wives in bed together.
In 2020, "adult websites" get more traffic than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter combined.
In 1950, people would greet one another as they walked down the street.
In 2020, Americans are too enamored with their cellphones to be bothered with actual human
contact.
In 1950, gum chewing and talking in class were some of the major disciplinary problems in our
schools.
In 2020, youffs are literally gunning down police officers in the streets.
In 1950, people would make an effort to dress up and look nice when they would go out in
public.
In 2020, most of the population has become utter slobs and "People of Walmart" has become one
of our most popular memes.
In 1950, the typical woman got married for the first time at age 20 and the typical man got
married for the first time at age 22.
In 2020, the typical woman gets married for the first time at age 27 and the typical man gets
married for the first time at age 29.
In 1950, a lot of people would leave their homes and their vehicles unlocked because crime
rates were so low.
In 2020, many that live in urban areas are deathly afraid of all the civil unrest that has
erupted, and gun sales have soared to all-time record highs.
In 1950, Americans actually attempted to parent their children.
In 2020, we pump our kids full of mind-altering drugs and we let our televisions and our
video games raise our children.
In 1950, Baltimore was one of the most beautiful and most prosperous cities on the entire
planet.
In 2020, Baltimore regularly makes headlines because of all the murders that are constantly
occurring. Of course the exact same thing could be said about many of our other major
cities.
In 1950, 78 percent of all households in America contained a married couple.
In 2020, that figure has fallen below 50 percent.
In 1950, about 5 percent of all babies in the United States were born to unmarried
parents.
In 2020, about 40 percent of all babies in the United States will be born to unmarried
parents.
In 1950, new churches were regularly being opened all over the United States.
In 2020, it is being projected that 1 out of every 5 churches in the U.S. "could be forced to
shut their doors in the next 18 months", and the mayor of Lubbock, Texas just said that
opening a new Planned Parenthood clinic is like starting a church.
In 1950, we actually had high standards for our elected officials, and people actually did
research on the candidates before they cast their votes.
In 2020, more than 4,000 people in one county in New Hampshire voted for a "transsexual
Satanic anarchist" in the Republican primary, and she is now the Republican nominee for
sheriff in Cheshire County.
In 1950, children would go outside and play when they got home from school.
In 2020, our parks and our playgrounds are virtually empty and we have the highest childhood
obesity rate in the industrialized world.
In 1950, front porches were community gathering areas, and people would regularly have their
neighbors over for dinner.
In 2020, many of us don't know our neighbors at all, and the average American watches more
than five hours of television a day.
In 1950, Americans used words such as "knucklehead", "moxie" and "jalopy".
In 2020, new terms such as "nomophobia", "peoplekind" and "social distancing" have been
introduced into the English language.
In 1950, the very first credit card was issued in the United States.
In 2020, Americans owe more than 930 billion dollars on their credit cards.
In 1950, one income could support an entire middle class household.
In 2020, tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs and filed for unemployment, and
more than half of all households in some of our largest cities are currently facing "serious
financial problems".
In 1950, the American people believed that the free market should govern the economy.
In 2020, most Americans seem to believe that the government in Washington and the Federal
Reserve must endlessly "manage" the economy.
In 1950, "socialists" and "communists" were considered to be our greatest national
enemies.
In 2020, most of our politicians in Washington have eagerly embraced socialist and communist
policy goals.
In 1950, the U.S. Constitution was deeply loved and highly revered.
In 2020, anyone that actually admits to being a "constitutionalist" is considered to be a
potential domestic terrorist.
In 1950, the United States loaned more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.
In 2020, the United States owes more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.
In 1950, the total U.S. national debt reached the 257 billion dollar mark for the first time
in our history.
In 2020, we added 864 billion dollars to the national debt in the month of June alone. In
other words, we added over three times more to the national debt in that one month than the
total amount of debt that had been accumulated from the founding of our nation all the way to
1950.
In 1950, most Americans were generally happy with their lives.
In 2020, the suicide rate is at an all-time record high, and it has been rising every single
year since 2007.
*** Michael's new book entitled "Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America" is now
available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com . ***
Where you from Kev? Ever live in or near a black neighborhood, maybe go to a school with a
high black population? Or did you spend your life in a lily White suburb where the only
blacks you ever met were domestic help or on TV? Try living the life of an average White
person stuck near a violent black population center, then get back to me. You are clueless
about race relations in the US.
@Mr. Rational e SHR data provide additional details about each homicide incident,
including the jurisdiction, month, year, victim and offender demographic characteristics,
weapon, the circumstances surrounding the incident (e.g., argument, robbery, gang-related),
and the relationship between the victim and offender, if known.
But that would not adequately account for your interaction point.
Another element I think should be added is relative risk from non/strangers of different
races. How many of the white on white murders are strangers compared to how many of the black
on white murders? Because I think the most obvious question is how to evaluate risk for random
interactions. Non-strangers can be evaluated as individuals to a larger degree.
One of the things about FBI/Justice Dept. violent crime statistics that has infuriated me
for decades is their damnable habit of lumping Hispanics and who-knows-what into the "White"
offender category.
Kevin is a kind hearted person, and I know he is coming from a place of not wanting to speak
ill of his circle of friends.
But the reality of life in America is that (murder aside) blacks violently attack white
people more than 1,500 times per day, each and every single day. (USBOJ Household survey)
Now, that is a very serious problem. Many of these black on white attacks are in ways that
are unbelievably serious, and would be completely unthinkable to white people, ie slashing or
gang beating someone just for "fun" and laughing while while you are doing it.
If noticing reality all around us and thinking that something should be done about it makes
someone racist, I guess I am racist, too.
@Rich ly beginning to gentrify) neighborhoods in San Francisco in the 1980s, when crime
rates were considerably higher than they are now. Also lived at the corner of Oakland, Berkeley
and Emeryville in 1992-3. I played pickup basketball with mostly black guys regularly
throughout many of those years. Subbed in the SF public high schools including one that was
majority black or close to it. Went to quite a few mostly-black parties in the Lower Haight. I
generally got along at least as well with black folks as with white folks.
Also when I lived in Paris in 1988-89 I hung out with and played on the Paris 8 basketball
team with mostly Africans. Our best player was a black guy from NYC.
Overall black folks are at least as nice as white folks, and in certain ways, more real.
Maybe you guys just haven't been hanging out with the right black people?
@Kevin Barrett er wrong action. Only white people are responsible for their own actions,
but not blacks because blacks are like good-natured children who lack full mental capacity and
only respond to their environment, which of course white people created. When you ask racist
liberal weenies like Kevin to point to low-crime black societies anywhere in deep Africa, they
cannot of course. Then white colonialism gets blamed. That there might be black moral turpitude
or at least deeply ingrained cultural patterns of depraved behavior in blacks is automatically
eschewed by racist liberal weenie circles in academia from whence Kevin came. And so because
the data will not be looked at nor new approaches considered, the problem of black criminality
has reached the point where it threatens the survival of America.
“Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims
were killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black
offenders.”
So white victims were over 2x more likely to have been killed by blacks than vice-versa (16%
and 7% of cases). That white number also includes hispanics. The article also omits mention of
the black homicide rate being 8 times higher than whites+hispanics.
The argument that black-on-black violence is a greater problem than police violence entirely
misses the point. If I am confronted with a criminal, I have the legal right to defend myself.
If I am confronted by an aggressive police officer, I can invoke no such right.
Have you not ever had an interaction with a policeman? Did you enjoy how they disrespect
you, provoke you, dare you to defy them so they can assault you? They’ve done this to me,
a harmless white man who generally travels around in jeans and sneakers, maybe looking a little
rough around the edges even though I own rental property and a business. So it doesn’t
take much to picture how the thuggish bully-boy element so prevalent in the oinking fraternity
would act out against someone they consider without status.
Breaking the power of the policemen’s unions is an essential first step to remedying
rampant abuses in the system. The police are not members of the working class. They are agents
of state power and as such must be held to a very strict standard of conduct. In a republic,
there can be no greater crime than abuse of authority, be it by violence or corruption, by
those whom, in Thomas Jefferson’s memorable phrase, “we are obliged to entrust with
power.”
Such a betrayal of the public trust, by men entrusted with the power of life and death over
the citizenry, is the only transgression for which the death penalty is the truly appropriate
punishment and deterrent.
@Kevin Barrett 8221; – meaning me. They didn’t like it that the big white boy
was dunking on them.
I was then attacked by about 12 groids in a pre-meditated manner, and I know this for a fact
because I heard their planning.
The statistics are what they are, and people like you who are in la la land are annoying.
You are not connected to reality when you let your exceptional experiences overcome what others
are noticing.
I don’t allow my negative experiences with blacks overcome my ability to see many of
them as people. But, on the other hand, I don’t ignore the crime statistics.
Your willful ignorance is dangerous. Clown world is bad enough already without illogical
“exceptions makes the rules” blathering.
USA Today seems unaware of this and thinks they are clearing the air by trying to get to
the truth about race and crime. Hilarious.
Yes.
And the interracial crime stat they harp on helps hide the scope of Black crime.
There’s roughly six times more Whites in the US than Blacks, so a truly equal society
would have six times as many Blacks killed by Whites and vice versa.
So, per the 2018 stats, if twice as many Whites are killed by Blacks as vice versa, then
Blacks are killing at twelve times the rate of a “fair” society.
One factor these statistics oversimplify is that there is a topological overlay to the
issue. Vast sectors of the country are still overwhelmingly white, for example the north west
and southwest. That’s a huge area where any homicide will be by definition white on
white. And most blacks are de facto segregated into large inner cities, where most crime will
be black on black. These differential homicide rates pertain to the narrow border zones where
white and black interact.
Unfortunately, I live in precisely such a place and the relative homicide rates seem to me
to be like the meme. There have been paltry few white on white murders and these are mostly
within families, such as a guy killing his wife. Some drug related. The one white on black
murder I know of was more in the nature of manslaughter and was drug related. This received
national media attention! The black on white murders on the other hand are predatory, vicious
and comparatively common. If you are walking down the street you are much more afraid of a
black male than a white. That’s the reality from a deplorable on the ground like me.
You were good enough at basketball to be paid to do it, so good enough to run rings round
those SF black pick-up players and make a complete fool of some of them. I suspect you quickly
became careful not to do that, because you knew a humiliated male African American individual
would react with quite a bit more hostility that a white would have. Similarly, had you had been
getting a huge amount of attention from all the women at those mostly black Lower Haigh parties
the other men there would get very annoyed, and you would feel less threatened by the white ones.
You did not have that problem because you conducted yourself with humility and self control,
which was easier for you than a black athlete, AOTBE. CAL2 , says:
October 3, 2020 at 2:29 pm GMT
Out of white murders, 2,677 were committed by whites. However, 803 Hispanics are lumped into
the murder category. Let’s say half are white Hispanics. That means white-on-white
murders drop to 2,276 or 68%. Using the same model, black-on-black is at 86%. That is a more
significant difference.
@lavoisier before I got my growth spurt, I could out-run the black kids. They would also
say “catch that m-fuc!r” then as well. I took a lot of beatings, and it was always
5,6 or 7 to 1. Sometimes the numbers were much higher. The white liberal adults who ran the
school were completely out of their depth with regards to the black problem.
White men that don’t get it have not lived the same experiences… and further
they are ignoring data that is right in front of their face.
To ignore overwhelming data is quite a feat of denial. Denial on that level borders on a
form of pathology. Maybe they don’t want to admit the world is the way it is?
The races are different. The sexes are different. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
@PO'd in PG County . It actually means that while only 11% of black victimes are killed by
non-blacks, 19% of white vicitms are killed by non-whites, so nearly twice as many whites are
killed by blacks as vice versa, but since black population is only about 1/5 of white
population, it means that per capita blacks are killing almost ten times as many whites as vice
versa. (This leaves out the Hispanic obfuscation mentioned above.)
As others might have already said blacks are indeed about 8 times more likely to murder
whites based on percentages of the population using the 2018 statistics. I’d like to
think that most racially aware whites already know this, but the normies need to know.
USA Today frames the statistics in such a way to make it appear that there is parity
between blacks and whites and that “racist” whites are all up in arms over nothing
and it’s really all much ado about nothing.
A problem with the stat that 80% of whites are killed by whites and 90-93% of blacks are
killed by blacks is that it doesn’t factor in the number of whites killed by hispanics
since most years the FBI does not break them out as a separate racial category. If they did I
believe the true white on white murder rate would drop to between 60-70%.
The other area that the 80% for whites and 90% for blacks metric is misleading is that
whites commit less than half the homicides of blacks while being 4.5x numerous. Blacks commit
murder at about 8-9x the white rate when hispanics are factored out of the white rate.
The other thing mainstream outlets avoid is the dreaded 13/56, or blacks commit 56% of the
murders while only being slightly over 13% of the population. Meanwhile, assuming hispanics
commit murder at roughly their percentage of the population (18%) this means that blacks and
hispanics account for 76% of the 15-16K annual murders while whites account for just 24% while
being 59-60% of the population.
Without blacks and browns America truly would have crime rates more resembling Sweden or
Norway.
This guy. Sheesh.
I worked with hundreds upon hundreds of blacks @ FORDS FRAP. Many of whom were temps from
Detroit. I can speak from experience they are a net drain on a business or town/city.
The language.
The poor approach to job performance.
Lousy attitude/ demeanor.
I am owed and entitled.
Filthy break areas and cafeterias.
Theft of products and supplies.
Theft of time, they are almost genius at scheming in various ways to escape job duties.
The entrances and approaches, roadways and highways near the plant are dangerous. Especially
aftershift.
The fraudulent medical claims must cost FOMOCO enough to fund a small nation.
@Anonymous population 6 times that of blacks… blacks kill whites at a rate 1,5 times
higher than whites kill whites. So, only correcting for population size we get 50% higher rate
of black on white murder instead of USA Today’s 8%…
Further, given the still strong separation between races, assume that white-white encounters
are 5 times more prevalent than white-black encounters. That’s an extremely low-ball
estimate and the real number is somewhere between 10 and 20. With that correction, on
population and encounter basis, blacks are around 8 times more likely to kill whites than
whites – whites.
Let’s compare the USA Today number of 0.08 to the real number of 8… USA Today
lied 100 times over… fake media indeed.
I had essentially the same experience at a job that became infested with lower class blacks
from the hood except they’d scream racism any time they were held to account for any of
their misbehaviors and lack of performance. Plus they’d try to shift their workloads off
on every white person they could and-again -- any complaints about it and they’d screech,
“Racist!”
I learned to despise them for the content of their character. Any comment on their low life
character was immediately met with not only shrieks of racism but also shrieks of, “You
goan respeks me!” They were the foulest of the foul and were utterly contemptible.
@El Dato versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice
versa.
– in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for
murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely . For the crime of “shooting”
— defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more
likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
– If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery
rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
– In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and
robbery by 90 percent.
The video of Daniel Shaver's murder was horrifying. It raises an important point. Studies
have shown that the police kill white suspects at the same or slightly higher rate than they
kill black suspects. Black police officers kill black suspects at the same rate that white
police officers kill black suspects. The people the police are killing are almost exclusively
poor people. The poverty rate of blacks is substantially higher than it is for white. That is
why they are disproportionately the victims of police violence. I will probably get flamed
for writing this but what we have in this country with respect to the cops killing black
people isn't a race issue. We have a police problem. Too many cops are trigger happy or just
too unstable to do the job. The man who killed Shaver should never have been allowed to be a
cop. Shaver was doing everthing he could to comply. He was murdered. There is no other word
for it.
I agree with you about George. Before anyone renders judgement, there has to be a trial.
It is hard to make the case that it was the cops intention to kill him. They had already
called for an ambulance. It isn't at all clear that he suffocated because of the knee on his
neck. Pressure on the side of the neck does not obstruct breathing. He was compromised with
Covid and he had a significant dose of fentanyl. Acquitals will set the country on fire.
Re: "Trump who gassed protesters demanding justice for George Floyd; murdered by police
suffocation"
I presume by that statement that you have no respect for the principle that a person
should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As far as I am aware the trial has not yet
taken place. Personally I am always a little suspicious when conclusions are drawn and
announced by the media as if they were unarguable facts before all the evidence has been
revealed. i am also aware that I will be denounced as some sort of heretic for saying that
much. As the saying goes I 'may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb'. For anyone who
hasn't seen the footage of the events leading up to the iconic scene, you can see it
here.
For anyone who is prepared to risk the heresy of doubting the sacred testament and
actually watch the video, the following becomes clear:-
George Floyd lied to the police repeatedly, he claimed he had just lost his mother, he
hadn't. He refused to sit in the police car claiming to be claustrophobic, yet when the
police arrived he was happily sitting in his own car, with the windows shut.
He was also clearly in an abnormal mental state, either intoxicated or mentally disturbed or
both. It is astonishing that someone so obviously paranoid about the police would refuse the
chance he was given to make good the transaction made with a counterfeit note, thus involving
the police in the first place.
He also clearly claimed that he couldn't breath before he was on the ground.
He asked to lay on the ground.
Additionally the toxicologists report suggests that he had a level of fentanyl in his blood
which would normally be regarded as a fatal dose, one of the effects of which is difficulty
breathing.
That video was deliberately withheld on the grounds that it might prejudice the trial, a
ludicrous decision given that the trial was already irredeemably compromised. I expect all
manner of indignant strawman attacks, accusations and insults to be aimed at me, for that is
the fate of heretics generally. I haven't the time or the inclination to carefully list all
the things that I am NOT saying, that would take forever. What I am saying is that a trial
has not yet happened and I am tired of hearing the event casually described as if it was a
clear cut deliberate public execution.
Perhaps people might like to view the following video for comparison and ask themselves
who they would prefer as an arresting officer.
Despite committing no crime and doing his best to cooperate totally with the police,
Daniel Shaver was gratuitously executed. Few people have even heard of him, he was not buried
in a golden casket with local dignitaries weeping and nobody burned down the neighbourhood.
The officer involved was exonerated and returned to duty until he was retired with a pension
due to the trauma that the incident had caused him.
The video of Daniel Shaver's murder was horrifying. It raises an important point. Studies
have shown that the police kill white suspects at the same or slightly higher rate than they
kill black suspects. Black police officers kill black suspects at the same rate that white
police officers kill black suspects. The people the police are killing are almost exclusively
poor people. The poverty rate of blacks is substantially higher than it is for white. That is
why they are disproportionately the victims of police violence. I will probably get flamed
for writing this but what we have in this country with respect to the cops killing black
people isn't a race issue. We have a police problem. Too many cops are trigger happy or just
too unstable to do the job. The man who killed Shaver should never have been allowed to be a
cop. Shaver was doing everthing he could to comply. He was murdered. There is no other word
for it.
I agree with you about George. Before anyone renders judgement, there has to be a trial.
It is hard to make the case that it was the cops intention to kill him. They had already
called for an ambulance. It isn't at all clear that he suffocated because of the knee on his
neck. Pressure on the side of the neck does not obstruct breathing. He was compromised with
Covid and he had a significant dose of fentanyl. Acquitals will set the country on fire.
Are you ready for this week's absurdity? Here's our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous
stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity and on
occasion, inspiring poetic justice.
Beethoven is a symbol of "exclusion and elitism"
The woke mob is attempting to cancel one of the most famous pieces of music in history
– Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
Their aim? To thwart "wealthy white men who embraced Beethoven and turned his symphony into
a symbol of their superiority and importance."
Come again?
Prior to Beethoven in the mid 1700s, lower class Europeans would regularly attend
symphonies. And they were apparently quite a rowdy bunch– hooting and hollering all
throughout the performance, like a modern day rock concert.
Around the time that Beethoven rose to prominence in the early 1800s, however, the lower
classes were excluded from attending symphonies because they didn't keep quiet and applaud at
the appropriate time.
So today's woke mob believes that by playing or enjoying Beethoven's Fifth, you are
glorifying the exclusion of poor people, and by extension, women and minorities.
ay_arrow
Billy the Poet , 5 hours ago
Jon Voight as Conrack introduces his students to Beecloven:
Movies where a white person educates poor children of color are racist, obviously.
Unknown User , 4 hours ago
War is Peace / Freedom is Slavery / Ignorance is Strength
Unknown User , 3 hours ago
"He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his
hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian,
the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded
to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise,
and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but
it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The *** saw them all, beat
them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no
weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive
mind. All things are mortal but the ***; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the
secret of his immortality?" - Mark Twain
yerfej , 5 hours ago
When low IQ reetaryds are manipulated to seize control they immediately attack everything
beyond their cultural status and eliminate it. The west is witnessing rich progressive elites
leveraging idiots to destroy society. What is funny is the idiots doing the manual
destruction and footwork will of course get nothing out of all their efforts. They too will
be culled, eventually, as always.
Bay Area Guy , 5 hours ago
But Beethoven was disabled (deaf at 26 or 27), so the woke crowd is prejudiced against the
hearing impaired. They better self-cancel because of that.
drjimi , 4 hours ago
People don't go to classical music concerts because of the behavioral expectations????
Seriously???
People don't go to classical music concerts because they don't like classical music.
i can just as validly argue hip hop is elitist and exclusionary because I don't care for
the chimp-like antics of its imbecilic fans.
MilwaukeeMark , 5 hours ago
Beethoven refuses to bow to the elites of his time. He demanded a place at their tables
with them. He refused to become their hired help. Of course the left is too stupid to know
that history.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 2 hours ago
The poem used in the last, choral, movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony was written by
Friedrich Schiller and is know as "An die Freude", translated as Ode To Joy. But Schiller
originally wrote the poem as "An die Freie" or "To the Free." Europe was in the grip of
antimonarchic sentiment. The poem was not permitted to be published in Austria by the
Emperor's censors. Schiller changed the word throughout the poem from Freie to Freude, and
the censors permitted it. But everybody in the audience would have known this story, and
realized the meaning of the poem.
Joe A , 3 hours ago
That is what communism does: it deconstructs and destroys history because it is all bad.
History is a reminder of the oppression of the poor and downtrodden, of the class struggle.
Everywhere in communist Europe they tore down churches and historical buildings and replaced
them with ugly concrete colossal monstrosities.
Communists are insane.
Savvy , 3 hours ago
Rap is the most racist violent 'music' there is and they go after Beethoven? LOL
Jethro , 4 hours ago
The left is too stupid realize that they are creating the monsters that they've been
autisticly screeching about.
Choomwagon Roof Hits , 4 hours ago
Sort of like the Old Bolsheviks back in the USSR...
Patmos , 5 hours ago
Their aim? To thwart "wealthy white men who embraced Beethoven and turned his symphony
into a symbol of their superiority and importance."
I understand the desire of youth to shake things up when things don't seem right, to break
out of the mold. It's James Dean, Rebel Without A Cause.
The modern "woke" mob isn't that though, it's rheetards without a clue.
Fox News
Fox News
5.73M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
White employees were informed that their so-called 'white' qualities were offensive and unacceptable.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
If one needed any further evidence of Twitter's far-left corporate culture, look no further
than former CEO Dick Costolo - who went full Bolshevik in a Thursday Twitter rant warning that
"me-first capitalists" who don't agree with injecting political activism into the workplace
will be "the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution," adding "I'll
happily provide video commentary."
Costolo, a partner at
Index Ventures and who sits on the board of Patreon (which got
spanked in court for deplatforming conservatives), ran Twitter from 2010 to 2015.
As Reclaim The Net
writes, "Costolo was replying to a tweet related to how Coinbase's CEO has decided to separate
business from political activism and offer an exit package for those employees who feel they
can't work in a company that doesn't want to be hindered by politics and activism, as so many
other companies have been distracted by in recent times."
Over the next 4 years, Trump promises to lower the cost of healthcare, and "bring better and
tailored healthcare to address historic disparities" for the black community. The president
will also ensure that black churches can compete for federal resources, and "defend religious
freedom exemptions to respect religious believers and always protect life."
The president also seeks to further criminal justice reform, with his plan saying that he
will "commit to working on a Second Step Act." He will also work towards "safe urban
neighborhoods with highest policing standards," the plan states.
Other aspects of the plan includes making Juneteenth a National Holiday, prosecuting the
KKK, designating Antifa a terrorist organization, and making lynching a national hate
crime.
Trump's move to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization came after FBI Director
Christopher Wray told Congress that those who engaged in recent violent protests are targets
of serious FBI investigations.
"We have seen Antifa adherence coalescing and working together in what I would describe as
small groups and nodes," Wray has said. Wray added that the bureau is conducting multiple
investigations "into some anarchist violent extremists, some of whom operate through these
nodes."
Before that, Attorney General William Barr in August said Antifa is a "revolutionary
group" that is bent on establishing communism or socialism in the United States.
"They are a revolutionary group that is interested in some form of socialism, communism.
They're essentially Bolsheviks. Their tactics are fascistic," Barr said in an interview with
Fox News on Aug. 9.
At a "Black Voices for Trump" campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia, Trump characterized his
Platinum Plan as a "black empowerment plan," and warned black voters against supporting his
opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.
"Though black Americans have traditionally been shut out of opportunities to grow our own
businesses and create generational wealth, President Trump is working hard to give us access
to the American Dream," K. Carl Smith, Black Voices for Trump advisory board member, said in
a
statement .
"President Trump is a businessman and understands that pride, community, and dedication
are built through entrepreneurship."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
President Donald Trump elbow bumps with Herschel Walker during a campaign rally in Atlanta,
Georgia, on Sept. 25, 2020. (John Bazemore/AP Photo)
"No one in Washington politics today has done more to hurt black Americans than Joe
Biden," Trump told supporters on Friday. "For half a century, Joe's personally advocated or
enacted virtually every policy that has caused pain and suffering in the black community. You
know that."
In a statement prior to Trump's rally in Georgia, Biden said, "As president, I will work to
advance racial equity across the American economy and build back better I promise to fight for
black working families and direct real investments to advance racial equity as part of our
nation's economic recovery."
play_arrow
Stormtrooper , 6 hours ago
Hey Donald, don't forget about us non-privileged, unemployed white folk. We could use
a few greenbacks too.
risitasse , 6 hours ago
Trump likes everybody but whites.
YesWeKahn , 6 hours ago
This is insanity, while everyone is suffering, only black people get special
treatment, only because of their skin color. In this country, we can see: only black
lives matter.
risitasse , 6 hours ago
So, KKK is terrorist but not BLM ?
Hilarious.
farflungstar , 6 hours ago
90% of interracial crime is black on white.
Bribing them even more won't fix that.
Cornbred , 6 hours ago
"Prosecuting the kkk" for what exactly? They've been irrelevant for 30 +/- years and I
can't remember a crime committed by that organization that made National news.
echoes , 7 hours ago
Trump's all in on BLM lmao
The fraudster-in-chief.
farflungstar , 7 hours ago
Wait BLM not a terrorist organization? Yes Antifa is but the KKK? Isn't that an
irrelevant Boomer organization filled with feds?
Lol BLM will be relieved to hear that so they can carry on harassing people and
rioting every time one of their criminal good boys gets shot by the police.
Xena fobe , 7 hours ago
BLM is a front for billionaires. Antifa is easier to pick on.
pods , 7 hours ago
13% of population. High % cannot vote due to felony conviction. Turnout %?
And on a good republican year they get 10% of that? Most monolithic voting block there
ever was. 500 billion (promised lol) for another 5% of that? Might better court the
beaners. They are the up and comers anyways.
Deep Snorkeler , 3 hours ago
WOW! I wish I was black.
I could enjoy immense privileges and free money.
Poor white Trumpkins, suckers.
Locker up , 3 hours ago
Platinum plan for black votes but Dog-Poop Plan for whitey.
Taffer , 4 hours ago
So, as a heterosexual white man that makes up the majority of Trump's base....why
should I be voting for him again? I mean, where's my "Platinum Plan?"
Making Juneteenth a National Holiday alone might actually be enough to just make me
skip the election this year. I mean crap, if the Republicans new brilliant plan is just
to go ahead and become Democrats to win votes for people who will never vote for them,
I'm done.
risitasse , 3 hours ago
No matter who wins the election, (((Goldman Sachs))) wins.
Hope we get some real conservatives next election.
outsider88 , 6 hours ago
pandering for votes. donald biden or joe trump?
outsider88 , 6 hours ago
pandering for votes. donald biden or joe trump?
Manthong , 6 hours ago
So now maybe we will get the Gold Plan for Hispanic Americans, the Silver Plan for
Asian Americans, the Red Plan for Native Americans and then finally the Brown Plan for
White Americans who will incrementally become more brown over time because of government
"policy"..
This is not racist, it is physics and biology.
Chuck Walla , 6 hours ago
Amen! When a culture fosters violence and killing as the first option in any conflict,
civilization will be hard to acquire and retain. Avoid them until they can reform their
child rearing skills.
R Crumb , 6 hours ago
LBJ did it to us with his "Great Society".
He should have had his head blown off, not JFK.
yojimbo , 5 hours ago
What about the Nation of Islam, that works against all that? And if you have issues -
why is Christianity failing the black community?!
flajim7 , 4 hours ago
They are trying to protect themselves, when the time comes they are outed and the
ropes are strung. They feel empowered knowing their hangman committed a national hate
crime.
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
Trump Unveils "Platinum Plan" For Black Americans, Designates Antifa, KKK As
"Terrorist Organizations"
Just as an aside, as far as I am concerned, blacks have been on the platinum plan
since the sixties - and it hasn't helped them one bit.
I am agnostic regarding the KKK, but to truly understand the origins of this
organization you need to do some historical research - and understand that it was
literally the only law and order in the south during the reconstruction period after the
civil war. Also, as you evaluate the KKK in its historical context, please remember that
five presidents were members of the KKK - so please don't pretend that it had no rational
justified political support, at least at one time in our history.
Categorizing the KKK as a terrorist organization, given the fact that to the best of
cosmic knowledge there is no recent evidence of "terrorist behavior" exercised by the
KKK, in stark contrast to the actual behavior of Antifa, dilutes the categorization of
Antifa as a terrorist organization. This is a political move, but at this point if I can
find any politician willing to identify Antifa (and don't forget BLM) as terrorist, I am
willing to accept political sops like parallel identification of the KKK as such - if
that happens to placate the current political zeitgeist.
WTF, I'm white and I don't even get a "platinum plan". Not fair.
metaforge , 33 minutes ago
It's carefully targeted to "areas" that are typically largely black, not direct
reparations just because of skin color. And it's an investment in business, not just the
usual Dem dole. Clever.
FolloDaMoney , 46 seconds ago
(((They))) gave you a "platinum plan" and you do not realize it .
(((Their))) plan to genocide your White race into oblivion is succeeding beyond all
expectations and has acquired record breaking platinum status .
Trump's Five Hundred BILLION USD reparations plan for "black empowerment" is on top of
the more than two TRILLION USD federal spending on blacks , since ww2 , and on top of the
650,000 White lives expended by the federal government to win the US Civil War which was
fought to prevent the Southern Confederate secession that was instigated by northern
abolitionists of southern enslavements of African kneegroes whom are now called American
Blacks .
That 500 BILLION USD will be underwritten by the politicly anemic and largest ethnic
culture , which is White Christian sheepill , in the USA .
The fanaticly loyal White Trumppians are completely delusional about Trump being their
God-ordained savior .
The vast majority of Whites are Christian sheepill and they simply do not have the
political intelligence ( not IQ ) to end their racial suicide which is also known as
nothing less than a technical genocide against Whites that ends in a very real extinction
.
vovishka.2018 , 5 hours ago
socialism is here
US has socialism for the corporations, MIC, the bankers and the 1% where earning are
privatize & losses and debt are socialized. The rest is pretend socialism (:
The plan is a desperate vote buying scheme. Why Trump didn't announce this 2-3 months
after he took office but waits until about 1 month before the election?
Because Trump knows the proposal will not get through Congress. It is a mere plan, a
declaration of intent. Congress will eventually trash it, but the plan will survive long
enough to get Trump past the election, or at least through first debate.
The election lies are flying thick and fast like always , neither prospect will be a
good choice as the whole thing is just a farce.
ineluctable , 3 hours ago
Tax dollars ... yeah right... Everything is bought with DEBT. It will be your grand
kids who pay up. Enjoy living large on their backs.
Blackcubic , 7 hours ago
Fvck off with your MAGA. It was a lie and scam by Trump
GlobeTrekker , 6 hours ago
You can support MAGA (Trump) and not like this move.
It's just more pandering to blacks, and designating the KKK a terrorist organization
is ridiculous, because it has been toothless for 50 years, and blacks kill more blacks in
one year than the blacks lynched by the KKK in 100 years.
y_arrow
Leroy Whitby , 7 hours ago
Most likely Trump will deregulate massively in a way that helps blacks form
businesses, get jobs, compete for EXISTING state funds by black churches etc. I don't see
how you could read Trump's proposal negatively.
Mineshaft Gap , 6 hours ago
You must realize it's a game.
Trump has literally no allies in Congress who will fund Platinumania. The GOP would
always rather fight a nice profitable war somewhere. The Dems won't let him help their
urban vassals one iota.
It's all empty promises for votes. . .which may just work! Peter Kirsanow runs the
numbers authoritatively: Dems are right at the tipping point where black support for
Trump could cost them fatally.
hal0bender , 7 hours ago
So what's he gonna do for White americans, the founding stock of this country? Why are
these people treated like sacred cows? Have we not had 50+ years of ******** welfare,
affirmative action, etc?
GlobeTrekker , 6 hours ago
That also!
Whites, and especially white men, are treated like sheeot nowadays, and occupy a lower
status than every other race (except maybe Asians) in college admissions, college
scholarships, loans, and jobs. You cannot create or continue a top-shelf society by
continually lifting up the less capable, less hard-working, less intelligent, at the
expense of the best.
I'm sick of the mindless pandering to minorities and women (yes, it is true) at the
expense of white men (and Asians many times as well). This is why Atlas shruggs.
Shadow1275 , 7 hours ago
And we have officially become South Africa. Witness how in two single generations,
White Europeans have undone the work of thousands of past generations of their ancestors.
All that spilt blood, all those tears, war after bloody war to gain land and
prosperity.
Supreme Dudeness , 3 hours ago
What is privilege???
1) Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you've never had a job.
2) Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance.
3) Privilege is having a Smartphone with a Data plan, which you receive no bill
for.
4) Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don't have a utility or
phone bill and where rising property taxes, rents and energy costs have absolutely no
effect on the amount of food you can put on your table, which is largely covered by
Government Food Stamps.
5) Privilege is having free health insurance for you and your family that's paid for
by working taxpayers who often can't afford proper health coverage for their own
families.
6) Privilege is having multiple national organizations promoting and protecting just
your race alone -- that are subsidized by federal tax dollars.
7) Privilege is having access to a national college fund that supports only one
race.
8) Privilege is having a television network that supports only one race.
9) Privilege is having most of the media news networks refuse to cover incidents
wherein one race (one-eighth of the population) commits 50% of the crimes.
10) Privilege is the ability to go march against, and protest against anything that
triggers you, without worrying about calling off from work and the consequences that
accompany such.
11) Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment
status, and be able to send them off to daycare or pre-school you don't pay for.
12) Privilege is being able to vote in many states without showing a driver's license,
voter ID card or other credentials -- just because your race claims they should be exempt
from such requirements.
13) Privilege is being able to riot, loot, commit arson and tear down historic
monuments without consequences -- just because you don't like folks such as Columbus, U.
S. Grant or even Lincoln.
14) Privilege is being able to get into almost any college of your choosing based on
your race, not your grades or merit.
15) Privilege is having most of your life paid for by the working men and women who DO
HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS! you know, those you now call
"PRIVILEGED."
_arrow
Son of Loki , 5 hours ago
Biden calls it a "Reparation Tax"
Trump calls it a "Platinum Plan"
In any case, the middle class whitey gets screwed and needs to work harder.
Blankone , 3 hours ago
You could give the black community $5 trillion and they would not produce new wealth,
but would simply ask for more.
For example, look at every once White dominated country in Africa where the blacks
have taken over. Every single time the productive country turns to subsistence level
existence.
Look at the great farms taken from the Whites in Africa, they all decayed to nothing
due to the blacks.
No motivation, no ability.
Psst - look at every once productive city in the USA once the blacks become 50% of the
occupants.
play_arrow 1
Billy the Poet , 7 hours ago
Looks like maybe Trump is trying to buy the black vote with big government programs.
He has a good chance of success. But do we really need more socialism?
Trump has committed himself to deregulation. Perhaps he could focus on eliminating
taxes and regulations that weigh heaviest on poor and minority neighborhoods rather than
by making even more expensive promises about forty acres and a mule.
GlobeTrekker , 6 hours ago
Love Trump, but calling the KKK a terrorist organization smacks of Clinton-era
"domestic right-wing terrorism" BS, and mindless pandering to blacks. The KKK has been
toothless for 40 years, and even if they weren't, as Bob Woodson (civil rights leader,
and not your typical black race pimp) has said many times blacks kill more blacks in ONE
YEAR than the KKK did in lynching blacks over a period of 100 years.
Alot of the rest seems like more gibs for blacks.
Liesel , 7 hours ago
Some people figured out that by backing white Americans in a corner by using the race
card against them, they could change the very fabric of our nation. That's where we are
right now. No politician has enough gonads to call BLM the terrorist organization that
they are. This is one of the most concerning events I have ever seen in my lifetime.
inorganic , 6 hours ago
As much as I like the idea of "blacks" (whatever that actually means) living and
enjoying better and more prosperous lives ... I very much dislike adopting inherently
racist approaches.
Seriously. Why have a separate plan for blacks? And another for hispanics? And another
for asians? And another for females? And another for gays and lesbians? And another for
transgenders? And another for multigenders? And another for the poor? And 50 more for
every other real and fictional category one can conceive?
Seriously!
How about you just stop the rich and elites and connected and hyper-rich and
globalists from having special artificial advantages over everyone else? Ever think of
that? Ever think of the fact that if ALL the artificial special advantages were removed,
then everyone down below (at ALL levels below) would have a VASTLY easier time to improve
their own lives ... WITH NO SPECIAL PLANS OR HANDOUTS OR PROGRAMS REQUIRED .
-----
This creating special programs for every freaking real and fictional distinction that
any warped mind can conceive of does what? It tells people to think of others NOT as
human beings LIKE THEMSELVES ... but as member of other groups that have special programs
to aid them. So now EVERYONE has to compete with everyone else to get more and better
special handouts and programs and treatment than all the other groups. Which means
everyone is encouraged to think of all others as fundamentally NOT LIKE THEMSELVES and in
fact INHERENTLY AGAINST THEM as in INHERENTLY THEIR ENEMY .
-----
Seriously. Do I want to see blacks have better and more enjoyable lives? Yes! Damn
straight! Do I want everyone else to have better and more enjoyable lives? Yes! Damn
straight! Do I want the rich, privileged, connected and hyper-rich live worse and less
enjoyable lives? Well, YES --- to the 99.9% of them who did not earn their wealth
honestly without taking advantage of any special setups. To the other 0.1% --- more power
to you, and enjoy your wonderful lives. And that 99.9% who didn't earn what they have?
Even with a massively reduced wealth and privilege they'll live a vastly better life than
the other 99.9% ... so I'm not gonna cry for them, that's for sure!
Why set everyone against everyone else?
That is NOT necessary. I'm betting that 99.999% of blacks and all those other bogus
"groups" understand very clearly that a tiny percentage of rich and connected have a VAST
and mostly ARTIFICIAL advantage over everyone else --- AND they understand that if all
those artificial advantages were removed, THEY would do vastly better. And most
important, they would have a vastly better chance and easier time moving up the success
and wealth ladder.
Trump should stop falling into the Marxist trap by adopting the Marxist approach. I
agree that disadvantaged should be helped ... but they can be helped without creating
more artificial injustices. Where does the current Marxist approach end? With everyone
against everyone ... and a tiny elite at the top who are hyper-doodle-dandy rich and
powerful, with everyone else an abject slave.
-----
PS: Another problem with these endless special programs is ... the already rich and
connected always get richer and more connected by "administering" and "executing" these
special programs.
Maghreb2 , 6 hours ago
I agree with what your saying but your a ****** because its not a free market and
those rules haven't applied anywhere on the planet since 1970. It was dangerous idea to
think that way in the 19th century because the rich inherit and the middle class invent
jobs to fleece the tax payer. Now they do both plus they print money and give it to the
stock market all the time. Black areas can't afford to exist because they are caught
between tens of millions of Hispanic migrants, hundreds of millions of factory workers
Artificial intelligence automation and trillions of dollars pumped into the system to
gentrify. Its a fools errand.
If the whites stopped playing pretend for ten seconds they would realize 90% of jobs
can be automated with robotics and AI and/or done cheaper somewhere else. You have to be
Godlike to be relevant and funnily enough the Sportsman and Musicians occasionally are.
They don't make billions on Wall Street and can't retire if they don't make enough
money.
I predicted a plane crash 2 days ago it was actually a bombing. Its not a meritocracy
its a war. Humans have to fight for survival now and the fight will just get tougher. I
know the people who run the show its amusing for them .
inorganic , 6 hours ago
Every now and then I ask myself whether my desire for everyone to have a more fair
chance to rise to better situations is delusional ... if not wrong.
Well, I'm a long way from saying it is wrong, but the question of whether it is
delusional is always a difficult call for me. But I must say, as time passes, I have to
admit I am monotonically getting closer to saying it is. Which would be to agree with
you.
Part of the reason is ... there has always been (since I was 4 years old) such a huge
intellectual and existential gulf between my thoughts and actions versus the thoughts and
actions of others. The following are a few, just for context. Some are actually kind of
funny, but all were relevant.
age 4 : Based on hearing utterly contradictory statements from different adults, I
decided that I could not believe what adults tell me (meaning TRUST NO ONE ). Implicit in
this is the fact that I valued understanding reality infinitely more than getting treated
well (by repeating whatever adults told me).
age 4 : I taught myself to read (at least "well enough for now"). I still remember how
huge a struggle this was, and how much persistence was required. And got hooked on
astronomy. So I started reading lots of science books.
age 4 : I decided god does not exist. I won't go into the details of my reasoning, but
I literally thought I was the only human who believed this, because I never heard of of
anyone who also came to this conclusion.
age 5 : I decided to pretend I was an alien from another planet. This was a purposeful
intellectual device that I came up with to help me feel comfortable with not believing
what humans believe, and not feel pressure to conform (and thereby accept fiction and
nonsense). I decided I would operate as if I was an alien from somewhere far, far away
... and my job was simply to observe what these strange creatures do and believe.
age 5 : I figured out that "authority" was a bogus concept (later I would say
"fictional" concept). I distinguished "trade" from "authority".
age 5 : The very first thing at the start of the very first day of first grade, the
teacher made all the kids stand up, solemnly place their hand over their heart, and
repeat the "pledge of allegiance". I stood up, and I crossed both arms across my chest to
slightly simulate the whole reverence action, but did not say a word. I just listened.
And I thought about what was said. I recognized exactly what was being said, right from
the start. They wanted me to pledge to obey (in effect, to be a slave). But that wasn't
bad enough, I was supposed to be a slave to an inanimate object (a flag). That somehow
represents a "republic" (whatever that is, which I didn't know at the time). Then some
absurd filler. Then the payoff! The "with liberty and justice for all". I don't know why
I was different than the rest of the kids, but I recognized what I would later learn is a
concept called "bookends". This "pledge" was explicitly saying that "what constitutes
liberty and justice is ... being a slave!!! ". Holy crap! Until that moment I had not
realized how infinitely nefarious and diabolical human beings could be! But that set me
straight. Furthermore, at recess I tried to have conversations with other kids about what
happened first thing that morning. Not a single one of them noticed a thing. Some just
ran away laughing. Obviously the most evil and atrocious thing I had ever witnessed meant
nothing to them.
age 5 : Later that day (first day of school) the teacher pointed at the big A above
the blackboard and told the class "repeat after me". Then she said the word "A". The
class repeated. Then she did the same with "B" and "C" and "D". At first, I thought
something very sophisticated and "beyond my pea brain" was going on. What are they doing?
After a while, I figured it out ... the other kids can't read! They don't even know the
freaking alphabet. What am I doing here? :-o
age 5 : Based on the previous item I mentioned, I decided to ignore teachers. I would
spend all day reading my science books while the teachers were doing ... whatever they
were doing.
The rest of my life is just as "different" and "wacko" as the above. Even more so,
actually. But one constant was ... I diligently worked to observe and understand reality
based on my own observations (including with telescopes, which I taught myself to build).
And though I did play physical sports outside with other kids, almost all my time was
spent working on my own studies and projects.
In fact, after I got out of high school, the rest of my life I lived on an average of
36 to 48 hour days ... 12 hours of sleep and 24 to 36 hours of observe, study, work. And
mow lawns, shovel snow and babysit for neighbors for money to do my projects.
The bottom line is ... can I expect other humans to be or think even REMOTELY like me
after living such a different life? I think you are saying NO WAY . And I am getting
closer to agreement.
John Grady , 6 hours ago
BLM took that **** off their website saying that part of their plan was to destroy the
nuclear family a few days ago so I guess now they're wholesome. It's a LGBTQ outfit ran
by Marxist lesbians. Compared to them the KKK looks like the 4H Club.
Arch_Stanton , 4 hours ago
If antifa is a terrorist organization, then the Feds should go after their funding
sources immediately. It's publicly known who many of them are.
Not happening. Ever.
As for the KKK, you'd be arresting a lot of FBI agents working undercover in what is
essentially a honey pot.
"... If your category is "white," bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy ("Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness"), which naturally means "a positive white identity is an impossible goal." ..."
"... DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except "strive to be less white." To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo's lecturing – what she describes as "leaving the stress-inducing situation" – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the "ordeal by water" (if you float, you're a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia. ..."
"... White Fragility is based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. ..."
"... It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one's intended point, but this isn't uncommon in White Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna Karenina. ..."
"... Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself "antiracism" – I think it deserves that name a lot less than "pro-lifers" deserve theirs and am amazed journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed groups, allies, and white oppressors. ..."
"... This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy, is the vision of "progress" institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why? Maybe because it fits. It won't hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars. ..."
"... For corporate America the calculation is simple. What's easier, giving up business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There's a deal to be made here, greased by the fact that the "antiracism" prophets promoted in books like White Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. ..."
"... Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction. ..."
"... If you're wondering what that might look like, here's DiAngelo explaining how she handled the fallout from making a bad joke while she was "facilitating antiracism training" at the office of one of her clients. ..."
"... DiAngelo doesn't grasp the joke flopped and has to be told two days later that one of her web developer clients was offended. In despair, she writes, "I seek out a friend who is white and has a solid understanding of cross-racial dynamics." ..."
"... After DiAngelo confesses her feelings of embarrassment, shame and guilt to the enlightened white cross-racial dynamics expert (everyone should have such a person on speed-dial), she approaches the offended web developer. She asks, "Would you be willing to grant me the opportunity to repair the racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?" At which point the web developer agrees, leading to a conversation establishing the parameters of problematic joke resolution. ..."
"... This dialogue straight out of South Park – "Is it okay if I touch your penis? No, you may not touch my penis at this time!" – has a good shot of becoming standard at every transnational corporation, law firm, university, newsroom, etc. ..."
"... One of the central tenets of DiAngelo's book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed through constant, "lifelong" vigilance, much like the battle with addiction . A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts -- in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever. ..."
"... Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that "anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the Writer's Union of Canada for the crime of "cultural appropriation," and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki "doesn't see the humanity of indigenous peoples." Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing to provide proof that she was Indigenous. ..."
"... People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of "anti-black racism" to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to start submarining each other's careers before they've even finished growing? ..."
This is part of a larger piece that will be made available to subscribers later this
week:
A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools in America since
the early nineties was the view that individual rights, humanism, and the democratic process
are all just stalking-horses for white supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like
former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility (Amazon's #1
seller !) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to
racial power contests.
It's been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it
surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today
cheered , "American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary
escapism." When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon
gushed , "I know everyone wants to talk to you right now!" White Fragility has been
pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of
George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except
this isn't a straightforward book about examining one's own prejudices. Have the people hyping
this impressively crazy book actually read it?
DiAngelo isn't the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual
horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race
theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal
human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but
only by our racial category.
If your category is "white," bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in
white supremacy ("Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities Whiteness has always
been predicated on blackness"), which naturally means "a positive white identity is an
impossible goal."
DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except "strive to be less white." To
deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo's
lecturing – what she describes as "leaving the stress-inducing situation" – is to
affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the "ordeal by water"
(if you float, you're a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.
DiAngelo's writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of
this type is built around the same principles as Orwell's Newspeak : it banishes
ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like
racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform , center and
silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices . Ironically,
Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like " AMAZING !" and "
SAD !" that are
simultaneously more childish and livelier.
Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly nouns out of ugly
verbs (there are countless permutations on centering and privileging alone). In a
world where only a few ideas are considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. "To be
less white is to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the comfort
of white people," or "Ruth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness,
describes whiteness as multidimensional "
DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for speaking clearly. "When
there is disequilibrium in the habitus -- when social cues are unfamiliar and/or when they
challenge our capital -- we use strategies to regain our balance," she says ("People taken out
of their comfort zones find ways to deal," according to Google Translate). Ideas that go
through the English-DiAngelo translator usually end up significantly altered, as in this key
part of the book when she addresses Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream," speech:
One line of King's speech in particular -- that one day he might be judged by the content
of his character and not the color of his skin -- was seized upon by the white public because
the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that
we don't see race, and racism will end. Color blindness was now promoted as the remedy for
racism, with white people insisting that they didn't see race or, if they did, that it had no
meaning to them.
That this speech was held up as the framework for American race relations for more than half
a century precisely because people of all races understood King to be referring to a difficult
and beautiful long-term goal worth pursuing is discounted, of course.
White Fragility is
based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of
their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving
one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. This is an important passage
because rejection of King's "dream" of racial harmony -- not even as a description of the
obviously flawed present, but as the aspirational goal of a better future -- has become a
central tenet of this brand of antiracist doctrine mainstream press outlets are rushing to
embrace.
The book's most amazing passage concerns the story of Jackie Robinson:
The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by
rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often
celebrated as the first African American to break the color line
While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as
racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson
finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong
enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this:
"Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball."
There is not a single baseball fan anywhere – literally not one, except perhaps Robin
DiAngelo, I guess – who believes Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier because he
"finally had what it took to play with whites." Everyone familiar with this story understands
that Robinson had to be exceptional, both as a player and as a human being, to confront the
racist institution known as Major League Baseball.
His story has always been understood as a
complex, long-developing political tale about overcoming violent systemic oppression. For DiAngelo to suggest history should re-cast Robinson as "the first black man whites allowed to
play major league baseball" is grotesque and profoundly belittling.
Robinson's story moreover did not render "whites, white privilege, and racist institutions
invisible." It did the opposite. Robinson uncovered a generation of job inflation for mediocre
white ballplayers in a dramatic example of "privilege" that was keenly understood by baseball
fans of all races fifty years before White Fragility. Baseball statistics nerds have
long been arguing about whether to put asterisks next to
the records of white stars who never had to pitch to Josh Gibson, or hit against prime Satchel
Paige or Webster McDonald. Robinson's story, on every level, exposed and evangelized the truth
about the very forces DiAngelo argues it rendered "invisible."
It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the
mathematical opposite of one's intended point, but this isn't uncommon in White
Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal
read like Anna Karenina.
Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself "antiracism"
– I think it deserves that name a lot less than "pro-lifers" deserve theirs and am amazed
journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race
relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed
groups, allies, and white oppressors.
Where we reside on the spectrum of righteousness is, they say, almost entirely determined by
birth, a view probably shared by a lot of 4chan readers. With a full commitment to the
program of psychological ablutions outlined in the book, one may strive for a "less white
identity," but again, DiAngelo explicitly rejects the Kingian goal of just trying to love one
another as impossible, for two people born with different skin colors.
This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy,
is the vision of "progress" institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why?
Maybe because it fits. It won't hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades
now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts
since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars.
Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture, have already embraced this
performative race politics as a useful tool for disciplining apostates like Bernie Sanders.
Bernie took off in presidential politics as a hard-charging crusader against a Wall
Street-fattened political establishment, and exited four years later a self-flagellating,
defeated old white man who seemed to regret not apologizing more for his third house. Clad in
kente cloth scarves, the Democrats who crushed him will burn up CSPAN with homilies on
privilege even as they reassure donors they'll stay away from Medicare for All or the carried
interest tax break.
For corporate America the calculation is simple. What's easier, giving up business models
based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There's a deal to
be made here, greased by the fact that the "antiracism" prophets promoted in books like
White Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual
rights, freedom of speech, etc.
Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be
addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute
codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction.
If you're wondering what that might look like, here's DiAngelo explaining how she handled
the fallout from making a bad joke while she was "facilitating antiracism training" at the
office of one of her clients.
When one employee responds negatively to the training, DiAngelo quips the person must have
been put off by one of her Black female team members: "The white people," she says, "were
scared by Deborah's hair." (White priests of antiracism like DiAngelo seem universally to be
more awkward and clueless around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction
worker).
DiAngelo doesn't grasp the joke flopped and has to be told two days later that one of her
web developer clients was offended. In despair, she writes, "I seek out a friend who is white
and has a solid understanding of cross-racial dynamics."
After DiAngelo confesses her feelings of embarrassment, shame and guilt to the enlightened
white cross-racial dynamics expert (everyone should have such a person on speed-dial), she
approaches the offended web developer. She asks, "Would you be willing to grant me the
opportunity to repair the racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?" At which point the
web developer agrees, leading to a conversation establishing the parameters of problematic joke
resolution.
This dialogue straight
out ofSouth
Park – "Is it okay if I touch your penis? No, you may not touch my penis at this
time!" – has a good shot of becoming standard at every transnational corporation, law
firm, university, newsroom, etc.
Of course the upside such consultants can offer is an important one. Under pressure from
people like this, companies might address long-overdue inequities in boardroom diversity.
The downside, which we're already seeing, is that organizations everywhere will embrace
powerful new tools for solving professional disputes, through a never-ending purge. One of the
central tenets of DiAngelo's book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and
can only be managed through constant, "lifelong" vigilance, much like the
battle with addiction . A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced
toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts -- in the
fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.
Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar
to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three
years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was
denounced for expressing the opinion that "anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to
imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the
Writer's Union of Canada for the crime of "cultural appropriation," and denounced as a racist
by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki "doesn't see the
humanity of indigenous peoples." Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing
to provide proof that she was Indigenous.
Michael Korenberg, the chair of the board at the University of British Columbia, was
forced to
resign for liking tweets by Dinesh D'Souza and Donald Trump, which you might think is fine
– but what about Latino electrical worker Emmanuel Cafferty, fired
after a white activist took a photo of him making an OK symbol (it was described online as a
"white power" sign)? How about Sue Schafer, the heretofore unknown graphic designer the
Washington Post
decided to out in a 3000-word article for attending a Halloween party two years ago in
blackface (a failed parody of a different blackface incident involving Megyn Kelly)? She
was fired, of course. How was this news? Why was ruining this person's life necessary?
People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and
colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a
salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of
"anti-black racism" to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to
start submarining each other's careers before they've even finished growing?
"People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don't want people
like that to keep getting jobs," one 16 year-old said. "Someone rly started a Google doc of
racists and their info for us to ruin their lives I love twitter," wrote a different person,
adding cheery emojis.
A bizarre echo of North Korea's "
three generations of punishment " doctrine could be seen in the
boycotts of Holy Land grocery , a well-known hummus maker in Minneapolis. In recent weeks
it's been abandoned by clients and seen
its lease pulled because of racist tweets made by the CEO's 14 year-old daughter eight
years ago.
Parents calling out their kids is also in vogue. In Slate, "Making a Mountain Out of
a Molehill" wrote to advice columnist Michelle Herman in a letter headlined, " I
think I've screwed up the way my kids think about race ." The problem, the aggrieved parent
noted, was that his/her sons had gone to a diverse school, and their "closest friends are still
a mix of black, Hispanic, and white kids," which to them was natural. The parent worried when
one son was asked to fill out an application for a potential college roommate and expressed
annoyance at having to specify race, because "I don't care about race."
Clearly, a situation needing fixing! The parent asked if someone who didn't care about race
was "just as racist as someone who only has white friends" and asked if it was "too late" to do
anything. No fear, Herman wrote: it's never too late for kids like yours to educate themselves.
To help, she linked to a program of materials designed for just that purpose, a " Lesson
Plan for Being An Ally ," that included a month of readings of White Fragility.
Hopefully that kid with the Black and Hispanic friends can be cured!
This notion that color-blindness is itself racist, one of the main themes of White
Fragility , could have amazing consequences. In researching I Can't Breathe, I met
civil rights activists who recounted decades of struggle to remove race from the law. I heard
stories of lawyers who were physically threatened for years in places like rural Arkansas just
for trying to end explicit hiring and housing discrimination and other remnants of Jim Crow.
Last week, an Oregon County casually exempted "people of color
who have heightened concerns about racial profiling" from a Covid-19 related mask order. Who
thinks creating different laws for different racial categories is going to end well? When has
it ever?
At a time of catastrophe and national despair, when conservative nationalism is on the rise
and violent confrontation on the streets is becoming commonplace, it's extremely suspicious
that the books politicians, the press, university administrators, and corporate consultants
alike are asking us to read are urging us to put race even more at the center of our
identities, and fetishize the unbridgeable nature of our differences. Meanwhile books like
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, which are both
beautiful and actually anti-racist, have been banned, for
containing the "N-word ." ( White Fragility contains it too, by the way). It's
almost like someone thinks there's a benefit to keeping people divided.
The CEO of Wells Fargo
offered a groveling apology for his "unconscious bias" and promised more diversity at one of
the largest US banks, after a quote from an internal memo caused outrage; even some members of
Congress joined in.
"I apologize for making an insensitive comment reflecting my own unconscious bias,"
Charlie Scharf said in a
statement released on Wednesday. "There are many talented diverse individuals working at
Wells Fargo and throughout the financial services industry and I never meant to imply
otherwise."
The San Francisco-based Wells Fargo is now "requiring diverse candidate slates for key
roles with compensation of more than $100,000 and increasing business with diverse
suppliers," the statement said. Moreover, year-end bonuses for executives will be tied to
"progress in improving diverse representation and inclusion in their area of
responsibility."
Scharf's apology and Wells Fargo's newly reasserted commitment to diversity follows a storm
of criticism, including from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) after a remark
in an internal memo was quoted by Reuters.
"While it might sound like an excuse, the unfortunate reality is that there is a very
limited pool of black talent to recruit from," Scharf had written in a memo dated June 18,
which pledged more diversity at the bank, the largest in the US by the number of employees.
Initially, the CEO tried to say his comment had been "misinterpreted," adding that
the financial industry doesn't "reflect the diversity of our population" and that Wells
Fargo was committed to changing that. The explanation was not accepted by the online outrage
mob.
It is unclear whether such a course would fall afoul of the executive order issued by
President Donald Trump on Tuesday, which prohibits federal agencies and the military from
funding ideologies that "promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating," including
among contractors who wish to do business with the government.
In the
executive order , titled "Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping," Trump
wrote that many people are pushing an ideology that is a "different vision of America that is
grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the
inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual."
"This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an
irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or
sex, are oppressors ; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our
common status as human beings and Americans," Trump wrote, later calling the ideology
"divisive."
The president provided a number of examples of such critical race theory trainings, which
included a seminar recently held by the Treasury Department that promoted the message that
"virtually all White people, regardless of how 'woke' they are, contribute to racism." The same
seminar was found to have told small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid the idea
that Americans should be "more color-blind" or "let people's skills and personalities be what
differentiates them."
In another example, the Sandia National Laboratories, a research lab and a federal entity,
was found to have stated in training materials for non-minority males that an emphasis on
"rationality over emotionality" was a characteristic of "white male[s]." The training materials
also asked the trainees to "acknowledge" their "privilege" to each other.
The Argonne National Laboratories, a research center under the U.S. Department of Energy,
was found to have stated in its training materials that racism "is interwoven into every fabric
of America." It also characterized statements like "color blindness" and "meritocracy" as
"action of bias."
The executive order also pointed to the Smithsonian Institution in another example, where
one of the museum's graphics asserted that concepts such as "objective, rational linear
thinking," "hard work" being "the key to success," the "nuclear family," and belief in a single
god are "aspects and assumptions of whiteness" and not values that would unite Americans. The
museum also stated that "[f]acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt,
sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear," according to the order.
Macho Latte , 6 hours ago
After 30+ years of brain washing, the students of our public schools and Ivy League
universities are now the leaders of corporate America and populate all branches of federal,
state and local government. They actually believe all the racist propaganda they have been
taught, which is one of the reasons they give money to outfits like BLM. It is their belief
system now. They are automatons living in a science fiction world where they are triggered to
act and react in a per-programmed manner. It has nothing to do with intelligence. They cannot
help themselves.
And to what end? Are those privileged white corporate giants and mega rich blacks anxious
to sacrifice their life, their job or their wealth for some nameless, faceless black person?
NO way Jose! It's YOUR job and YOUR life they intend to destroy as an unintended consequence
of cleansing the earth of white, heterosexual male racists and all non-believers.
Insane? Absolutely. And they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their belief system.
It's happening now and is going to get worse. Normal people are going to have to figure a way
to deal with them and it won't be pretty. There is no choice. Fight fire with fire.
Black Lies Matter
toady , 6 hours ago
This is the kind of thing that drives the demonrats nuts.
They continually INSIST that Trump is racist, but can never provide any proof, just
innuendo and sniveling.
Now Trump comes out and provides proof that THEY are racist AND sexist, and are actively
pushing this agenda using their official capacity.
onemorething , 6 hours ago
facts don't matter
High Vigilante , 5 hours ago
It's the old Mao style cultural revolution shoved through Americans throats. Here is the 2
minutes video, same middle class shaming, statue destroying, history rewriting:
"" President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to
stop funding to federal government contractors who hold critical race theory training
sessions."
YES!! "Silence is complicity" as leftarded sheep often bleat, and silence in the face of
this ultra-racist bullsh!t has gone on far too long. Never should've been allowed to begin
with.
Son of Loki , 6 hours ago
Obama and his pet Wookie encouraged it.
Nunyadambizness , 4 hours ago
His pet Wookie Biden?
Oh, wait... you meant Michael. Never mind...
Gold Banit , 6 hours ago
This is the end for the lying racist corrupt DemoRat Scum party!
In 2016 Trump won big with only 8% of the black support and 29% of the Hispanic
support.
The DemoRat Party CNN and the Fake News are in a panic and are very desperate cause their
internal polling is showing that 60% of blacks will be voting for Trump and 70% of Hispanics
will be voting for Trump and Trump will win in a landslide 50 states on Nov. 2020...
And when and if the guns come out and the shootings starts the DemoRat cowards will put
their tails between their legs and run away and never to bee seen again...
bobert , 5 hours ago
Black Lies Matter (BLM) and I'm getting tired of this charade.
Good for President Trump. One brave guy!
Isn't it clear by now that POTUS just does what is right?
What has he done or said in three and a half years to deserve the animosity directed
toward him?
Trump haters need to listen to what he says and look at what he does and then form their
opinion of him rather than forming their opinion based on what somebody else says.
Geeeezzzzz..........
Nunyadambizness , 4 hours ago
Trump haters and never Trumpers CANNOT form their opinion outside of the media. They don't
have the critical thinking ability to do so, so they listen to the bullshiite prattled by the
media (of all channels), and form their opinions around it.
Look, Trump was not my guy in the primaries of 2016 and I didn't think he would amount to
much if elected. However, when he became the nominee against the most corrupt and evil
candidate ever for President from any party, my choice was clear. Since becoming President he
has accomplished much--even with Congress initially failing to support him, and then 1/2 of
Congress actively working against him. He has won me over, but not just me--millions of
others who doubted him, and I am hopeful he will continue to do the right things.
Xev Bellringer , 6 hours ago
Great! Now get rid of affirmative action and all the other racist / sexist programs.
TBT or not TBT , 6 hours ago
California has it on the ballot to allow racial discrimination, in the California
Constitution.
Awesome, not politically correct but truly correct!
Good start...
palmereldritch , 5 hours ago
They are anti-family, anti-human, anti-human rights operating under the guise of equity
when they instead seek the opposite, to sow division and inequity so that they can then loot
and conquer from the resulting carnage.
They are the Satanic Death Cult called Communism and are funded and spawned by
International Banksters.
CosmoJoe , 5 hours ago
Thats right. Trump stomping his foot right on the nutsack of these lunatics and grinding
his foot back and forth.
Walking Turtle , 6 hours ago
Well GOOD!
Don't stop, Sir! This **** is being pulled all up and down the line. Our city halls are
swarming now with thirty-something University degree-holders who take no little delight in
subjugating the vulnerable townsfolk they draw into their sphere with their destructive
regulations and Bolshevistic protocols of governance with that very crap and its derivative
power plays. Our sweet nation's corporate boards are infested; the Critical Attitude
Adjustment policies, when adhered-to, out-and-out violate all fiduciary responsibility
previously enforced. "Get Woke Go Broke" is NOT why we buy shares in these "persons",
Sir!
Not for the sake of the mere color of any mere bag of living human skin. Rather for the
sake of the content of the wearer's character . Once we return to that long-subverted and
original ML King standard, we shall recover from this war's ravages just dandy.
Oh but how did we get this way tbw, Sir...? Well, it was your foes and mine, the Crooked
Fibbies, who shot the Good Man who set the standard (enunciated above) down like a dog. Then
various [DS] cadres stepped into the Moral Vacuum and the abject creeping degradation has
been on our backs ever since.
Kindly DO carry on with this WONDERFUL prohibition, Sir! It is imvho long overdue . Oh,
and please see that the FDA/CDC/etc FINALLY speak the TRUTH about what the consumption of
fluoridated drinking water does to human intelligence levels - those poor saps out there
being usefully destructive idiots for Uncle George could do far better without it.
All the Rest of Us too, for that matter. And that is all. 0{:-)o[
RedNeckMother , 4 hours ago
Company I work at is 90% snowflakes, academic types. They've had a series of black
awareness programs ever since the corporate apologies started. Latest one is to watch some
black victim documentary and then zoom in for a discussion. What the ****. Whatever happened
to just working for a paycheck?
snatchpounder , 6 hours ago
CRT to AmeriKa is like Nelson Mandela to S.Africa . In the former it'll lead to violence against Caucasians
because of their skin color. In the latter it lead to blacks killing Caucasians and stealing
their farms. Soros and like minded psychopaths are funding all of this and they're the ones
who need to be dealt with. You take away the funding and these vermin in the streets will
fade away.
WorkingClassMan , 6 hours ago
Barr-none is right on it!
alia2526 , 6 hours ago
Racist and sectarian comment.
snatchpounder , 6 hours ago
CRT is racist you idiot.
NewDarwin , 6 hours ago
Make America Fair Again!
ebworthen , 6 hours ago
Black Lives Matter but White Privilege?
Isn't valuing people by race one way or another discrimination and bias?
What do you do with a mulatto, or half-Asian half-Latino?
Oh wait...I know...value an individual by the content of their character?
Let me guess..."Dat's rayciss!".
Petrodollar System Beneficiary , 4 hours ago
Sad that this country requires an executive order to combat this kind of problem. Cultural
mistakes usually garner quick feedback, what is amazing is how so many deer in headlights
allow these programs to even begin. Logic and reason is unbiased. Being fearful of truth is
unreasonable and illogical. This country is weak minded for allowing to occur in the first
place
Angular Momentum , 4 hours ago
Trouble is these pod people have infiltrated business management. Now it isn't enough to
do good work, you have to agree with the ideology. Another problem is all it takes to get
sued is one marginalized employee to whine about a hostile work environment. Businesses
protect themselves from liability by having a record of combatting discrimination through
worker training. The more lawyers in on this scam, the more lawyers are needed.
In the early 1980s, students of color at Harvard Law School organized protests in various
forms to problematize the lack of racial diversity in the curriculum, as well as among students
and faculty. These students supported Professor Derrick Bell, who left Harvard Law in 1980 to
become the dean at University of Oregon School of Law. During his time at Harvard, Bell had
developed new courses which studied American law through a racial lens that students of color
wanted faculty of color to teach in his absence. However, the university, ignoring student
requests, hired two white civil rights attorneys instead. In response, numerous students,
including Kimberlé Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda, boycotted and organized to develop an
"Alternative Course" using Bell's Race, Racism, and American Law (1973, 1st edition) as a core
text and included guest speakers Richard Delgado and Neil Gotanda.[11][12]
The theory itself is a kind of Lysenkoism in this particular area. Read voodoo science. This pseudoscience includes
several themes (Wikipedia)
Critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social
transformation, as opposed to liberalism's more cautious approach; a race-conscious approach
to transformation rejecting liberal embrace of affirmative action, color blindness, role
modeling, or the merit principle; and an approach that relies more on political organizing,
in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.
Storytelling, counter-storytelling, and "naming one's own reality": The use of narrative to illuminate and explore
experiences of racial oppression. B
Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress: Criticism
of civil-rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law, such as Brown v. Board of Education.
Derrick Bell, one of CRT's founders, argued that civil rights advances for blacks coincided
with the self-interest of white elitists. Likewise, Mary L. Dudziak performed extensive
archival research in the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice, including the
correspondence by U.S. ambassadors abroad, and found that U.S. civil rights legislation was
not passed because people of color were discriminated against. Rather, it was enacted in
order to improve the image of the United States in the eyes of third-world countries that the
US needed as allies during the Cold War.
Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems.
Intersectional theory: The examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and
sexual orientation, and how their combination plays out in various settings, e.g., how the
needs of a Latina female are different from those of a black male and whose needs are the
ones promoted.
Essentialism: Reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the
experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans). In essence, all oppressed
people share the commonality of oppression. However, such oppression varies by gender, class,
race, etc., and therefore, the aims and strategies will differ for each of these groups.
Non-white cultural nationalism and separatism (incl. Black nationalism): The
exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of
foreign aid.
Legal institutions, critical pedagogy , and minority
lawyers in the bar.
Structural determinism : Exploration of how "the
structure of legal thought or culture influences its content," whereby a particular mode of
thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually occurring
without conscious knowledge. As such, theorists posit that our system cannot redress certain
kinds of wrongs.
White
privilege : Belief in the notion of a myriad of social advantages, benefits, and
courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race (i.e. white people). A clerk
not following you around in a store or not having people cross the street at night to avoid
you, are two examples of white privilege.
Microaggression : Belief in the
notion that sudden, stunning, or dispiriting transactions have the power to mar the everyday
of oppressed individuals. These include small acts of racism consciously or unconsciously
perpetrated, whereby an analogy could be that of water dripping on a rock wearing away at it
slowly. Microaggressions are based on the assumptions about racial matters that are absorbed
from cultural
heritage .
Empathetic fallacy : Believing that one can change a narrative by offering an
alternative narrative in hopes that the listener's empathy will quickly and reliably take
over. Empathy is not enough to change racism as most people are not exposed to many people
different from themselves and people mostly seek out information about their own culture and
group.
Critique
Any rational legal scholar should reject CRT as voood science. But somehow it crioped in many federal againces.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to stop funding to federal government contractors who hold critical
race theory training sessions.
“The President signed an Executive Order to end training sessions based on race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating in
the Federal workforce, the Uniformed Services, and among Federal contractors,” the White House said in an announcement.
“This order will prohibit Federal agencies and Federal contractors from conducting training that promotes race stereotyping,
for example, by portraying certain races as oppressors by virtue of their birth.”
The president provided a number of examples of such critical race theory trainings, which included a seminar recently held by
the Treasury Department that promoted the message that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are,
contribute to racism.” The same seminar was found to have told small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid the idea that
Americans should be “more color-blind” or “let people’s skills and personalities be what differentiates them.”
In another example, the Sandia National Laboratories, a research lab and a federal entity, was found to have stated in
training materials for non-minority males that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” was a characteristic of “white
male[s].” The training materials also asked the trainees to “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other.
The Argonne National Laboratories, a research center under the U.S. Department of Energy, was found to have stated in its
training materials that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America.” It also characterized statements like “color
blindness” and “meritocracy” as “action of bias.”
The executive order also pointed to the Smithsonian Institution in another example, where one of the museum’s graphics
asserted that concepts such as “objective, rational linear thinking,” “hard work” being “the key to success,” the “nuclear
family,” and belief in a single god are “aspects and assumptions of whiteness” and not values that would unite Americans. The
museum also stated that “[f]acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness,
or fear,” according to the order.
Many rational legal scholars have criticized CRT as pseudoscience and voodoo: CRT scholars'
reliance on narrative and storytelling, or CRT's critique of objectivity.
Judge Richard
Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has "labeled critical race theorists and
postmodernists the 'lunatic core' of 'radical legal egalitarianism.'" He wrote:
What is most arresting about critical race theory is that it turns its back on the Western
tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal
logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories – fictional,
science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal – designed to expose
the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned
argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of
nonwhites.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that critical race theorists
have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various
disciplines unattainable:
The radical multiculturalists' views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding.
Consider the "Space Traders" story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick
Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either
accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to
the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who
risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960s.
Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is
Bell's insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in
the Holocaust – as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the
name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned – and rightly so.
Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical
feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked
to undermine notions of democratic community, and has impeded dialogue.
Jeffrey J. Pyle wrote in the Boston College Law Review:[40]
Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal
order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral
principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis
in principle, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The
rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled
government, and they have lost patience with false promises.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, considers CRT a "grievance
ideology" and an "absurdity". He sees the central tenet of "white racism in the American legal
system" to be shown false because of items such as the 14th Amendment, the Voting Rights Acts,
and Brown v. Board of Education.[41] Critics including George Will saw resonances between
critical race theory's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to
objective judgments in the US and the acquittal of O. J. Simpson.[42][43]
In September 2020, the White House Office of Management and Budget took steps to cancel
funding for training in critical race theory among federal agencies on the basis that it
constituted "divisive, un-American propaganda".[
Controversies Critical race theory has stirred controversy since the 1980s over such issues
as its:
deviation from the ideal of color blindness; promotion of the use of narrative in legal
studies;
advocacy of "legal instrumentalism" as opposed to ideal-driven uses of the law;
analysis of the U.S. Constitution and existing law as constructed according to and
perpetuating racial power;
and encouragement of legal scholars to be partial on the side of promoting racial
equity.[43]
In 2010, the Mexican American Studies Department Programs in Tucson, Arizona were
effectively banned due to their connection to CRT, which was seen to be in violation of a
recently-passed state law that "prohibits schools from offering courses that 'advocate ethnic
solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals'."[46] The ban included the
confiscation of books, in some cases in front of students, by the Tucson Unified School
District.
Matt de la Peña's young-adult novel Mexican WhiteBoy was banned for containing CRT,
However, this ban was later deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that the state showed
discriminatory intent. "Both enactment and enforcement were motivated by racial animus,"
federal Judge A. Wallace Tashima said in the ruling.
Derrick Bell as the founder of
critical rase thory and black racism
Derrick Albert Bell Jr. (November 6, 1930 – October 5, 2011) became the first tenured
African-American professor of law at Harvard Law School, and he is often credited as one of the
originators of critical race theory along with Richard Delgado, Charles Lawrence, Mari Matsuda,
and Patricia Williams. He promoted quota systems for racial groups in faculty which is a racist
stance in itself.
He was a visiting professor at New York University School of Law[3] from 1991 until his
death. For five years he was also a dean of the University of Oregon School of Law.
He was hired by Harvard Law School In the 1970s, with the help of protests from black
Harvard Law School students for a minority faculty member. At Harvard, Bell established a new
course in civil rights law, published a book, Race, Racism and American Law, and produced
several law review articles.
In 1980, he started a five-year tenure as dean of the University of Oregon School of Law,
interrupted by his resignation after the university refused to hire an Asian-American woman he
had chosen to join the faculty.
Returning to Harvard in 1986, after a year-long stint at Stanford University, Bell staged a
five-day sit-in in his office to protest the school's failure to grant tenure to two professors
on staff, both of whose work promoted critical race theory. The sit-in was widely supported by
students, but divided the faculty, as Harvard administrators claimed the professors were denied
tenure for substandard scholarship and teaching.[8]
In 1990, Harvard Law School had 60 tenured professors. Three of these were black men, and
five of them were women, but there were no African-American women among them -- a dearth Bell
decided to protest with an unpaid leave of absence.[8][11] Students supported the move which
critics found "counterproductive," while Harvard administrators cited a lack of qualified
candidates, defending that they had taken great strides in the previous decade to bring women
and black people onto the faculty.[8] The story of his protest is detailed in his book
Confronting Authority.
Bell's protest at Harvard stirred angry criticism by opposing Harvard Law faculty who
called him "a media manipulator who unfairly attacked the school," noting that other people had
accused him of "depriv[ing] students of an education while he makes money on the lecture
circuit."[12]
Bell took his leave of absence and accepted a visiting professorship at NYU Law, starting in
1991. After two years, Harvard had still not hired any minority women, and Bell requested an
extension of his leave, which the school refused, thereby ending his tenure.
Later in 1998, Harvard Law hired civil rights attorney and U.S. assistant attorney general
nominee Lani Guinier, who became the law school's first black female tenured
professor.[1][13]
In March 2012, five months after his death, Bell became the target of conservative media,
including Breitbart and Sean Hannity, in an exposé of President Barack Obama. The
controversy focused on a 1990 video of Obama praising Bell at a protest by Harvard Law School
students over the perceived lack of diversity in the school's faculty. Bell's widow stated that
Bell and Obama had "very little contact" after Obama's law school graduation. She said that as
far as she remembered, "He never had contact with the president as president."[14] An
examination of Senior Lecturer Obama's syllabus for his course on race and law at the
University of Chicago revealed significant differences between Obama's perspective and that of
Derrick Bell, even as Obama drew on major writings of critical race theory.[15]
NYU School of Law Bell's visiting professorship at New York University began in 1991. After
his two-year leave of absence, his position at Harvard ended and he remained at NYU where he
continued to write and lecture on issues of race and civil rights.
Bell and other legal scholars began using the phrase "critical race theory" (CRT) in the
1970s as a takeoff on "critical legal theory", a branch of legal scholarship that challenges
the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality.
Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical framework with
roots in Marxist thought.
Bell continued writing about critical race theory after accepting a teaching position at
Harvard University. He worked alongside lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the
country. Much of his legal scholarship was influenced by his experience both as a black man and
as a civil rights attorney. Writing in a narrative style, Bell contributed to the intellectual
discussions on race. According to Bell, his purpose in writing was to examine the racial issues
within the context of their economic and social and political dimensions from a legal
standpoint. Bell's critical race theory was eventually branched into more theories describing
the hardships of other races as well, such as AsianCrit (Asian), FemCrit (Women), LatCrit
(Latino), TribalCrit (American Indian), and WhiteCrit (White).[21] His theories were based on
the following propositions:
First, racism is ordinary, not aberrational.[22] Second, white-over-color ascendancy serves
important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group.[22] Third, "social
construction" thesis holds that race and races are products of social thought and
relations.[22] Fourth, how a dominant society racializes different minority groups at different
times, in response to shifting needs such as the labor market.[22] Fifth, intersectionality and
anti-essentialism is the idea that each race has its own origins and ever-evolving history.[22]
Sixth, voice-of-color thesis holds that because of different histories and experiences to white
counterparts', matters that the whites are unlikely to know can be conveyed.[22] CRT has also
led to the study of microaggressions, Paradigmatic kinship, the historical origins and shifting
paradigmatic vision of CRT, and how in depth legal studies show law serves the interests of the
powerful groups in society. Microaggressions are subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/or
visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously.[23]
For instance, in The Constitutional Contradiction, Bell argued that the framers of the
Constitution chose the rewards of property over justice. With regard to the interest
convergence, he maintains that "whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they
also promote white self-interest." Finally, in The Price of Racial Remedies, Bell argues that
whites will not support civil rights policies that may threaten white social status. Similar
themes can be found in another well-known piece entitled, "Who's Afraid of Critical Race
Theory?" from 1995.[24]
His 2002 book, Ethical Ambition, encourages a life of ethical behavior, including "a good
job well done, giving credit to others, standing up for what you believe in, voluntarily
returning lost valuables, choosing what feels right over what might feel good right
now".[25]
Over the past few months, most Americans have begun to hear the terms "Critical Theory" or "Critical Race Theory".
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is the better moniker, as the theory is about "race, racism and power", and so I will
use CRT throughout this article. Though the roots of CRT go back to at least the 1970s, the theory has come from
beyond the halls of academia to becoming a profound influence on modern society.
The problem comes with the
general misunderstanding of CRT as being solely about helping fight racism. CRT goes well beyond fighting racism.
It not only demands a reordering of American society, but acts as a replacement for the Christian worldview in
America. Let me explain.
First, I have previously written about the ideas of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, and Gramsci relates directly
to CRT. Gramsci wrote about the need to overturn the alleged "cultural hegemony" of a society with an alternative
narrative as a necessary precursor to Communist Revolution. Gramsci's ideas generated what has become known as
"Cultural Marxism", which infiltrated American academia starting as early as the 1940s. CRT was developed at the
time many American socialist and/or Marxist academics were adapting Gramscian theory to American society. It was
a way to help flip the alleged cultural hegemony through the rhetoric of racism, and yet going well beyond
individual racism. It was developed with a Marxist, therefore Materialist and atheist worldview, and focuses on
power relationships over actual racism.
Richard Delgado's & Jean Stefancic's book,
Critical
Race Theory: An Introduction
provides the following insights: "The critical race theory (CRT) movement is
a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying
and transforming
the
relationship among race, racism, and power It not only tries to understand our social situation,
but
to change it
; it sets out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and
hierarchies, but to transform it for the better (pp. 2-3; emphasis added)." Delgado and Stefancic write that CRT
holds "racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society ..the individual racist need not
exist (in order for) institutional racism [to be] pervasive in the dominant culture." In other words, even if
whites, as an alleged dominant group, are not individually racist, racism still exists and will exists due to
whites being a dominant culture. The only seeming way to end racism is ending the alleged cultural hegemony,
though CRT seems to hold whites as irredeemably racist without means of redemption.
UCLAs School of Public Affairs provides perhaps the iconic statement of CRT. The statement is rooted in Marxist
understanding of materialism, power relationship, and atheist worldview. According to the school of public
affairs CRT is justified "based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of
people of color". Non-Whites are alleged to be systematically oppressed by cultural hegemonic structures.
Regardless of whether or not whites are racist, and whether the system allows legal equal opportunity, white
privilege and white supremacy is assumed to exist. CRT doesn't seek to fix individual acts of racism, but is
committed to transforming the hegemony. Ironically, whites can "never" question the basis of CRT: If you question
it, you are proving your racism. Additionally, CRT holds that those in the alleged dominant group cannot know
about racism, but those in the non-dominant group always understand racism. If one from the dominant group denies
something had a racist intent, the non-dominant group is the final judge and only one to understand what is
actually racism.
As nationally recognized theologian, pastor, and Christian author John F. MacArthur has noted about the threat of
CRT to Christianity: "CRT (along with every other Marxist ideology) cannot be reconciled with what the Bible
teaches about sin and salvation. First, to view all relationships in terms of power dynamics requires that people
be seen in terms of the powerful (privileged, oppressors) and the powerless (marginalized, oppressed). Apart from
striking out against God-ordained hierarchies and authority structures (by evaluating them as oppressive power
structures), this way of viewing the world fails to evaluate people in their primary relationship, which is as
creatures made in the image of their Creator. He who defines the problem gets to define the solution. If the main
problem for "people of color" is that they are inevitably oppressed by structures that are inherently oppressive,
then the only solution is to tear down those structures in the pursuit of justice. This way of thinking at the
very least clouds the fact revealed in the Bible that every person's fundamental problem is that they have sinned
against the holy God who created them. This is true for people in any and every category -- whether oppressed or
oppressor, victim or victimizer, marginalized or privileged. The fundamental need, therefore, of every person is
to be reconciled to God. This is exactly what has been provided through the life, death, and resurrection of
Jesus. In other words, mankind's greatest need is met in the gospel."
The Christian worldview has been the American worldview from the founding. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America
a half century after it's founding: "There is no country on Earth in which the Christian religion holds great sway
over the souls of men than in America". Part of that worldview is the acceptance of the equal sin condition of
every man, regardless of race, and the equal need for forgiveness and redemption through Jesus Christ. It is not a
worldview of group power struggles and materialism, as with atheistic communism. As the Bible asserts about the
focus on the importance of individual redemption and unity in Christ: Galatians 3:27-28, "For as many of you as
were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." CRT is diametrically opposed to the Christian
worldview. Marx held that "religion is the opiate of the people" and that his principal aim in life was "to
dethrone God and destroy capitalism.
CRT has all the characteristics of a religion and acts as a competitor religion to Christianity in America. Even
the special and almost mystical knowledge of racism by non-dominant groups that dominant groups cannot know.
Unlike Christianity, CRT holds the alleged cultural hegemony (founded on the Christian worldview) is the root of
all problems and must be overturned. The Christian focus on individual recognition of sin, regardless of place in
any alleged power structure, and the need for redemption through Christ is anathema to CRT. With this, CRT follows
the Gramscian alternative narrative holds that American history that of an evil oppression of minority groups by a
cultural hegemony that must be undermined and flipped. Next step is a Communist Revolution in following Gramsci to
the end.
America is at a crossroad. Our future is in question. We can continue with the America envisioned by our founders
and enjoy the greatest nation on Earth, or we can follow ideas like CRT to see the end of the American
experiment. The choice is ours.
Bill Connor, an Army Infantry colonel, author and Orangeburg attorney, has deployed multiple times to the
Middle East. Connor was the senior U.S. military adviser to Afghan forces in Helmand Province, where he
received the Bronze Star. A Citadel graduate with a JD from USC, he is also a Distinguished Graduate of the
U.S. Army War College, earning his master of strategic studies. He is the author of the book
Articles
from War
.
President Donald Trump
signed an executive order on Tuesday to stop funding to federal government contractors who hold
critical race
theory training sessions.
"The President signed an Executive Order to end training sessions based on race and sex
stereotyping and scapegoating in the Federal workforce, the Uniformed Services, and among
Federal contractors," the White House said in an
announcement .
"This order will prohibit Federal agencies and Federal contractors from conducting
training that promotes race stereotyping, for example, by portraying certain races as
oppressors by virtue of their birth."
In the
executive order , titled "Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping," Trump
wrote that many people are pushing an ideology that is a "different vision of America that is
grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the
inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual."
"This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an
irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or
sex, are oppressors ; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our
common status as human beings and Americans," Trump wrote, later calling the ideology
"divisive."
The president provided a number of examples of such critical race theory trainings, which
included a seminar recently held by the Treasury Department that promoted the message that
"virtually all White people, regardless of how 'woke' they are, contribute to racism." The same
seminar was found to have told small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid the idea
that Americans should be "more color-blind" or "let people's skills and personalities be what
differentiates them."
In another example, the Sandia National Laboratories, a research lab and a federal entity,
was found to have stated in training materials for non-minority males that an emphasis on
"rationality over emotionality" was a characteristic of "white male[s]." The training materials
also asked the trainees to "acknowledge" their "privilege" to each other.
The Argonne National Laboratories, a research center under the U.S. Department of Energy,
was found to have stated in its training materials that racism "is interwoven into every fabric
of America." It also characterized statements like "color blindness" and "meritocracy" as
"action of bias."
The executive order also pointed to the Smithsonian Institution in another example, where
one of the museum's graphics asserted that concepts such as "objective, rational linear
thinking," "hard work" being "the key to success," the "nuclear family," and belief in a single
god are "aspects and assumptions of whiteness" and not values that would unite Americans. The
museum also stated that "[f]acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt,
sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear," according to the order.
"All of this is contrary to the fundamental premises underpinning our Republic: that all
individuals are created equal and should be allowed an equal opportunity under the law to
pursue happiness and prosper based on individual merit," Trump wrote in the order.
Trump said in the order that such trainings "[perpetuate] racial stereotypes and division
and can use subtle coercive pressure to ensure conformity of viewpoint."
"Such ideas may be fashionable in the academy, but they have no place in programs and
activities supported by Federal taxpayer dollars," the president wrote. "Research also
suggests that blame-focused diversity training reinforces biases and decreases opportunities
for minorities."
Trump's latest action comes after the White House
announced an order earlier this month to stop taxpayer-funded critical race theory training
sessions to government workers in various U.S. executive branch agencies.
In a statement on Twitter, the president announced late Tuesday: "A few weeks ago, I BANNED
efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based
ideologies.
"Today, I've expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country,
the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught
to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don't, there's nothing in it for you!"
Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said on Twitter: "This is
another important step that builds off his directive to agencies to stop trainings that push a
radical anti-American agenda."
"In the face of lies meant to divide us, demoralize us, and diminish us, we will show that
the story of America unites us, inspires us, includes us all, and makes everyone free," Trump
said in a
statement .
"" President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to
stop funding to federal government contractors who hold critical race theory training
sessions."
YES!! "Silence is complicity" as leftarded sheep often bleat, and silence in the face of
this ultra-racist bullsh!t has gone on far too long. Never should've been allowed to begin
with.
Antifa and BLM are just shows with stunts designed to distract people from the level they are
fleeced by MIC and financial oligarchy. As well as restore the legitimacy of Clinton wing of
neoliberal oligarchy which was badly shaken during 2016 election, when their candidate was send
packing.
Nicholas Kristof is member of "Clinton gang of neoliberals" and a part of this effort to
distract people. The number of people who pay attention to Nicholas Kristof bloviations is
astounding. Few understand that we do not know the facts and the real issue if the tight grip of
MIC and financial oligarchy on the society. What is interesting is that s in California, there
are 8.5 million residents born outside the country and about 150,000 homeless. "The melting pot
burned over. It is now a ... salad.
For example, if money spend on wars were used to manage thoseforests with difficult terrain
and perioc drauts, would the outcome be different?
Can those fires and destruction be viewed as God punishment for war the USA unleashed? As
Thomas Jefferson said "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."
BTW, the number of commenters with Russian paranoia symptom is frightening. Of course NYT
attracts specific audience, but still. In this sense NYT columnists including Nickolas Kristof
are just warmongering bottom feeders of MIC crumps. It is pathetic how he tries to hide the lack
of money for forest management and mismanagement if this issue by Oregon Dem politician under the
broad banner of "climate change" Existence of climate change does not mean that fire should burn
uncontrollably.
MIC steals half trillion dollars and then financial oligarchy steals probably another half,
if not more. What is left is not enough for proper maintenance of land, water and environment in
general. Stupid situation, but this is neoliberalism my friend, where "greed is good". And people
chose this mousetrap themselves in 1970th by electing first Carter and then Reagan and then
Clinton , allowing financial oligarchy to dismantle New Deal Capitalism. Clinton presidency was
especially destructive, In a way he should be views as the top villain in this story, a real
criminal boss.
Below I selected only more or less sane comment (which constitute probably less 1% of the
total)
Notable quotes:
"... How about a judicious Forrest management? ..."
"... So much for our useless 750 Billion dollar military budget. ..."
"... Amazing how ,close minded people become when, for them, everything is political. ..."
Wouldn't the conspiracy theories and concerns about antifa be lessened if progresses were as
vitriolic about violence committed in the name of equity, diversity and inclusion as they are
about violence committed in support of MAGA? Would the right have anything to crow about if
the NYT was as critical of physical altercations caused by social justice warriors as they
are of white supremacists? Wouldn't we all have more trust in MSM if they investigated the
facts before accusing Nick Sandman of racism or claiming a garbage pull was a noose? One
sided reporting and editorials like these fan the flames rather than squelch them.
It's amazing. You can write a column in the NY Times full of conspiracy theories -- all fully
believed by the left -- and accuse the right of being prone to believing conspiracy theories.
From Russia - collusion to rubes in the red states --a majority of dems share a set of
beliefs that are as delusional as anything a small group on the right might believe. But,
that's Kristof and the Ny Times for you.
People seemed to have lost a sense of what is plausible. While few of us know the news first
hand, we have to both trust and evaluate what is reported. Nothing is absolute. Jurors are
asked to decide cases beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how I feel taking in the news. But
within that sliver of doubt, within the fact that nothing is absolute is where conspiracy
theories begin to fester. It is where some have found solace to confirm what they want to
choose to believe despite how much there might be to question that. Events like this create
an opportunism to demonize those you hate and in doing so the essence of what we should be
debating is lost. How to prevent these fires in the first place? We will probably continue to
debate it despite the evidence on climate change, whether there is a deep state trying to
discredit Trump, whether the seriousness of covid is a hoax. Yes there is no absolute
certainty but there is taking an educated guess as opposed to an emotional response. I'll go
with the educated guess. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I
will say it is a duck and accept that sliver of possibility I might be wrong.
Why do people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories?" It's actually quite simple. Take
QAnon for example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with
any religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while
offering a path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential
elements of cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever
you believe will be "validated." "Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories,
merely assertions. A theory is subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where
truth has no inherent monetary value, don't expect it. Why the rapid spread? To paraphrase
Bill Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability =
Profit That is the business model of the internet, a medium where "news" is whatever will
produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and until the youngest generation developes a
means of communication that does not depend on megacorporations, nothing will change. In the
Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had no honest access to the traditional media,
created its own, the "alternative press." Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their
own way to communicate that is reliable. It is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition"
becomes an actual threat to the profits of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of
their ilk, they will be cut off.
The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of
August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity.[73]
It is particularly present in the Pacific Northwest.[74] Wikipedia
In an age when the US Justice Department is anything but just, more closely resembling
something akin to "just us," I call to mind Thomas Jefferson, in a somewhat different
context: "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."
We spend hundred of billions of dollars every year on the types of weapons that won WWII,
while the real threat to our Republic and yes, our civilization, is ,,, It's funny and
tragic, simultaneously.
Antifa has done a lot of things. They have chosen to step into the arena. Whether they did it
or not, this is accusation is a result of wading into the fight. If Antifa doesnt like to be
accused of things and cant handle it, then Antifa should step off. Or does Antifa only want
praise? Because that isnt going to happen. Many people dont like Antifa nor trust Antifa. And
rightfully so. Ask any career criminal how many times they've been wrongfully accused of
something. If an individual or group doesnt want to be accused of things, then dont get
involved from the start.
Except that about a dozen people have been arrested and charged with starting the forest
fires. Shouting "without evidence!" doesn't make it so. Facts matter.
@JQGALT There are always people who are setting fires whether accidentally or intentionally.
Do you have any proof that these arsonists were politically motivated I any way ?
Yet the Almeda fire in Oregon that destroyed more than 2,300 homes was, according to NYT
reporting, caused by human activity and is subject of a "criminal investigation." Perhaps it
would be wise to reserve total judgment until that investigation is completed.
Who needs rumors? The organization showed what it is made of when it created its free zone in
downtown Seattle and had the highest crime and murder rate per capita in its short life in
the country.
Rational people know that Antifa is not staring forest fires. However, burning and looting
and using fireworks as weapons in the recent riots make even the dumbest claims of Trump
supporters more believable.
Leftwing activists have literally been arrested for starting some of these fires. There is
video of arsonists being caught, yet the media ignores this, and actively denies it. Gee, why
could that be?
@LV Do you have any proof that these people were were left wing activist or just the kind of
people who are always starting fires ad they have in the past ?
The [neoliberal] left spends 24/7 preaching to their choir about Trump fascists dictatorship,
an illegal government installed by a foreign power, destroying the constitution while
preparing to seize power and ignore coming election results. There is a zero factual evidence
for it, such as a refusal to follow judicial injunctions for example, but their well educated
audiences are buying it whole day long. So what is so baffling that a rural audience after
watching night after night Portland burning by arson and accompanied by "peaceful protest"
graphics on TV would buy into arson speculations and rumors and ignore your disclaimers?
Facebook needs to be regulated since it has effectively organ-harvested the critical thinking
skills of a significant portion of the population. It'd be better if thinking people simply
deleted Facebook and let Facebook shrink and become the right-wing agit-prop tool that it
truly is. Mark Zuckerberg is happy to to destabilize society with his little toy invention.
You'd think with all that money, he could afford a conscience. What a wrecking ball Facebook
is.
"All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the
shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." Ya think?
@California Scientist Amen. We are more like an international terminal at this point. A bunch
of people gathered by happenstance, heading in different directions, and often with very
little in common.
@California Scientist: It is even worse than when Adlai Stevenson noted that there aren't
enough educated people to elect a liberal government in the US.
@LV - The point is that "urbanites" aren't able to boss anyone around. It's the low
population rural areas that have outsize political power thanks to the unfortunate design of
our government. Every state gets two senators, regardless of population, and that also
factors into the allocation of Electoral College votes, so that an EC vote from WY is worth 4
times as much as an EC vote from CA, for example. In 2016, Senate Democrats got 20 million
more votes than Senate Republicans, yet Republicans kept control. In 2018, Senate Democrats
got "only" 11.5 million more votes, and consequently lost seats. We're being governed by a
minority in may areas of the country, and nationally, yet the "rural rubes" or whatever you
want to call them, insist that they don't have nearly enough power.
Strange that anyone living in or just knowing the west would NOT know that arsonists could
not burn down huge chunks of forest if they where not so very dry.
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt
Sept. 20
The ugly truth of Oregon's political past is asserting itself...we aren't in "Portlandia"
anymore Nick.
Ominous! There are two information ecosystems in this country and Americans increasingly live
in different realities. Much of the media is in the business of massaging the egos of their
readers by feeding them stories that confirm their biases and make them feel clever. There is
less and less fact based news and more and more propaganda. A lot of people aren't really
interested in facts. They just want to be told how right they are and how stupid and evil the
people who disagree with them are. Media corporations are providing the market with what it
desires, and what it desires is poisonous.
There is a reptilian brain need to believe this nonsense and to propagate it- because the
believers are so terrified of the facts of the truth (and the lack of knowing what might be
done to address those facts). The people who are true believers are pointless to discuss.
They are too frightened. They need to believe this stuff. It is hopeless to address them.
Dark times, indeed.
With the natural buildup of combustible matter, combined with houses everywhere now and
little land management, these fires will happen and will cause problems. Lots of things can
start them and they will.
You left out "a century of zero-tolerance policies toward wildland fires (creating
precariously dense underbrush), and resistance to traditional controlled burning at the
human/wilderness interface". It's not the whole story, but neither is climate change which,
due to global technological leveling, is evermore the responsibility of China and India than
Western civilization. Signed, a moderate progressive endlessly frustrated with breathless
liberalism
If only there were no arsonists. Here is a video of a woman who found a man on her property
with matches in his hand (and no cigarettes, which was his excuse for having matches in his
hand). She made a citizen's arrest. This happened in peaceful Oregon. Don't listen if you
can't handle harsh language by a woman who is trying to save her property. Arson is real, and
it is no joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJW_M4pBCnY
A man was arrested for arson in Southern Oregon. His fire damaged or destroyed numerous
homes.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-arson-connection-almeda-fire-southern-oregon/story?id=72960208
Rumors of antifa notwithstanding, people in Oregon were looking for arsonists because there
are arsonists.
"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is
subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary
value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow
the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet,
a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and
until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on
megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had
no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press."
Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It
is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of
Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why
people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for
example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any
religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a
path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of
cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe
will be "validated."
"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is
subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary
value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow
the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet,
a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and
until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on
megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had
no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press."
Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It
is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of
Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why
people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for
example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any
religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a
path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of
cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe
will be "validated."
" All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the
shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." You betcha.
(Palin doesn't look half bad compared to the current batch.) It's a simple formula: social
media driven disinformation + extreme capitalism which leaves us with no real will to address
it + legitimate grievances like racism and financial insecurity = craziness on all sides,
fanned by a president whose personal agenda takes precedence over absolutely everything. All
societies are constantly dealing with potentially destabilizing threats. Their institutions,
media, leadership, and understanding of a common good are their immune system. Ours is
compromised, we are destabilized.
How about a judicious Forrest management? We live in a period of global warming
because of our planet axis precision, aggravated by the presence of an unprecedented
population explosion needing more water, more food, the production of which needs more arable
land, cutting trees, displacing wild animals, exhausting the aquifer. Cutting trees increases
the CO2 in the atmosphere. More people in India, more cattle emitting methane, more old
fashioned way of cooking food and producing more CO2 ... Permanent frost melting also sends
more methane in the atmosphere ... The climate is extremely complex to permit exact modeling,
but it is clear that if we want to stay healthy, it is vital to regularly clear our western
forests of dead wood in order to prevent today's disaster of millions of people, particularly
children with asthma and old people breathing the heavily polluted air. It is time to move to
solar, wind power, electric trucks, cars etc. The technology is here. Let's hope that Biden
will support clean air as means to better health. If all these years instead of using
abstract terms like global warming or climate change, we have been appealing to people to
keep the air clean in order to have better health, perhaps they would have stopped buying the
behemoths cars, producing so much pollution?
As Nicholas and many readers on this page already know, this commentary is more evidence of
how needlessly and recklessly polarized our country has become. When tribal instincts push
people to look for anything - fact, fiction or fantasy - on social media or "rage commentary"
that supports and validates their identities they will glom onto it faster than maggots on
dead flesh. It is a sad state of affairs when so many people of all political persuasions
will not take the time - even a few minutes - to question and investigate the latest "truth"
being promoted. The new culture of low information consumers seems to be spreading as fast as
a pandemic despite the heroic efforts of honest journalism. I wonder if low information
consumption was so endemic to the citizens of Ancient Rome and Greece - long before Twitter,
Facebook and Rage TV? People, please take a moment to "click" one step further to see if the
latest conspiracy story is true. Why help propagate lies? It will only come back to haunt
you, or your children.
Antifa or not, at least some of the big fires have been started by arsonists. Of this fact we
have video proof. By downplaying or even denying it, the media are just as bad as the
conspiracy theorists in promoting disinformation.
This reminds me of a time when people saw "Reds" behind anything that was going wrong in the
country. Nothing new, but just as pathetically paranoid. I wonder how many people, or their
parents, fit into both groups?
Here's another urban myth. Ok, more a lefty myth. That we can just keep adding people to this
country (urban, suburban, rural, big city, anywhere and everywhere) and it won't have any
effect. With the corollary that it's just a matter of "green new deal" or everybody getting a
Prius or the dummies in the sticks realizing climate change is real and then we can just go
on like this forever. We can't. Not only is our much hated lifestyle, which from what I can
see, nobody really wants to give up, killing us, but believing 330 million Americans that add
2-3 million more a year is not a problem at all. Our entire way of life: endless population
and economic growth is unsustainable. We don't need to wait until 2050 to see it. Just step
outside.
It is very difficult to teach people that "research," doesn't mean you go to some TV show or
website you like and root around for stuff that tells you what you want to hear. One prob
seems to be really simple: it takes actual work to do it right. Another is that research,
done well, has an ugly habit of forcing you to think at least a little about whether your own
ideas make any sense. And a third is that people really, really don't like it when their
political views start getting contradicted by reality. It seems to be easier to change
reality than to change views, even a little. Oh, and another prob? Too few Americans really
read anything worth reading. I'm all for funsies (and I've probably read more crummy science
fiction than all y'all put together) but one of the joys of walking around in Paris is seeing
that the kiosks and bookstores still sell a ton of stuff on philosophy, lit, economics, and
that everywhere, people actually read them. Books teach thought. Newsmax don't.
@Beer Can Boyd: As a native-born American, I think the US fell down when the Congress put
"under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1953, ostensibly to preclude anyone thinking
about Godless communism, and gave itself a stroke.
The melting pot burned over. It is now a word salad. But appears there is a method to the
madness. It is hard for the world to tell the madness from the method
@Carolyn then there are the lies and the demonization of China and Russia by both parties to
top it off. How can voters believe anything and decide before they vote?
Supporting this atmosphere of potential violence are some of my republican friends. They are
mostly educated and not stupid. Yet they continue to support a man whom I think holds the
responsibility for most of the violence if it comes. Now I want to get down to my point about
these supporters. I believe they have succumbed to a cult-like dynamic. I say this because no
rational person could possibly support Trump. Religious cults create this same addiction and
irrationality. When my friends disagree with me, they try to put our friendship hostage to no
further discussion of politics. They are unwilling to even be confronted with objections to
their support of Trump. I have decided that I can always make new friends. What I do not want
to do is take on the task of building a new country because I stayed silent.
@Harcourt "They are mostly educated and not stupid." In my opinion, educated persons who
behave as you describe never benefited from their education. Even worse, to me it seems like
persons who behave like that are of the opinion that what they learnt in school is only for
the purpose of writing the exams they needed to pass to get out of school. It was all just
noise to them.
You nailed it. There is no longer "a shared reality" in America. So we have wildly different
views of who Joe Biden and Donald Trump are. And how serious climate change is. And whether
it's important to wear a mask. And if left-wing anarchists set forest fires. Thank you,
Internet. Thank you, social media barons who refuse to ban Russian propaganda and manipulated
videos. Thank you FCC that does not rein in Fox News and their promotion of lies. Who will
step in and stop this madness?
@CA I agree with you completely except for the refusal to stop Russian interference. We
can't. We can't unless we stop US interference in the process. The problem is that US
interference, and rumor mongering, are the business model of these platforms which happen to
be some of our largest companies. Extreme capitalism is preventing us from addressing any and
all issues propagated by these companies. Russia is just a speck.
Antifa adherents and wildfires ? Seems pretty far-fetched. Even ridiculous. But setting fire
to occupied apartment buildings in Portland ? Oh yes, definitely. It happened, and more is on
the menu, as well as municipal and federal buildings. Don't believe it ? Read the news
releases for yourself, on the Portland Police Bureau's website.
An excellent discussion of the perils of social media. Although newspapers, TV, radio,
magazines have a historical principal of "generally" telling the truth, social media has
opened up the world to every single Tom, Dick and Harry who with to spread their message. I
believe that how we, as a nation, as a species, handle social media will define what happens
over the next decade.
The state of this country is absolutely terrifying. While the shift to ever more
conservative, insular, xenophobic, coroporate-controlled government has been going on for
years, with the faux election of trump democracy is what has become fake, while common sense,
empathy, and both fiscal and environmental responsibility have virtually disappeared. The US
has gone off the deep end...
Years ago I read a science fiction short story that is unsettling in its analogy to this
situation. I starts with aliens visiting the Earth and accidently leaving behind a device
that can allow metal to be manipulated by softening it, then hardening it. The device gets
copied and mass produced. When they returned a year later, they come back and cannot fathom
how their device could have resulted in anarchy. THAT is the internet. 5 Recommend Share
Let me ask you all a question. If your neighbor told you the fire in a nearby Oregon town was
started by antifa, how would you disprove it? Since you cannot provide evidence for a
negative statement, it's difficult. There is actually some evidence that antifa did start the
fire: a voice said it on the radio, and tv showed them lighting fireworks in Portland. This
isn't very good evidence, but it is evidence, and you can't produce any evidence that antifa
did not do it (because there can't be any.) So you are in the position of asking your
neighbor to look at the quality of the evidence. This is something very few outside the legal
and scientific world are capable of. But that is all you have. Ultimately, it really does go
back to belief. How many of us could independently prove that the earth turns around the sun?
Those of us who aren't astronomers choose to accept this belief based on what we've been
told, and that's how it is with antifa starting the fires.
Kristof is afraid that fires in the West represent the new normal. The evidence suggests that
this fear is well-founded. He is concerned about the government's paralysis. That is partly
due to Trump, who stands a good chance of being reelected on November 3. He is worried about
ordinary citizens seeking oversimplified answers and finding them in the conspiracy theories
presenting the fire as the work of antifa. I am more worried about the breakdown in
credibility of news sources like the NY Times, which finds itself in competition with Fox
News and a host of online sources. Indeed, you-tube and facebook will select news stories for
you, confirming whatever bias you bring to your reading of the news. There is no guarantee
that democracy will survive. One of the things that keeps me up at night is the realization
that not only the right, but the left, is subject to oversimplified presentations of global
warming. Global warming is a consequence of too much population growth. But as we argue over
freedoms for LGBTQ minorities liberals have neglected the importance of freedom of speech.
And voices which have warned about population growth have been simply ignored by the left. It
isn't enough to shift from Fords using gasoline to Teslas running on electricity. We also
need to control population growth. The population of earth will double again by 2072 if
current rates continue. Population growth threatens to overwhelm the attempts to move to
clean energy. 2 Recommend
The scientific consensus will also conclude that not allowing wildfires to burn compounds the
problem. While what I am about to type is not science, continued development in fire prone
areas amplifies and compounds every aspect of the problem. From my perspective the system has
evolved to socializing cost and privatizing cost in every way. I don't see it getting better,
until such time as individuals are held accountable this should be considered normal.
@secular socialist dem PG&E just paid billions in fines and PLEADED GUILTY in starting
last year's Paradise fire. They also have already admitted fault in several fires started by
their faulty, untended grid. "Individuals" don't need to be held accountable unless there are
rules in place for them to follow regarding wildfire. There already are. Most already do. Why
do folks act so proud about their 'anti-science' opinion? It's not like this conversation
isn't ongoing; nobody argues that development in fire prone areas' carries risks. So does
rebuilding in Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana..... You're right (although confused) about
socializing RISK and privatizing PROFIT. See PG&E above.
Unsure how people lighting fires directly indicates climate change is corroborated. The
fellow who was arrested in Tacoma, WA: https://thepostmillennial.com/antifa-activist-charged-for-fire-set-in-washington
Looking to past wildfires, like the one's in Montana & Idaho in 2008, 5.5 million acres
were burned and certain interest groups advocated for them to burn out because it's apart of
the natural cycle. Federal government shouldn't send assistance unless it's possibly to
communities in threat of burning, who are humans to say we ought to stop mother nature? It's
natural to let these fires burn, if you try to hinder it's course you are stopping the cycle.
Doug Terry Maryland, Washington DC metro
Sept. 20 Times Pick
Why do people believe wild stupid things more than actual facts? Partly it is because they
like the wild stupid thing more, it gives them some weird comfort. It is also because people
are busying with their lives and don't have time to gather enough information to counter the
wild rumor that flies around faster than the speed of sound. The most important aspect of
successful conspiracy theories is they impart to the person holding them the idea that they
are smarter than other people and have "cracked the code" that explains everything or a lot
of big things that people don't understand. Reading, thinking, considering and re-considering
can seem like hard work, particularly if it is foreign to one's experience and life training.
Why not just lock on to a cool idea that comes around, even if it is weird? .
This story highlights for me an equally growing problem, the "selective framing" by media
outlets on the left and right (NYT and Fox as just two examples). To read Mr Kristof's
version, you may believe that arsonists are wild figments of the unhinged radical right
imagination. To read the same story on Fox, Antifa arsonists are working their way up your
street.
"...the shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." And
yet reality still exist. Normally, if someone starts to exhibit the kind of behavior that
these "vigilantes" are - screaming about boogeymen, thinking people are out to get them,
engaging in aggressive behavior based on paranoid fantasies, creating self-reinforcing
delusions, becoming obsessed with baseless conspiracy theories - we would rightly diagnose
them as being mentally ill, and to the extent that they represent a danger to others, confine
them. I don't think we can afford to see this as just a time of extreme differences of
opinion. Facts, truth and reality are still actual, tangible things. And those who have
become so disassociated from them that they are stopping vehicles and hunting down their
fellow citizen need to be dealt with appropriately.
We have been witnessing the start of the Second Civil War in America. If we accept the
definition of a civil war as a conflict between factions of citizens for either secession or
control of the government--including organizations within the existing government--then we
are in the beginning stages of a Second Civil War. The question is what the level of violence
will be (not will there be violence, but how much violence). We are beginning to see
indications of that level. When naturally or accidentally caused wildfires are attributed to
one faction as a way to stoke the fires of civil violence, then physical violence between
factions is a heartbeat away simply because of the falsity and extremity of the accusations.
The era of peaceful protest has passed because of the intensity of feelings on both sides;
the anger produced when a government begins denying civil rights, e.g., Freedom of Speech and
the Right to Assemble, through legal actions where protest organizers could be charged with
sedition (see Barr's comments, 9/16/2020, NYT), which then suggests that all protests become
illegal, the fires of violence are stoked. With a heavily-armed populace on both sides,
gunfire is a hair-trigger pull away. If Trump and the Republican's intention was to remake
America in their image (I leave it to you to supply that image), they are succeeding. If
Putin's intention was to bring down America, he is succeeding. If Xi's intention was to
dominate the world, he is on that path. Vote 33 Recommend Share
... There's an old saying "Those who the gods would destroy they first make mad." I have come
to the conclusion that America has gone qute a long way down that road.
And yet, Mr. Kristoff, you never make mention of the real threat that groups like Antifa and
other radical left rioters pose to this country (forgetting about attacks on federal
buildings in Portland? Attempts to firebomb courthouses? Violence against law enforcement
officers?). No, instead it's always Trump, or Trump supporters who are your focus. I do not
know whether Antifa has been involved in any of these recent fires, but I do know that these
violent elements on the left pose a massive danger to our democracy. You are correct about
one thing, though: We should brace ourselves. It's just "what" we need to brace for that is
off mark in your article...
It's heartbreaking to watch these three West Coast states burned. For days, the sky was red
and the air was unbreathable. But the saddest part was the feeling of helplessness.
40 years ago, I hitchhiked around the Pacific Northwest during the summer after Mt. St.
Helens blew up. Mt. Rainier was ash-coated, as were the wild blueberries I often ate. Epic
and Biblical are words inadequate to describe that destruction near Mt. St. Helens, with
millions of huge, old trees blown down, piles of mud, and rivers diverted. Yet I and others
knew that eventually, that land would regrow, and it did.
I see a lot of egotism and self-love on both sides. The so-called progressives in our
community are breeding at baby boom levels, driving SUVs, and, before the pandemic, you'd see
a dozen school buses idling outside every school. Development is out of control as people
flee from the city, and people flee from here, or downsize, and breed and breed and breed.
Two years ago, we had a flash flood and our street was under water, and there was a lot of
damage all over town. Hurricane Irene in 2011 left many with over a foot of water in their
basements. And let's not even start on Sandy. My friend lives in Pensacola; their downtown
area is under three or four feet of water from Hurricane Sally. It's not just fire, it's
floods, and it's not just the GOP which is the problem...
I don't blame anyone for guarding their roads if they think arsonists are about. The
Tillamook Burn was larger and more devastating than these fires but are we to blame climate
change ? Environmentalists and Liberals who do not even live out West, who did not rely upon
Logging, placed their concerns about the Spotted Owl and Virgin Forests about the danger of
Forest Fires and the livelihood of Loggers and the Towns and Peoples who depended upon
Logging. Managed Logging of Forests is not an inherently evil act. Clearing the bush and dead
trees is not bad in and of itself. Let Logging companies responsibly manage sections of the
Forrests, let Towns clear fire breaks around their perimeters. Place large Water towers in
strategic points throughout the Forests, huge mounds of dirt/sand/gravel next to them so that
the Firefighters have what they need to fight the fires. Force developers to build houses 50
feet apart. Require fireproof roofs, require thinning of trees in housing developments.
Require volunteer Fire Departments in every neighborhood so that if they do nothing else,
they can cut a fire break, water down the grasses around their neighborhoods, chase and
extinguish embers, something/anything versus fleeing their homes without putting up a fight.
"... dry conditions exacerbated by climate change coupled with an unusual windstorm ..." May
I add that a couple of other things have also contributed to making the fires worse or making
them harder to manage? For a century or so, in California, Oregon and Washington we have not
been letting the normal, periodic fires burn. Consequently, a great deal of fuel has built up
on the forest floor. Second, folks have increasingly been building homes or even
neighborhoods in places which have historically seen such normal, periodic fires.
@Robert Yes. But now controlled burns are a bit problematic, given the droughts, the heat,
the massive fuel loads from all the dead trees. It's just so easy for the controlled burns to
get out of control.
Hi, I am from Clackamas County metro. Every time a FaceBook "Friend" (and I personally know
all of mine) posted a rumor, I tried to find the footage from any of our 4 local news
stations to depute their post but they just shared another one. One said she didn't trust KGW
8 the local NBC station and when I told her the same story was on KPTV 12, the local Fox
station. She said, "I'm just stressed"
@David Biesecker Remember that half the people are of below average intelligence. That may
answer the existence of the small percentage of conspiracy theorists. One problem is social
media provides free and outsized loudspeaker systems that enables them to find each other.
@M.i. Estner First, let me identify myself as a liberal Democrat who has a masters degree. I
find it more than disheartening when half of the country, or half of rural or not formally
educated folks are said to have low intelligent quotas, critical thinking skills or
analytical abilities. You better believe that when a highly trained Eastern Oregon
firefighter is assessing how to save peoples lives, homes and land, has to quickly act with
their many faceted skill set and are calling on abilities you or I would not be able to
fathom. Same with farmers of large pieces of complicated crops and land. Same with city
managers, librarians, and social workers for the elderly--all having low city budgets. What
about the veterinarians, doctors and nurses in rural areas? This is exactly the same as
calling Black or Hispanics people of lower intelligence. And, there are different types of
intelligence. I know a literary critic, a liberal Democrat, who doesn't have the critical
thinking skills to run her own home or raise her children. If you look, you can see these
same differences in any group. It has to do with the way people are raised, what they are
using their skill sets for, what information they are used to consuming, money, ideology,
etc...And it has to do with being devalued for growing your food, producing your meat,
chicken and eggs. I'm not excusing the violence, guns, racism and hatred. These divides have
been with us for ages. Please don't stoke the fires.
If we have a selfish federal government, then we will have selfish states and people.
Everyone is for himself or herself. No one will think about other people or public good. It
all started from the top
In 2017, 2018, and 2019 northern California's new phenomenon of forceful 40 to 60 miles per
hour winds - in Fall, no less - caused old and aging electrical equipment to malfunction. As
a consequence, too much of Santa Rosa burnt to the ground, and the entire town of Paradise
ceased to exist. This year during the heat of a hotter than usual summer following yet
another dry winter, we had dry lightning strikes from Sonoma County to Santa Clara County and
beyond.
Yes, the science is clear and you fail to mention it. The forest fires reach critical mass
and spread because of the surplus of dead or dying trees. They are there because the federal
government essentially no longer allows logging on its vast landholdings and also fails to
allow controlled burns to clean out the tinderbox. I won't bother attaching a link because
any Google search proves the point. Why focus on hysteria and rumermongering among the
Deplorables? Come on, Mr. Kristof, you were a Deplorable once (when you were a kid growing up
in the countryside) as was I. Please defend them sometimes, particularly when the actual
causes are so well documented.
@Stuck on a mountain Western States are working to clear the brush from forests where, due to
our previous incomplete understanding of forest ecology, fires were suppressed for a century.
However, the cost is astronomical and there are millions of acres left to clear. Spending
their entire forest management budgets fighting current wildfires doesn't help. We've been
doing controlled burns for decades but in many areas, they're now too dangerous. Dry forests
and a dense understory can quickly turn a "controlled burn" into a conflagration. Many
ranchers and timber companies who profit from our state and national forests seem unwilling
to pay to keep those forests healthy. People who live in or near forests mostly have incomes
too low to pay for forest management. The National Forest Service, Department of the Interior
and USDA have made some progress, but the problem is huge. Saying we can prevent forest fires
by allowing larger timber harvests is an oversimplification. No solution to this complex
issue will be simple, perfect or cheap.
Wacky conspiracy theories to explain seemingly bizarre and unusual occurrences have been
around since the dawn of human cognition. But in an electronic/social media age, these get
spread even faster than a wind-blown fire climbs a canyon hillside. Previously, they were
spread one set of ears at a time; now millions of eyes can read them every second. And that
is a major part of the problem.
As a grad student in sociology, having lived through the 60s and participated in the
counterculture, I was deeply intrigued by the social construction of reality - how we come to
share a taken-for-granted world. This is a long-standing concern within sociological social
psychology. We examined how language, interpersonal communications, media and social
structure shaped ones perception of one's self, what is real, what's important. At the time,
however, this was considered theoretical and academic. 40 years later, understanding how
Americans' realities have come to diverge is no longer armchair social science. It's urgent
and in our faces, as is the question of how can we heal this terrible fracturing of our
world?
@DeHypnotist Yes. When studying for the degree in and then teaching sociology in my early
years, I learned that, too. But, I have to admit, it's actually taken all the decades of life
since then, and now the obvious confirmation of it by this current 'reality' to actually
realize, deep down in my guts, that we 'make up' our so-called 'social reality' simply to
serve the most basic of biological requirements: the need to dominate in the deadly
completion with the other 'tribes' of our species just to survive. We are, after all, animals
like all the others, no matter how much we blab about how much 'smarter' we are.
@Alex B The primal driver, deep in the core of our brain, is usefully thought of as
"reptilian." Cold-blooded. Egoistic. Hedonistic. And, in extreme cases, narcissistic, and,
heaven forbid when all three are present...
I lived for a few years in Brazil when it was a dictatorship. The similarities between Brazil
and what is happening in the US is startling. The police were being used to quell peaceful
protesters and the justice system co-opted by authorities, fear mongering were present, just
as now in the US....
I didn't live in the US from 1977-1999, only visiting on short trips. That enabled me to see
changes in society that were slow and not seen by those residing here. And when I came back
permanently I could feel immediately a deep change....
Perhaps an apt metaphor for the "danger sign ahead" is the approach of a Category three
hurricane and it's increasing in intensity. One of the stark disconnects is between the
message in an article like this and the politicians and citizens who are little concerned
about tempering rhetoric and elevating the importance of eschewing misinformation. We are in
the Misinformation Age and the victims of a cyber war, evolving into a civil war.
@ML What is happening here? These are the beginnings of what happened in Germany in the 30s.
Over there the reason was the loss of WWI. Here, is the obvious decline of the American
lifestyle and we have not seen anything yet. The range of the economic decline is covered by
7 trillion dollars in phony money. I fervently hope and pray that is not too late to stop the
process. All men and women of goodwill have to rally to restore a sane, and one, country .
Stay safe! It is going to get worse before it gets better.
@FunkyIrishman Right on. Water is an enormous issue waiting to happen here -- and Wisconsin
is estimated to have between 10 and 20 percent of the world's fresh water (depending on how
it's calculated and whether that includes some of Lakes Michigan and Superior. A Dept. of
Climate, Weather and Water would be a logical cabinet department.
@FunkyIrishman And polluting the potable water continues sometimes by the most resolvable
modern approaches: sewers and water treatment plants. Reagan ended federal funding for sewers
leaving septic systems (and now ancient sewers) where sewers would lead to protected fresh
water. All the medicines, chemicals, and toxins seep unseen but very real into fresh and also
salt water. We are not a modern nation any more.
Looks like neoliberal Dems are playing with fire. Another couple of such success stories and
Biden can safely enroll to the assisted living senior citizen community where he belongs. This is
an excellent way to mobilize Trump voters. Just look at the comments section of this story.
This is somewhat similar to hysteria in Germany in 1930th.
Notable quotes:
"... And Costco was once a retail store. Bravo! Today transformed into a political party? ..."
Costco has halted sales of Palmetto Cheese, a popular brand of pimento cheese spread that
had been offered in over 120 of its stores, after the company's owner triggered outrage with a
Facebook post criticizing Black Lives Matter.
A sign posted at a store in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, indicates that Palmetto Cheese has
been discontinued and will not be ordered again by Costco. The retailer hasn't made a statement
on its decision, but the move came after consumers called for a boycott of the brand because of
social media comments by Palmetto Cheese's owner, Brian Henry.
"This BLM and Antifa movement must be treated like the terror organizations that they
are," Henry said in an August 25 Facebook post that has since been deleted. He wrote the
message in response to the alleged shootings of three white people by a black man in
Georgetown, South Carolina. He complained that BLM and Antifa were being allowed to
"lawlessly destroy great American cities and threaten their citizens on a daily basis"
and declared "All lives matter. There, I said it. So am I a racist now?"
The reaction on social media was swift, with commenters calling Henry a racist. Activists
jumped into action with a boycott campaign against Palmetto Cheese. A Twitter account was set
up mocking the company as "Appropriation Cheese," because of its use of a black woman on
its packaging who worked for the company before dying earlier this year.
Activists on the Appropriation Cheese page celebrated Costco's decision and pressed for
more. One commenter on Tuesday thanked Costco and demanded that Kroger, Lowes Foods and other
retailers cancel Palmetto Cheese. Another boycott supporter called on Publix Super Markets to
drop the product, saying: "Costco pulled Palmetto Cheese because of the open racism of its
owner. We are hoping you are considering the same." Still another said: "Attention
Corporate America. This is how you ally."
But others lamented Costco's move and the divisiveness it represents. "This is how
divided the country has become," one commenter tweeted. "Even store chains are picking
sides now. This is insane." There were those who defended Henry, saying that criticizing
the group doesn't mean that one is racist.
Henry, who also is mayor of the small South Carolina coastal town of Pawleys Island, may
have squandered a chance to inspire a boycott-backlash movement – like that which Goya
Foods enjoyed after its owner was vilified for praising President Donald Trump – when he
issued an apology on September 3.
He said his comments were "hurtful and insensitive."
"I spent the last 10 days listening and learning," Henry said. "The conversations
I have had with friends, our staff, the community and faith-based leaders provided me with a
deeper understanding of racial inequality and the importance of diversity
sensitivity."
Henry added that his family and company will donate $100,000 in the first year of a new
foundation set up to improve race relations, and Palmetto Cheese will rebrand its product
"to be more sensitive to cultural diversity." In addition to having a picture of a black
woman, the current packaging refers to Palmetto Cheese as "the pimento cheese with
soul."
The company sold more than 15 million units last year in about 4,000 stores. Henry warned
that a boycott would only hurt the hundreds of people employed by the company in South
Carolina.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
uncledon 8 hours ago
I
guess I'm a racist as I believe all lives matter! I believe that people have a reason and the
right to peacefully protest. People do not have a right to murder, to plunder, to destroy
properties and businesses, to loot and set fires! If these things are done under the BLM
movement it is lawlessness. If we are to have a peaceful and productive society we need law and
order not total chaos. If the BLM wants to make change, (and change is sorely needed) then sets
some rules in your organized protest that gives it strength and power. Every smashed window,
every fire, every looted business and every intimidation to innocent bystanders is a reason for
people like myself not to support your cause.
KarlthePoet 9 hours ago
It's too bad that the
American consumers haven't started a boycott of the Jewish Banking Cartel, which ultimately
controls the US government and Wall Street. A cheese spread isn't the problem in America.
JG1547 10 hours ago
And the stupidity continues. Sad
CrabbyB 7 hours ago
Avoid social media
other than trying to garner sales. Avoid any chit-chat or opinions, just bare minimum contact
that suits your business purpose and that's it. The mob harmed but using Fakebook as a soapbox
was the big mistake
VillageIdiot34 4 hours ago
Keep it up amerimutts.
With this rate of
acceleration we are talking civil war before Christmas. I can already see it; the corporate
communists, backed by every globalist for-profit corporations against "real capitalism has
never been tried" gang. Less fighting abroad, more fighting domestic. It's a win/win for
everyone else
Jack The Man 3 hours ago
Absolutely right and principled action by
Costco. And BTW, who on earth would like to eat this processed garbage anyway?
rightmove 5
hours ago
And Costco was once a retail store. Bravo! Today transformed into a political party?
I'm in Australia and won't be shopping at Costco. The customer can decide if the BLM impacts
their choice of merchandise, not the damn seller.
Mistermal 6 hours ago
According to Webster's
Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political
purposes." Costco CEO simply told the truth. BLM is an openly racist, violent hate group.
Alan
Hart 3 hours ago
Will Costco also ban Israeli goods - because of their criticism of PLM
(Palestinian Lives Matter)...??
Flyingscotsman 3 hours ago
Simple, boycott Costco. I bet all
these so called republican white Supremacist racists spend more there , than all these keyboard
woke warriors!
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt
Sept. 20
Oregon's racial demographics White alone, percent 86.7% Black or African American alone,
percent 2.2% Alabama's racial demographics White alone, percent 69.1% Black or African American
alone, percent26.8%
"... The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily. ..."
"... They've conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out thoughtcrime, and it's established now that anything can be an offense ..."
On the other side of the political aisle, among self-described liberals, we're watching an
intellectual revolution. It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact,
but the American left has lost its mind. It's become a cowardly mob of upper-class social
media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching
reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.
The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about
tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that
they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting
on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will
not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.
They've conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out
thoughtcrime, and it's established now that anything can be an offense
A "cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts"? The "guilt-ridden, self-flagellating
nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves"? Geeeeee,
sure does remind me of someone....
Is the US really a land
teeming with 'white supremacists', or are malicious forces working to crowbar the racial divide
for their own ulterior motives? Whatever the case, America needs to get a handle on the issue,
and fast.
Watching the video of George Floyd dying on the street under the knee of Derek Chauvin, a
white police officer, forced many people to ask themselves: is this yet another case of police
brutality that has become so prevalent on the streets of America, or is it symptomatic of
something even worse? Without any debate, the mainstream media had a ready-made answer for mass
consumption: America is racist to the core and deserves whatever it gets. It was a simplistic,
knee-jerk response at a time when America was already suffering under a lockdown due to a
pandemic.
Before continuing, it is necessary to ask: does America really suffer from 'systemic
racism', also known as institutional racism? As a white American who grew up in a multiethnic
neighborhood and was later employed at several racially diverse workplaces, I would have to
disagree. While the proverbial 'melting pot' still has some cooking to do, relations between
black and white people have been stable for many years.
While the nation will never remove the scar of slavery, the creation of a welfare state,
together with numerous government programs such as Affirmative Action, was designed to end the
discrimination of minorities. And as every American will say, the United States is a 'nation of
immigrants', an idea reinforced by the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965,
for example, which opened the door to millions of people of non-European descent. Those sorts
of initiatives indicate that Americans are not the hooded pack of white supremacists that many
now say they are. This does not mean, of course, that the scourge of racism has been stamped
out; there is no shortage of racists and bigots in the US, but to call the problem 'systemic'
seems overblown.
At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that we are now living in radical 'woke'
times, an entirely new animal. Thus, instead of responding to the outbreaks of violence in the
wake of police killings with a unifying message of calm and civility, many politicians, in an
effort to appease the angry social justice warriors that keep them in office, are stoking the
fires of racial dissent with their rhetoric. You don't have to read between the lines to
understand their message – just listen to Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for the
vice presidency.
" Everyone beware, " Harris remarked in a recent interview with Stephen
Colbert. " They [the protesters] are not going to stop before election day in November, and
they're not going to stop after election day They're not going to let up, and they should not,
and we should not. "
It would be difficult to cite a more irresponsible comment from any individual, and
especially one who has a high chance of becoming – considering Joe Biden's advanced age
– the first female president of the United States. This strange new willingness for
Democratic leaders to court the mob reared its ugly head again this week, when Portland Mayor
Ted Wheeler banned police from using tear gas to quell riots that have plagued the city for
more than three months. Mind you, this is the very same mayor who was forced to vacate his
condominium last week after rioters set fire to the building.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a number of influential individuals have declared their
support for Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Few would be surprised to know that the financier
George Soros, for example, donated almost a quarter of a billion dollars to several racial
justice groups, including BLM. He was motivated by " systemic discrimination against blacks
that can be traced back to slavery. "
On the other end of the spectrum, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, owned by the global Unilever
Company, announced
it was launching a podcast that prompts listeners to " dismantle systemic racism " and
white supremacy. Shouldn't Americans be entitled to a national conversation on the question of
'systemic racism' first, before an ice cream company (ice cream!) practically declares it a
full-blown fascist regime? After all, the 'race problem' could be a symptom of the deplorable
state of the police forces, which are, arguably, both overworked and undertrained to handle
their assigned tasks. The theory at least deserves much greater attention, but that would
deprive the left of an opportunity to appear holier-than-thou in the most consequential
presidential election in many decades.
In any case, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if these protest groups
– which, incidentally, have a large number of misguided white
youths among their ranks – believe they can act with impunity, while also receiving
massive injections of cash and ideological support, things are going to spiral out of control
real fast.
Just this week, BLM protesters descended upon my hometown of Pittsburgh, where they harassed
a group of diners enjoying the afternoon on a café patio. One of the female activists
somehow thought it would be a great idea to gulp down one of the beverages on a table where an
elderly couple was seated. Earlier, across the country in Portland, Oregon, BLM showed up in
the middle of the night to inform 'privileged' suburban residents – not all of them
white, by the way – that they were living on "occupied" land. If BLM really wants
sympathy for its cause, those methods are certainly not the way to get it. In fact, they could
trigger an ugly backlash, igniting the very racism that the group declares itself to be
fighting in the first place.
On that note, more white citizens are coming around to the conclusion that they are the ones
being subjected to a 'reverse' form of racism – or, at the very least, are not permitted
to defend themselves from physical harm. That appeared to be the lesson for many after Mark and
Patricia McCloskey, two lawyers from an upscale neighborhood in St. Louis,
brandished firearms after protesters smashed through a gate and trespassed onto their
property. Guess who was charged with a crime? Not the protesters. St. Louis Circuit Attorney
Kim Gardner, who received funds for her campaign from none other than Mr. Soros, filed a felony
count against the McCloskeys for unlawful use of a weapon.
Overnight, it appears that Americans have awakened to a nightmare world turned upside down,
where all of the old rules of law and order have been thrown out the window. It's a place where
political leaders no longer allow the police to perform their duties; citizens are condemned as
criminals for protecting themselves, and all the while, "fiery yet mostly peaceful protests"
are permitted to rage. Before the situation hits the point of no return, America really needs
to have a calm discussion about 'systemic racism' to determine if it even exists in the first
place. In the meantime, find a way to maintain law and order on the streets and, most
importantly, trust the police; the majority are not bad apples. America's future peace and
prosperity depends on it.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The level of political correctness demonstrated by Vampire squid actually exceed the level
achieved by CPSU in the USSR, which probably contributed to the USSR dissolution as everybody was
tired of this level of primitive hypocrisy and enforced speech standard; including the CPSU
leadership.
Woke racism is a new form of financial oligarchy division and control of prols...
Notable quotes:
"... In Engineering, our colleagues [have] collaborated with others in the financial services industry to address racially insensitive terminology in computer security terms. This work included eliminating the use of "blacklist" and "whitelist," as well as of "master" and "slave," when describing the relationship between hardware components. ..."
In Engineering, our colleagues [have] collaborated with others in the financial
services industry to address racially insensitive terminology in computer security terms.
This work included eliminating the use of "blacklist"
and "whitelist," as well as of "master" and "slave," when describing the relationship
between hardware components.
Another example of a phrase that can have harmful impact is "All Lives Matter." The death
of George Floyd, and, as recently as this week, the shooting of
Jacob Blake multiple times in the back, demonstrate that until the deadly violent acts
against unarmed Black people subside, all lives will not matter until Black Lives Matter.
You didn't think we were going to get through this without a reference to the Holy Blessed
Martyr Floyd, did you?
Although I'll give a smidgen of credit here to Goldman Sachs: They merely wrote "the death of
George Floyd." It's routine in Mainstream media outlets now to see "
the killing of George Floyd ," or even "the murder of George
Floyd." The Economist , for example, has used both in straight reportage. It has of
course not yet been established to any good evidentiary standard that Floyd was killed, let alone
murdered.
It's not accurate to refer to someone's "sexual preference," which would imply a choice
that can be changed, instead we refer to an individual's "sexual orientation."
That's a bit hair-splitty, isn't it? A bit dubious, actually. An orientation may be voluntary,
mayn't it? I can orient myself to the north, south, east, or west, according to my
preference.
Goldman Sachs doesn't just rely on
memos to keep its workforce up-to-date on the Party line. Conversations! -- gotta have
conversations . To give employees the right idea, the firm records the kind of
conversations it wants them to have and puts them on YouTube so they can watch at home.
I'm not sure what the rule is for watching in office hours, but I'd guess it's OK ah, heck,
probably compulsory.
If the US keeps this up, the Chinese are going to eat us for lunch. It's all fun and games,
who gets to teach at Dutchess County Community College, but these morons are starting to spread
their religion to all aspects of life. Will not end well.
Mind-boggling. Diversity zealots have infiltrated practically every elite institution in
America. How long before the counter-revolution? At least Trump got the ball rolling by
exposing Critical Race Theory to the light of day. Maybe some more philosophical types might
have a go at "deconstructing" Cultural Relativism, the Big Mama of all this poisonous
nonsense.
The greatest goyim fought for all of this. As good goyim spawn, you should celebrate the
defeat of the Axis everyday in the name of anal (((democracy))).
Controlling a man with knee pressure to the side of his neck is a humane police
technique for subduing an uncooperative perp. I emphasis "side of the neck" because the
technique used on George Floyd is widely assumed to have consisted of applying pressure to
the front of the neck . I saw and heard that assumption reported by Joe Rogan who you would
be expected to know better as he is said to have been a professional wrestler at some time in
the past. The video of Floyd clearly shows him restrained by pressure on the side of his neck
yet is not remembered that way.
Try this experiment. Apply pressure with your fist to the front of your neck. It will be
obvious that that pressure crushes the airways to the lungs and would likely be fatal in short
order if maintained. Now try the experiment of applying pressure with your fist to the side of
your neck. I expect that you will be very surprised at discovering how strong the tendons and
understructure of the side of the neck are. That technique does not interfere with
breathing. Restraint using that technique is not time bound. Whether 1 minute, 9 minutes or 45
minutes, it simply restrains an uncooperative perp.
The article above faults the evil Israelis for teaching that technique. Presumably the
author believes that Derek Chauvin restrained George Floyd with his knee on the front of his
neck. So to mix metaphors he will seize any stick to fustigate these evil disgusting spawn of
the devil Israeli jew cops.
Conclusion: article is yet another example of the jew hating propaganda that Ron Unz
delights in publishing.
"However this knee restraining technique seems stupid and evil."
Not if it is done without put weight on the knee.
When dealing with people having seizures or 'excited delirium', it's important to
immobilize their head so they don't hurt themselves while thrashing around.
When done correctly, the knee does not crush the neck. In order to stop air, pressure must
be applied to the front, not the back or side. Officer Chauvin's relaxed posture indicates he
was not attempting to injure Floyd, but only to keep a man in medical distress immobile until
medical first responders could take over.
Who within the Deep state is supporting the riots? This is the question. Antifa would not
last a a couple of months, if all repressive power of the state fall on the head of its
brainwashed children of the middles class, who constitute the majority of it members. All members
probably are well known to FBI and the organization was infiltrated long ago.
America went through its own bout of Dionysian intoxication in the days following May 25,
when a Minneapolis cop by the name of Derek Chauvin knelt on the neck of a 46-year-old Black
man by the name of George Floyd, causing his death. Corrupted by 66 years of bad education,
America's Black Lumpenproletariat erupted in an orgy of rioting that brought the rule
of law to an end in many of America's large cities. As of this writing, Antifa, a group which
Donald Trump has designated a domestic terrorist organization, is still in control of a
six-square block section of downtown Seattle, which they have designated the "Capitol Hill
Autonomous Zone." In Minneapolis, the town where the rioting started, their Pentheus, Mayor
Jacob Frey, was denounced by one of the Bacchant women who spoke in the name of Black Lives
Matter after he refused to defund the Minneapolis police department. Frey was not torn limb
from limb, but he was expelled from the crowd and had to take refuge with the police he was
ordered to defund.
The race riots of May and June 2020 were only the latest installment of what might be called
the regime of governance by crisis which began four years ago, when the Deep State decided to
do whatever was necessary to depose Donald Trump. That campaign began with Russiagate, followed
by the impeachment, followed by the hate speech campaign of 2019 which sought to ban "unwanted
content" from the Internet, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic. What united all of these crises
was oligarch unhappiness with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States
and a desire to replace the institutions of representative government with ad hoc committees of
crisis managers masquerading as scientific experts and/or aggrieved minorities.
By now it should be obvious that the racial narrative writes itself whenever a Black man
dies at the hands of a white cop. Floyd's body was still warm when the mainstream media took up
the story which had already been written and declared him a saint, complete with halo and
wings. In reality, Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in
his system, but the BBC described him as someone who "was simply trying to live life as any
other American, in search of betterment in the face of both personal and societal challenges."
[1] He then
became "the latest totem of the ills that plague the country in 2020." After growing in wisdom,
age, and grace, Floyd's life suddenly "took a different turn, with a string of arrests for
theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was
sentenced to five years in prison." Missing from the BBC account was any mention of Floyd's
incarceration, drug dealing, violence against pregnant women or his role as a porn star,
[2] but no one
needed to tell a graduate of America's public school system that he was witnessing the latest
installment of the ongoing saga of American racism in action.
... ... ...
Both sides of the racial conflict which George Floyd's death ignited were controlled by
Jews. The ADL has consistently played a double game by condemning the racial violence that
their training seminars have created. According to the Democratic Socialists of America, "The
police violence happening tonight in Minneapolis is straight out of the IDF playbook," adding,
"US cops train in Israel." [20] After
the death of George Floyd, the ADL, eager to avoid any association with the violence their
police seminars wrought among Blacks, tweeted: "As we continue to fight for justice for
#GeorgeFloyd, we also need to fight for justice for #BreonnaTaylor, who was murdered in her own
home by police. We need justice for everyone who has been a victim of racist policing &
violence." [21]
At the same time that the ADL was demanding justice for George Floyd, they made no mention
of the death of Iyad Hallaq, an autistic Palestinian man who was gunned down after pleading for
his life while on the way to his special education class in occupied East Jerusalem. [22] The
Electronic Intifada, which did mention Hallaq's death, then singled out the Anti-Defamation
league as "a major player in the industry of bringing US police junkets to Israel for
'counterterrorism' and other kinds of joint training." [23]
Docile Negroes at traditionally Jewish organizations like the NAACP routinely get praised
for their work against racism, but as soon as Black Lives Matter began its Black solidarity
with Palestine campaign, the Israeli government and its lobbies in America attempted to disrupt
the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation. In 2018 Al Jazeera's documentary The
Lobby -- USA revealed how The Israel Project "pulled strings behind the scenes to
get a Black Lives Matter fundraiser at a New York City nightclub canceled." [24]
So on the one hand we have American policemen being trained to treat their fellow citizens
in the same way that Israelis treat Palestinians, including the knee holds that will subdue and
sometimes kill them. This explains the white cop side of the equation. But on the other hand,
we have George Soros funding Black Lives Matter and the insurrections which follow incidents of
police brutality as the black side of the equation. Taken together both Jewish-funded groups
perpetuate the cycle of increasing violent racial conflict in America, while remaining all the
while invisible.
Black Lives Matter was a reincarnation of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which began with the
founding of the ADL after the lynching of Leo Frank and has continued to this day, with
time-outs taken for the World Wars of the 20th century. Shortly after World War II, Louis
Wirth, a Jewish sociologist from the University of Chicago began implementing his plan to
"integrate" housing in Chicago. When Chicago's ethnic neighborhoods understood that
"integration" was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, riots ensued, beginning with the Airport
Park riots of 1947 and culminating in the arrival of Martin Luther King in Marquette Park
almost 20 years later. As one more indication that Black Lives Matter was the reincarnation of
the Black-Jewish Alliance, Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, was born in
1981 to a white Jewish father and a Black mother.
Black Lives Matter was funded by George Soros to promote race war in the United States, but
BLM also promoted sexual deviance, another cause dear to the heart of the world's most
prominent Hungarian Jewish philanthropist. In their recently published manifesto, BLM situates
its attempt to be "unapologetically Black in our positioning" within a matrix of sexual
deviance, including attempts "to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk," by
disrupting "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and putting in its place a
"queer-affirming network." [25]
If that jargon sounds familiar, it's because it stems from the university gender studies
programs which provide the matrix from which groups like BLM and Antifa get both their ideas
and their recruits. The ultimate cause of the uprising which took place in city after city in
the wake of George Floyd's death was bad education. Beginning in the late 1980s, literature
departments had been taken over by "tenured radicals" who have used critical theory, derived
from thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Gramsci, to undermine the validity of all structures
of authority. This essentially Nietzschean transvaluation of all values transferred moral
superiority to anyone who could claim oppression according to oligarchic endorsed categories
like race and gender, allowing the tenured radicals to take over one department after another
and, more importantly, allowing the proliferation of new departments, invariably ending in
"studies," as in gender studies, which drove the traditional liberal arts from academe turning
traditional universities into Maoist inspired re-education camps. The takeover of academe
reached its bitter culmination when Antifa led groups of disaffected, badly educated young
people, who were aware of nothing more significant than their grievances, into the streets in
what became an uncanny replication of the Chinese cultural revolution of 1966. One of the most
unlikely leaders of that revolution in China was an American Jew from Charleston, South
Carolina by the name of Sidney Rittenberg.
The academic pedigree of Rittenberg's successors became apparent when Antifa warlord Joseph
Alcoff got apprehended in Philadelphia in 2017 for assaulting a group of Hispanic Marines.
Alcoff's arrest shed light on one of the main figures in a society that remained literally
faceless because of their habit of wearing masks at the protests they disrupted by their
violence. Alcoff, who was known as the leader of Antifa in Washington, DC, was the child of
radical academics and had co-authored an academic paper with his mother Linda Alcoff in Volume
79 of Science and Society in the special issue on "Red and Black: Marxist Encounters
with Anarchism," entitled "Autonomism in Theory and Practice." [26] Radical
theory in the mind of Linda Alcoff led to violent praxis in the life of her son. As with Black
Lives Matter, the ADL has played a double game with Antifa, condemning its tactics while at the
same time defending it against accusations that it was morally equivalent to the "white
supremacists" it attacked in the streets of Charlottesville in 2017.
Continuity between the generations was made possible by the Jewish revolutionary spirit. The
fact that Alcoff was a Jew got suppressed in virtually every mainstream account of his
activity, [27] which
sanitized his communist connections by linking him to the Democratic Party through figures like
Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters. Alcoff was more forthright when he spoke in his own voice,
saying on one Youtube video, "I'm a Communist, motherf***er," before spitting into the camera.
[28]
Christians for truth portrayed Alcoff as "a self-styled modern-day Leon Trotsky" and attributed
the suppression of his ethnic identity to the fact that "Antifa's political manifestations are
funded by the billionaire Jew, George Soros." [29]
Andy Ngo, who was severely beaten by Antifa thugs in Portland in the wake of the 2016
presidential election, claims that "prominent media figures and politicians glamorize and even
promote Antifa as a movement for a just cause. CNN's Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon have defended
Antifa on-air. Chuck Todd invited Antifa ideologue Mark Bray onto Meet the Press to
explain why Antifa's political violence is "ethical." [30] Ngo goes
on to mention Joseph Alcoff as one of the most visible figures in what is otherwise a
clandestine organization, and claims that he had access to Democrat Representative Maxine
Waters in 2016. [31] He also
mentions Adam Rothstein, who is associated with the Rose City Antifa group which assaulted him
in 2016. Rothstein conducted a series of "secret lectures" at a Portland bookstore where local
recruits learned how to "heckle" opponents and make them "look ridiculous, make them feel
outnumbered," and convinced that the "Trump thing is gonna go by the wayside." [32]
Armed with political clout of this magnitude, Antifa can easily overwhelm local police
forces, which is what happened in Portland in 2016. The result is that "city government and
police lack the political will to protect citizens." What happened in Seattle in 2020 with the
creation of the "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" was only the logical conclusion to what began in
Portland in 2016 and spread all over the Pacific Northwest, "where Antifa is especially
active." In its attempt to destabilize and destroy the nation state and its sovereign borders,
Antifa drew support from "mainstream progressive politicians, such as Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, who normalize hatred of border enforcement and sovereignty as such." [33]
Antifa has continued to be successful in disrupting local government and thwarting police
attempts to bring them under control because it is a Jewish organization which can always count
on favorable press from the Jewish-controlled mainstream media, which renders the connection
invisible. The same cannot be said for the Jewish press, which cites Antifa's Jewishness with
thinly-disguised ethnic pride.
When Donald Trump referred to Antifa as a terrorist organization, the Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz came to their defense, "Trump's Attacks on Antifa Are Attacks on Jews."
[34]
According to an article which appeared in the Forward , Antifa activism "is an
affirmation of Jewish identity, both religious and secular" [35] which
stretches all the way back to 1897 with the founding of Bundism, which "sought to organize the
working-class Jews of Russia, Poland, and Lithuania." [36] After
members of a specifically Jewish Antifa group defaced a plaque in New York City honoring the
president of Vichy France Philippe Petain, they left a note which defended the rationale behind
their act of vandalism:
With Monday's actions, Jewish antifascists and allied forces have served notice that fascist
apologism will not be tolerated in our city in 2019; that anti-Semitic ideology and violence
will be confronted with Jewish solidarity and strength; and that the Holocaust will be
remembered not only with sadness and grief but also with righteous anger and action: 'We will
never forget. We will never forgive.' [37]
In the final analysis, Antifa is a Jewish organization in the same way that Bolshevism and
Neoconservatism were Jewish political movements. Not every member of Antifa is a Jew, but Jews
invariably find their ways into leadership roles in places like Portland, Washington, DC, and
even in China, as was the case during the Cultural Revolution of 1966, because they have an
advantage over non-Jews in embodying the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit which is the hidden
grammar of all revolutionary movements.
Interesting article, not the least surprising the Usual Suspects are playing both sides.
Like WW2?
One picky point is the Yanez shooting, the victim did have a gun, he had a permit for it.
He didn't show his hands and died with his hand near the gun. This was the one his GF put out
on Facebook Live to it incited two police massacres right away, the one everybody knows about
in Dallas (where they killed the shooter with a robot bomb) an another in Louisiana.
I'm a witness the SF Bay Area as a model of the racial obsession/gender bending schemes.
What a mess the place is–the signature of the Left-wing establishment that runs the
place is how the education system fails to fulfill the simple market demands for labor in
their own locale, at the high end Silicon Valley runs on Indian/Pakistani B-1s and at the
other the booming (until now) construction business runs on mostly imported Hispanics.
They spend more per pupil than the rest of the world and the whole system runs on
immigration.
I couldn't finish this article after reading this garbage:
"Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in his system"
It was announced two weeks ago that he had a lethal dose. His toxicology report was
finally made public and shows that he had a lethal dose of the dangerous pain killer fentanyl
in his system. This caused his lungs to fill with fluid, which explains why he told arriving
cops "I Can't Breath" and did not cooperate as he was delusional and dying. The cops wrestled
him to the ground and cuffed him as he died from a fentanyl overdose. Floyd would have died
right there even if the cops had not shown up.
This is why coroners wait for toxicology results before declaring the cause of death, but
in this case he bowed to political pressure and announced his death was caused by the knee to
the neck. This news is so big that our corporate media, which has promoted the riots, refuses
to air the truth. Details can be read here.
https://spectator.org/minnesota-v-derek-chauvin-et-al-the-prosecutions-dirty-little-secret/
In fair and normal world, the accused cops would be immediately freed and rehired with a
bad mark for Chauvin using an improper neck hold. Let's see what happens, but I don't expect
justice.
Floyd said "i can't breathe" several times BEFORE he was put on the ground. The cops did
nothing wrong and were trying to help him. It's all another monstrous media lie like the
mueller report and jussie smollett and rayshard brooks and the covington kids and bubba
wallace and the KY gun range video.
The American Deep State can destroy anti-fa if it wanted. Hunting down all the leaders of
this terrorist organization is not that hard. But of course the American Deep State will not
do so because anti-fa is a branch of the deep state, just like how Hollywood and the media
are (& have been for a long time) arms of the American (Globalist) deep state.
This is one of Jones' many indispensable articles. The opening alone is required reading
of anyone slightly bothered by what is going on. Dionysius sparks sexual revolution, and it
leads to debauched riot and murder and then to either social collapse or else brutal
tyranny.
The American Left and the Neocons both demand tyranny, as brutal as possible. They serve
anti-Christ.
It is either Christ and Christendom or the chaos of anti-Christ.
If Jones would realize that the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II are at best impotent before
Dionysius and return to Tradition, he could serve much better.
It cannot be repeated too much: we live in the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0. The first phase
of Anglo-Zionist Empire was the British Empire. The Brit WASP Empire spread philoSemitism
across the globe: cultural Zionism that was the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism,
which was a Judaizing heresy that was the final and most defining part of Modern English, and
Anglophone Protestant, culture.
The reality is that we are in the eyes of the Anglo-Zionist Empire's elites what Irish
Catholic were to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell and what Palestinians are to Israelis. They
wish us exterminated or made serfs forever, and the base reason predates Freud, Darwin, Marx
and the French Revolution. It is Judaizing heresy birthing monsters to war against historic
Christianity and peoples who have any legacy in the building and maintenance of Christendom
and therefore do not serve Zionism.
WASP culture serves Zionism and always will.
When Kevin McDonald realizes all of that and the necessary inferences, his work will
become worth the effort.
There's a sure way to curb the influence that certain (((individuals))) have on American
culture and politics; it's called the "wealth tax." It's a tax on the assets of the rich and
also on foundations set up to circumvent the inheritance tax. Both Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren proposed a wealth tax but it is not included in Biden's platform. Instead,
he's proposed raising the maximum income tax rate to 39.6%. There are lots of loopholes that
individuals can utilize to reduce their income tax obligations. It won't stop their meddling
in social and political affairs. Only a very stiff wealth tax (at least 10% per year) will
curb their meddling.
"... Seeking to impose on others the conformity it enforces in its ranks, articulate only in a boilerplate of ritualized cant, today's lumpen intelligentsia consists of persons for whom a little learning is delightful. They consider themselves educated because they are credentialed, stamped with the approval of institutions of higher education that gave them three things: a smattering of historical information just sufficient to make the past seem depraved; a vocabulary of indignation about the failure of all previous historic actors, from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill , to match the virtues of the lumpen intelligentsia; and the belief that America's grossest injustice is the insufficient obeisance accorded to this intelligentsia. ..."
"... Today's cancel culture -- erasing history, ending careers -- is inflicted by people experiencing an orgy of positive feelings about themselves as they negate others. This culture is a steamy sauna of self-congratulation: "I, an adjunct professor of gender studies, am superior to U.S. Grant, so there." Grant promptly freed the slave he received from his father-in-law, and went on to pulverize the slavocracy. Nevertheless . . . ..."
"... Today's gruesome irony: A significant portion of the intelligentsia that is churned out by higher education does not acknowledge exacting standards of inquiry that could tug them toward tentativeness and constructive dissatisfaction with themselves. Rather, they come from campuses, cloaked in complacency. Instead of elevating, their education produces only expensively schooled versions of what José Ortega y Gasset called the "mass man." ..."
"... A barbarian is someone whose ideas are "nothing more than appetites in words," someone exercising "the right not to be reasonable," who "does not want to give reasons" but simply "to impose his opinions." ..."
"... The barbarians are not at America's gate. There is no gate. ..."
A nation's gravest problems are those it cannot discuss because it dare not state them. This
nation's principal problem, which makes other serious problems intractable, is that much of
today's intelligentsia is not intelligent.
One serious problem is that the political class is terrified of its constituents -- their
infantile refusal to will the means (revenue) for the ends (government benefits) they demand.
Another serious problem is family
disintegration -- e.g., 40 percent of all births, and 69 percent of all African American
births, to unmarried women. Families are the primary transmitters of social capital: the
habits, dispositions and mores necessary for flourishing. Yet the subject of disorganized
families has been entirely absent from current discussions -- actually, less discussions than
virtue-signaling ventings -- about poverty, race and related matters.
Today's most serious problem, which annihilates thoughtfulness about all others, is that a
significant portion of the intelligentsia -- the lumpen intelligentsia -- cannot think. Its
torrent of talk is an ever-intensifying hurricane of hysteria about the endemic sickness of the
nation since its founding in
1619 (don't ask). And the iniquities of historic figures mistakenly admired.
An admirable intelligentsia, inoculated by education against fashions and fads, would make
thoughtful distinctions arising from historically informed empathy. It would be society's
ballast against mob mentalities. Instead, much of America's intelligentsia has become a
mob.
Seeking to impose on others the conformity it enforces in its ranks, articulate only in
a boilerplate of ritualized cant, today's lumpen intelligentsia consists of persons for whom a
little learning is delightful. They consider themselves educated because they are credentialed,
stamped with the approval of institutions of higher education that gave them three things: a
smattering of historical information just sufficient to make the past seem depraved; a
vocabulary of indignation about the failure of all previous historic actors, from Washington to
Lincoln to
Churchill
, to match the virtues of the lumpen intelligentsia; and the belief that America's grossest
injustice is the insufficient obeisance accorded to this intelligentsia.
Its expansion tracks the expansion of colleges and universities -- most have, effectively,
open admissions -- that have become intellectually monochrome purveyors of groupthink. Faculty
are outnumbered by administrators, many of whom exist to administer uniformity concerning
"sustainability," "diversity," "toxic masculinity" and the threat free speech poses to favored
groups' entitlements to serenity.
Today's cancel culture -- erasing history, ending careers -- is inflicted by people
experiencing an orgy of positive feelings about themselves as they negate others. This culture
is a steamy sauna of self-congratulation: "I, an adjunct professor of gender studies, am
superior to U.S. Grant, so there." Grant promptly freed
the slave he received from his father-in-law, and went on to pulverize the slavocracy.
Nevertheless . . .
The cancelers need just enough learning to know, vaguely, that there was a Lincoln who lived
when Americans, sunk in primitivism, thought they were confronted with vexing constitutional
constraints and moral ambiguities. : Too much learning might immobilize the topplers with
doubts about how they would have behaved in the contexts in which the statues' subjects
lived.
The cancelers are reverse Rumpelstiltskins , spinning problems that
merit the gold of complex ideas and nuanced judgments into the straw of slogans. Someone
anticipated something like this.
Today's gruesome irony: A significant portion of the intelligentsia that is churned out
by higher education does not acknowledge exacting standards of inquiry that could tug them
toward tentativeness and constructive dissatisfaction with themselves. Rather, they come from
campuses, cloaked in complacency. Instead of elevating, their education produces only
expensively schooled versions of what José Ortega y Gasset called the "mass
man."
In 1932's "
The Revolt of the Masses ," the Spanish philosopher said this creature does not " appeal
from his own to any authority outside him . He is satisfied with himself exactly as he is.
. . . He will tend to consider and affirm as good everything he finds within himself: opinions,
appetites, preferences, tastes." (Emphasis is Ortega's.)
Much education now spreads the disease that education should cure, the disease of
repudiating, without understanding, the national principles that could pull the nation toward
its noble aspirations. The result is barbarism, as Ortega defined it, "the absence of standards
to which appeal can be made."
A barbarian is someone whose ideas are "nothing more than appetites in words," someone
exercising "the right not to be reasonable," who "does not want to give reasons" but simply "to
impose his opinions."
The barbarians are not at America's gate. There is no gate.
In short black people are used as pawns in the political struggle between two neoliberal
clans fighting for power, using students without perspectives of gaining meaningful employment as
a ram. We saw this picture before in a different country. And riots do reverse gains achieved in
civil right struggle since 1960th, so they are also net losers. Racial tensions in the USA
definitely increased dramatically.
Notable quotes:
"... Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO allies. ..."
"... This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that must be eradicated. ..."
"... The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes in fear ..."
"... There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it alone. ..."
"... Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the leaders ..."
Here's your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project",
and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning tell us about what's going on in America
today?
They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people They
suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws They
alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race
war They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are inciting
racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to office in 2016
and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into
a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive
outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned,
insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide
riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. "Critical
Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning are as
much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling
of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of "ideology", and all three are being used
to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as "Americans".
The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history,
their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed
by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important
than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative "Reset"
that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds
of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive
element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda
saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don't expect the strategy will
ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging
and unapologetic.
Let's look more carefully at what is going on.
On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a draft report stating that
"White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States". According to an
article in Politico:
" all three draft (versions of the document) describe the threat from white
supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S. , listed above the
immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups . John Cohen, who oversaw DHS's
counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts' conclusion isn't
surprising.
"This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS,
the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related
threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white
supremac y and other far-right ideological causes," he said .
"Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social,
ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United
States," the draft reads. "Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists
will pose the most persistent and lethal threat."..(" DHS
draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat " Politico)
This is nonsense. White supremacists do not pose the greatest danger to the country, that
designation goes to the left-wing groups that have rampaged through more than 2,000 US cities
for the last 100 days. Black Lives Matter and Antifa-generated riots have decimated hundreds of
small businesses, destroyed the lives and livelihoods of thousands of merchants and their
employees, and left entire cities in a shambles. The destruction in Kenosha alone far exceeds
the damage attributable to the activities of all the white supremacist groups combined.
So why has Homeland Security made this ridiculous and unsupportable claim? Why have they
chosen to prioritize white supremacists as "the most persistent and lethal threat" when it is
clearly not true?
There's only one answer: Politics.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding. In this case, the honchos are
invoking the race card ("white supremacists") to divert attention from their sinister
destabilization program, their looting of the US Treasury (for their crooked Wall Street
friends), their demonizing of the mostly-white working class "America First" nationalists who
handed Trump the 2016 election, and their scurrilous scheme to establish one-party rule by
installing their addlepated meat-puppet candidate (Biden) as president so he can carry out
their directives from the comfort of the Oval Office. That's what's really going on.
DHS's announcement makes it possible for state agents to target legally-armed Americans who
gather with other gun owners in groups that are protected under the second amendment. Now the
white supremacist label will be applied more haphazardly to these same conservatives who pose
no danger to public safety. The draft document should be seen as a warning to anyone whose
beliefs do not jibe with the New Liberal Orthodoxy that white people are inherently racists who
must ask forgiveness for a system they had no hand in creating (slavery) and which was
abolished more than 150 years ago.
The 1619 Project" is another part of the ideological war that is being waged against the
American people. The objective of the "Project" is to convince readers that America was founded
by heinous white men who subjugated blacks to increase their wealth and power. According to the
World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Clearly, Hannah-Jones was enlisted by big money patrons who needed an ideological foundation
to justify the massive BLM riots they had already planned as part of their US color revolution.
The author –perhaps unwittingly– provided the required text for vindicating
widespread destruction and chaos carried out in the name of "social justice."
As Hannah-Jones says, "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country", which is to
say that it cannot be mitigated or reformed, only eradicated by destroying the symbols of white
patriarchy (Our icons, our customs, our traditions and our history.), toppling the existing
government, and imposing a new system that better reflects the values of the burgeoning
non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil
unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.
All of these goals conveniently coincide with the aims of the NWO Oligarchs who seek to
replace America's Constitutional government with a corporate Superstate ruled by voracious
Monopolists and their globalist allies. So, while Hannah-Jones treatise does nothing to improve
conditions for black people in America, it does move the country closer to the dystopian dream
of the parasite class; Corporate Valhalla.
Then there is "Critical Race Theory" which provides the ideological icing on the cake. The
theory is part of the broader canon of anti-white dogma which is being used to indoctrinate
workers. White employees are being subjected to "reeducation" programs that require their
participation as a precondition for further employment . The first rebellion against critical
race theory, took place at Sandia Labs which is a federally-funded research agency that designs
America's nuclear weapons. According to journalist Christopher F. Rufo:
"Senator @HawleyMO and
@SecBrouillette have
launched an inspector general investigation, but Sandia executives have only accelerated
their purge against conservatives."
Sandia executives have made it clear: they want to force critical race theory,
race-segregated trainings, and white male reeducation camps on their employees -- and all
dissent will be severely punished. Progressive employees will be rewarded; conservative
employees will be purged." (" There is a civil war erupting
at @SandiaLabs ." Christopher F Rufo)
It all sounds so Bolshevik. Here's more info on how this toxic indoctrination program
works:
"Treasury Department
The Treasury Department held a training session telling employees that "virtually all
White people contribute to racism" and demanding that white staff members "struggle to own
their racism" and accept their "unconscious bias, White privilege, and White
fragility."
The National Credit Union Administration
The NCUA held a session for 8,900 employees arguing that America was "founded on
racism" and "built on the blacks of people who were enslaved. " Twitter thread here and
original source documents
here .
Sandia National Laboratories
Last year, Sandia National Labs -- which produces our nuclear arsenal -- held a
three-day reeducation camp for white males, teaching them how to deconstruct their
"white male culture" and forcing them to write letters of apology to women and people of
color . Whistleblowers from inside the labs tell me that critical race theory is now
endangering our national security. Twitter thread here and original source
documents
here .
Argonne National Laboratories
Argonne National Labs hosts trainings calling on white lab employees to admit that they
"benefit from racism" and atone for the "pain and anguish inflicted upon Black people. "
Twitter thread here .
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security hosted a Training on "microaggressions,
microinequities, and microassaults" where white employees were told that they had been
"socialized into oppressor roles. " Twitter thread here and original source
documents here
." (" Summary of
Critical Race Theory Investigations" , Christopher F Rufo)
On September 4, Donald Trump announced his administration "would prohibit federal
agencies from subjecting government employees to "critical race theory" or "white privilege"
seminar. ..
"It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent
millions of taxpayer dollars to date 'training' government workers to believe divisive,
anti-American propaganda ," read a Friday memo
from the Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought. "These types of 'trainings'
not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its
inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce The
President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using
taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions."
The next day, September 5, Trump announced that the Department of Education was going to see
whether the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project was being used in school curricula
and– if it was– then those schools would be ineligible for federal funding.
Conservative pundits applauded Trump's action as a step forward in the "culture wars", but it's
really much more than that. Trump is actually foiling an effort by the domestic saboteurs who
continue look for ways to undermine democracy, reduce the masses of working-class people to
grinding poverty and hopelessness, and turn the country into a despotic military outpost ruled
by bloodsucking tycoons, mercenary autocrats and duplicitous elites. Alot of thought and effort
went into this malign ideological project. Trump derailed it with a wave of the hand. That's no
small achievement.
Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White
Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is
based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the
country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work
together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals
the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that
was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working
class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform
the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO
allies.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer
that must be eradicated.
A good article, but no mention of who exactly these oligarchs are. Or why so many of them
are Jewish.
Or why so many Zionist organisations support BLM and other such groups.
Mike, not mentioning these things will not save you. You will still be cancelled by
Progressive Inc.
This seems like a good explanation of what is happening. I wonder whether too many people
will fall for the propaganda, though. It is the classic effort to get the turkeys to support
thanksgiving.
The deserved progress and concessions achieved by the civil rights struggles for the Black
community is in danger of deteriorating because Black leadership will not stand up and
vehemently condemn the rioting and destruction and killing, and declare that the BLM movement
does not represent the majority of the Black American culture and that the overexaggerated
accusations of "racism" do not necessitate the eradication and revision of history, nor does
it require European Americans to feel guilt or shame. There is no need for a cultural
revolution. The ideology and actions of BLM are offensive and inconsistent with American
values, and Black leaders should be saying this every day, and should be admonishing about
the consequences. They should also use foresight to see how this is going to end, because the
BLM and their supporters are being used to fight a war that they can never win. And when it's
over, what perception will the rest of America have of Black people?
@sonofman g to TPTB. Better to have an amorphous slogan to donate money to than an actual
organization with humans, goals and ideas which can be held up to the light and critically
examined.
The whole sudden race thing is a fraud to eliminate the electoral support Trump had
amassed among blacks before Corona and Fentanyl Floyd. In line with what Whitney says, the
globalists need to take down Trump. And the race card has always been the first tool in the
DNC's toolkit. When all else fails, go nuclear with undefined claims of racism.
Almost every big magazine has a black person on the cover this month. Probably will in
October too. Coincidence? Sure it is.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I'm shocked that they're trying to sell this Q-tier bullshit about Trump fighting the deep
state.
The reality about Trump is that he is the release valve, the red herring designed to keep
whitey pacified while massive repossessions and foreclosures take place, permanently
impoverishing a large part of the white population, and shutting down the Talmudic
service-based economy, which is all that is really left. It is Trump's DHS that declared a
large part of his white trashionalist base to be terrorists.
The populist majority never had anyone to vote for. This system will never give them one.
They aren't bright enough to make it happen.
Agree. Barack Obama in particular will go down in history a real disgrace to the legacy of
the US presidency. He is violating the sacred trust that the people of the United States
invested in him. What a fraud!
Good post Mr. Whitney especially about "white supremacy" garbage .which has only been
going on since the 90s! You know, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elohim City and Okie City, militias,
"patriot groups," etc. This really is nothing new. And, since so many remember the "white
supremacy" crapola was crapola back in the 90s, I'd say everyone pretty much regardless of
race over the age of 40 knows there is, as it says in Ecclesiastes in the Bible, "there is
nothing new under the sun." And, if you home schooled your kids back then, then you kids know
it as well. Fact is this: the DHS as with every other govt. agency is forced to blame "white
supremacy" for every problem in this country because who the heck else can they blame? Jews?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh when pigs fly After all, Noahide just might be around the
corner ..
Sheriffs have a lot of legal power. Ultimately, the battle is privatized money power
vs Joe Citizen/Sheriffs.
This sheriff is working a Constitutional angle that says: Local Posse (meaning you.. Joe
citizen) working with the Sheriff department to protect your local community. Richard Mack is
teaching other Sheriffs and (some Police) what their Constitutional power is, and that power
doesn't include doing bidding of Oligarchs.
Sheriffs are elected, and their revenue stream is outside of Oligarchy:
So Donald Trump suddenly discovers that racial Bolshevism is the official policy of
his own executive branch – a mere 3 years and 8 months after assuming the
position
... Looks like the same old flim-flam they pull every four years. No matter who wins, the
Davos folks continue to run the circus and fleece the suckers dry.
Because it is. Substitute "the ethnic Russian middle class are class enemies" for
"Anglo-American are all racists" and there you have it. Permission for a small organized
minority to eliminate a whole class on ideological grounds...
I live in a former communist country in Eastern Europe with corrupt politicians, oligarchs
and organized crime.
America was a country with a minor corruption and in which the oligarchs, although
influential, were not united in a small group with decisive force. Now America is slowly
slipping into the situation of a second-hand shit-hole country.
Is that I can see the situation more clearly than an American citizen who still has the
American perception of his contry the way it was 30 years ago.
Essential thing:
1) The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and
the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes
in fear .
2) There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and
a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a
larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it
alone.
3) Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the
leaders
4) BLM are exactly the brown shirts of the new Hitler.
Soon we will se the new Hitler/Stalin/ in plain light.
Thirty black children murdered recently; zero by police / BLM & 'the media' say
nothing: https://www.outkick.com/blm-101-volume-7-the-lives-of-innocent-black-kids-do-not-matter/
BTW:
– Last year, the nationwide total for all US police forces was 47 killings of unarmed
criminals by police during arrest procedures.
– 8 were black, 19 were white.
Though blacks, relative to their numbers, committed a vastly higher number of crimes, hence
their immensely greater arrest rate.
@Justvisiting urally, it is nonsense -- nasty, power-hungry, censorious nonsense.
It is the opposite of scientific or empirical thought -- science can not accept theories
which are not capable of falsification. (Take astrology -- actually, don't ! -- what ever
conclusion it comes to can never be wrong : Dick or Jane didn't find love ? Well, one
of Saturn's moons was retrograde & Mercury declensed Venus (I don't know what it means
either) . or Dick went on a bender & Jane had a whole bad hair week.
Frankly, to play these pre-modern tricks on us is just grotesquely insulting. That some are
falling for it is grotesquely depressing.
Another ringer from Mike Whitney! Keep 'em comin', brother.
We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem.
We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad
logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an
extremely impressive ideological campaign.
Yup. TPTB have been grooming BLM/Antifa for this moment for at least 3-4 years now, if not
longer. Here's a former BLMer who quit speaking out three years ago about the organization's
role in the present 'race war':
It is very clever politics and (war) propaganda. You break down and demoralise your
enemies at the same time as assuring your own side of it's own righteous use of violence.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows.
Nailing it.
4. They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right.
If we believe this – we need to act like it. These are "enemies, foreign and
domestic ". This isn't ordinary politics, it arguably transcends politics.
What hope is there without organization?
And whatever is done – don't give them ammunition. The resistance must not be an
ethno-resistance.
But he is either naive or a bad manager, as his hires are deadly to his aims. And the
management criticism is big, because as a leader that is mostly what he does.
That he gets information to affect US policy for good, from outside of his circle of
trusted personnel, is a sad state of affairs.
@Robert Dolan ds that it would have ended on day one were it not officially sanctioned
and the rioters protected from prosecution. Why hasn't the Janet Rosenberg/Thousand
Currents/Tides Foundation connection with the BLM/DNC/MSM cabal, as well as with Antifa and
social media, been the major investigation on Fox News? Why haven't Zuckerberg, Zucker, et al
been arrested for incitement to commit federal crimes, including capital treason to overthrow
the duly elected president? (Just a few rhetorical questions for the hell of it.) What's so
galling is that the cops and federal agents are being used as just so many patsies who are
deployed, not to protect, but deployed to look like fools and be held up for mockery as
pathetic exemplars of white disempowerment.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding.
Agree, but where is President Trump? He was supposed to appoint undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries and Schedule C whippersnappers on whose
desks such outrages are supposed to die.
I've thought from the beginning that this lack of attention to "personnel as policy" --
with Trump overestimating the ability of the ostensible CEO to overcome such intransigence --
was one of his major failures. I am sympathetic, as there are not many people he could trust
to be loyal to his agenda, much less to him, but this is a disaster in every agency
Few years ago I watch a clip secretly recorded in Ukrainian synagogue where Rabi said
"first we have to fight Catholics and with Muslims it will be an easy job" ...
Thanks to Mr Whitney for being able to cut through the fog and see what's going on behind
it. The term "white supremacist" wasn't much in public use at all until the day Trump was
elected then suddenly it was all over the place. It's like one of those massive ad campaigns
whose jingle is everywhere as if some group decided on it as a theme to be pushed. They're
really afraid that the white working class population will wake up and see how the country is
being sold out from underneath their feet hence the need to keep it divided and intimidated.
Like all the other color revolutions everywhere else they strike at the weak links within the
country to create conflict, in the US case it's so-called diversity. There's billions
available to be spent in this project so plenty of traitors can be found, unwitting or
otherwise, to carry out their assignments. The billionaire class own most of the media and
much else and see the US as their farm. They have no loyalty whatsoever and outsource
everything to China or anywhere else they can squeeze everything out of the workers. They
want a global dictatorship and admire the Chinese government for the way it can order its
citizens around.
You are exactly right. Trump is doing his part (knowingly or unknowingly, but probably
knowingly) to accomplish the NWO objectives. He was not elected in 2016 in spite of NWO
desires, as most Trump supporters think, but rather precisely BECAUSE of NWO desires.
The NWO probably also wants him to win again this year, and if so then he will win. The
reason the NWO wanted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
@Trinity While I tend to agree with you that it looks like a race war, the question is
why is it happening now? If it were just a race war promoted by radicals in BLM and Antifa,
it does not explain the nationwide coordination (let's face it the faces of BLM and Antifa
are not that smart or connected), the support and censorship of the violence by the MSM and
the support of Marxist BLM by corporations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a color revolution in the making and may come to a peak after Nov. 3rd. Whitney is on
to something, there is much more going on behind the "smoke and mirrors" and AG Barr (if he's
not part of it) should be investigating it.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I keep reading such nonsense in the comments above. the so-called populist majority does
not get it, Trump is not placed here to stop the Globalist agenda, that is an electioneering
stunt. Look at what he has actually and really done.
How has he stopped the Globalist move forward?? By the Covid plandemic being
allowed to circle the globe and shut down the US economy and social norm? By moving our high
tech companies to Israel? Giving Israel and their Wall Street allies what is left of US
credit wealth? Draining the swamp with even more Zio-Neocon Swamp creatures in the govt than
ever? Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all requests per Netanyahu's wish list? A real
anti-Globalist stand? Looting the Federal Reserve for the Wall Street high fliers, who
garnered more wealth during the crash test run of March-April and are sure to make out with
even more for the coming big crash?
Phoney stunts of stopping immigration or bashing China. Really? China is still rising
propelled by Wall Street and Banker funds. I have not seen any jobs coming home, lost more
than ever in US history this year. Only lost homes for the working and middle classes.
How is Populist America standing up for their constitutional rights which is being
shredded a little more each day? Standing up for their Real Interests, which are eroded and
stolen on an almost daily basis by Trump's NY Mafia and Wall Street Oligarchs. Jobs gone for
good and government assistance to the needy disappearing, as that is against the phoney
Republic individualism, that you must make it on your own. Right just like the big goverment
assistance always going to the big money players and banks, remember as they are too big
to let fail!
Dreaming that Trump is going to save White America from the Gobalists is just
bull corn . From whom BLM? Proven street theatre that will disappear on command. I
actually have come to learn that some Black leaders are speaking out intelligently for street
calm and distancing themselves from BLM.
Problem with the USA is the general population is so very dumbed down by 60 years of MSM
– TV s and Hollywood mind control programming that the public prefers professional
actors like Reagan and Trump over real politicians, and surely never chose a Statesman or
real Patriotic leader. the public political narrative is still set by Fox , CNN and
MSNBC .
The deep state is so infiltrated and overwhelmed with Zio and Globalist agents, that it is
now almost hopeless to fix. Sorry to point out but Trump is best described as the Dummy
sitting on his Ventriloquist's lap (Jared Kushner).
Situation is near hopeless as even here on Ron Unz Review the comments are so
disappointing, almost 80% are focused on the Race as the prime issue and supportive of Trump
fakery (not that I support Biden and Zio slut Kamil Harris either).
In sum, beyond putting their MAGA hats on, White America is more focused more on
playing Cowboy with their toy guns, AR's and all than really getting involved politically to
sort things out to get American onto a better track. Of course, this is not taken seriously
as it might call for reaching out to other American communities that are even more
disenfranchised: African- Americans and Latinos.
@David Erickson nted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
Covid and BLM/ANTIFA are just window dressing for the financial turmoil. "Look over here
whitey, there's a pandemic" and "look over here whitey, there's a riot" is much preferred to
whitey shooting the sheriff who comes to take his stuff.
Wave the flag and bible while spreading love for the cops, and the repossessions and
evictions should go off without a hitch. Yes, Trump is a knowing participant.
"My impression is that BLM, Antifa and other protestors are well aware of this"
Like all good Maoists the cult white kids of antifa rigidly adhere to the mission statement
and stick the inconvenient truth in the back of their mushy minds. BLM ... is a mercenary.
Can you imagine any other groups rioting and destroying American cities for over 3 months?
Imagine if the Hells Angels or some other White biker gang was doing what Antifa and BLM are
doing? Hell, imagine if it were a bunch of Hare Krishnas pulling this shit off? Hell, I think
the local mayors, police, and other law enforcement employees wouldn't even take this much shit
even if the rioters were Girl Scouts. We are talking 3-4 months of lawlessness, assaults,
rapes, murders ( cold blooded premeditated murders at that) and still the people in charge let
this shit go on night and day. IF the POTUS doesn't have the authority or the power to stop
shit like this from going on then what the hell do we even vote for anyhow? Granted, I see the
reason for not being ruled by a dictatorship, but who in the hell can justify letting these
riots go on? One can only assume that both the republicants and the demsheviks are fine with
these riots because no one seems in a hurry to shut them down or arrest the hombres funding
these riots. Who is housing and feeding the rioters? Who is paying their travel expenses? I'm
sure most everyone in Washington knows who the people are behind these riots but don't expect
any action anytime soon.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond
the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that
must be eradicated.
That's true to a large degree, but
It is indeed an attempt to liquidate the working and lower middle class. Most of the
American working and lower middle class, obviously not all, is White. So predictably we have
these calls for White Genocide. Agreed and good to see the tie-in with the Coronavirus Hoax
lock downs, too, which also spread the devastation into minority communities under the guise of
public safety.
The one question that remains unanswered is why the major cities were targeted for
destruction. Obviously these are the playgrounds of the oligarchs and have been decimated. We
will learn soon enough.
The Reverend William Barber is the only genuine black leader I am aware of.
And he makes a pointn of not speaking only for blacks, but for all disadvantaged communities,
including poor whites. IMO he is the real deal, and I very much hope he takes the lead in
articulating genuine community values of respect and equality for all, including basics such as
decent health care and food access.
The pressure exerted on someone like Barber by the BLM forces in the media and other
institutions is enormous.
I wish Ron Unz would invite him to write something for the UR.
ou remember Ian Buruma, right? He was forced to resign as editor of The New York Review
of Books in 2018 after he published an essay by the Canadian broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi, who
was accused and acquitted of sexual assault. Now, Buruma talks to The Telegraph about his new book (on
Churchill and Britain's "special relationship" with America) and "cancel culture":
Having been toppled himself, he is worried that cancel culture will lead to 'a kind of
timidity and fear and caution on the part of people who edit and write. The whole point of
being a good editor is having the freedom sometimes to do something that might be
provocative, because that helps debate, and debate helps people think. And if you cancel that
out, you get a sort of boring and fearful conformity that is inimical to a lively
intellectual and artistic culture.'
He sees the new 'intolerance and puritanism' as a substitute for religion. 'It is
particularly strong in the New World, in Australia, Canada and the United States, and Britain
to a slightly lesser extent, than in non-English-speaking countries. There is a sort of
puritanical zeal that is very strong in America and the intolerance of unorthodoxy may be a
secular version of it.'
The point of Ghomeshi's article, he says, was to explore the question of how we set the
perimeters of the length and severity of the punishments doled out by the court of public
opinion. 'I deliberately did not want the article to be about what he had done, there was no
way that I wanted to stick up for that or defend it. I was interested in it because it was a
voice that hadn't been heard, somebody who'd actually had that experience.'
Is there not a danger that his viewpoint might be a bit too detached, I ask? Isn't there
an argument that the many abused women who never even get to see their abuser in court and
feel unheard are quite right to be angry that a liberal magazine should give a voice to
somebody like Ghomeshi?
'Well that's probably true, statistically, that most cases of abuse go unreported and
therefore we never hear about them. But it would be false to say that the voices of women, or
men for that matter, who've been abused in one way or another have never been heard –
we've heard quite a few, maybe not enough, but we've heard them. So I don't think that that
is right.'
Has being 'cancelled' affected him much? 'All I will say is that certain publications I
used to write for do not ask me any more because it would upset people – not so much
readers but people who work for those publications.
'I don't miss being in an office, I'm perfectly happy sitting in my own office writing
whatever I want, but I miss the job in the sense that I could have done something interesting
with [the NYRB] and I no longer can. I wanted to have more voices from South America, more on
Africa, Asia. I think the problem with a lot of American publications today is that they look
inward too much.'
In other news: Thomas Homer-Dixon says reading The Lord of the Rings made him a
better parent. He explains why in The
Walrus : "Many Christian commentators and scholars say Tolkien espoused a Christian hope
based on faith in redemption and God's ultimate intervention. (He was a devout Roman Catholic.)
By this view, hope, which in this case would be Estel, can remain secure because we know God
will take care of us in the end. Other Tolkien aficionados have argued that he eschewed hope
entirely: his protagonists keep going because of nothing more than their ardent commitment to
courage and cheer regardless of what the future seems to hold. Neither argument convinces me. I
see little hint of Christian eschatology in the pages of The Lord of the Rings, and the book's
life philosophy is deeply informed by Norse, Germanic, and Celtic myth. Indeed, to my mind,
Tolkien's heroes possess the Finnish virtue sisu , which translates roughly as 'fierce
tenacity' or 'toughness' and indicates inner strength in the face of daunting odds."
Richard Mabey reviews Helen Macdonald's
Vesper Flights : "I longed for a bird that was just itself, not a token of class war or
a sop to emotional neediness."
Richard Reinsch reviews George
Weigel's The Next Pope : "Weigel's book is an attempt to spell out spiritual criteria
for the next pope -- to explain, in his view, how the next pope should act in order to revive
the church's fortunes in the modern world. There are many elephants in the room here, but one
of the biggest, prudently left unnamed by Weigel, is Pope Francis's pontificate. Weigel drops
small vignettes throughout the book of what the next pope must do and not do."
What's wrong with the university today? Many things, but the main problem, Mario Biagioli
argues, is a preoccupation with gaming the
system rather than focusing on its core purpose: teaching and research. "According to
Goodhart's Law, as soon as a measure becomes a target, gaming ensues, which undermines its
function as a measure. Charles Goodhart, an economist, was referring to the gaming of economic
indicators, but his law applies equally well to all sorts of regimes of evaluation, including
the metrics that command so much authority in today's higher education. Universities are
investing ever more heavily in curating and occasionally faking figures that enhance their
national and global rankings, while simultaneously keeping those metrics in mind when deciding
anything from campus development projects to class size. (Architecturally ambitious campuses
attract alumni giving, which is a positive factor in the U.S. News & World Report rankings
of universities, as are classes capped at 19 students.) Now in full swing, this trend started
inconspicuously a few decades ago. Already in 1996, Northeastern University's president,
Richard Freeland, observed that 'schools ranked highly received increased visibility and
prestige, stronger applicants, more alumni giving, and, most important, greater revenue
potential. A low rank left a university scrambling for money. This single list [ ] had the
power to make or break a school.' Freeland quickly figured out which numbers Northeastern
needed to privilege. Ranked 162nd in 1996, Northeastern jumped to 98th in 2006 and, ten years
after his departure, 47th in 2016. This trend goes hand in hand with another distinctive
feature of the modern university: the discourse of excellence. Because 'excellence' is devoid
of a referent that can be either empirically or conceptually defined -- its meaning effectively
boiling down to 'being great at whatever one may be doing' "
Jeremy Seaton reviews a new edition of
Russell Kirk's Old House of Fear : "While the novel itself remains unaltered so far as I
can tell, the current edition features the addition of a wonderful introduction by James Panero
that offers much insight into both Kirk and his works. This edition also restores Kirk's
dedication of the volume: 'This Gothick tale, in unblushing line of direct descent from The
Castle of Otranto , I do inscribe to Abigail Fay.' This inscription, brief as it is, offers
valuable revelations regarding the Old House of Fear and its residents."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.407.2_en.html#goog_1874787619 Ad ends in 48s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Why time flies when you're old : "Over
a three-minute period, younger people can count down the seconds almost perfectly. Older
people, on the other hand, can be out by as much as forty seconds -- meaning that if they
counted seconds for an hour they'd think the task done with around the 47-minute mark. It
sounds paradoxical, but it's that slowing of the older person's body clock that leads to their
faster counting -- and their feeling that the rest of the world is speeding up."
In search of the English Proust :
"Writing to his publisher Gaston Gallimard, Proust opted for an unusually crisp register: 'I
refuse to let the English destroy my work.' He was protesting at translator C. K. Scott
Moncrieff's use of a pretty Shakespeare quotation ( Remembrance of Things Past ) for his
analytically more precise title ( À la recherche du temps perdu ), not to mention
the now iconic but misleading Swann's Way (for Du côté de chez Swann
). He softened, though his subsequent communications with Scott Moncrieff himself are best
represented as polite rather than cordial. Scott Moncrieff remains nevertheless the true hero
in the story of Proust in English, and any bad feeling on Proust's part is a mere bagatelle
compared to how he would have felt about John Middleton Murry's unintelligible proposition: 'No
English reader will get more out of reading Du côté de chez Swann in French
than he will out of reading Swann's Way in English.' It is, alas, the sort of thing that
also infected Conrad, who came up with the lunatic claim that Moncrieff's Proust was superior
to Proust's Proust."
Receive Prufrock in your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribehere.ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Micah Mattix is the literary editor of The American Conservative and an associate
professor of English at Regent University. His work has appeared in The Wall Street
Journal , National Review , The Weekly Standard , Pleiades , The
Washington Times , and many other publications. His latest book is The Soul Is a
Stranger in this World: Essays on Poets and Poetry (Cascade). Follow him on Twitter .
Ian Buruma highlighted something I've also noticed from the woke mob: Despite their
supposed advocacy of global societies and non-white voices, they completely ignore the
experiences, struggles, and contradictions of global people, especially the Global South. The
persecution of women and girls in Muslim societies is an inconvenient topic for the
intersectional mob, balancing feminism and anti-Christian sentiments. The extremely prominent
colorism of Latin American is inconvenient, balanced between an always uneasy coalition
between Latino and Black Americans.
"And if you cancel that out, you get a sort of boring and fearful conformity that is
inimical to a lively intellectual and artistic culture." In the old country, that was called
"the wooden tongue". You really can't do nothing with such an instrument...
After ample media jaw-jawing over whether the Democratic presidential nominee would loudly
and proudly repudiate some of the present violent protesting in America's streets, Joe Biden
(if briefly) denounced the hard Left on Monday. "Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not
protesting. Setting fires is not protesting," the former vice president said in Pittsburgh, in
a rare day trip from Delaware; he has rarely traveled since the dawn of COVID-19 in the United
States. "None of this is protesting -- it's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it,
should be prosecuted."
"Violence will not bring change," Biden continued. "It will only bring destruction. It's
wrong in every way. It divides, instead of unites. It destroys businesses -- only hurts the
working families that serve the community. It makes things worse across the board, not better."
And, in the signature line of the speech, Joe Biden summed up a lifetime of political appeal:
"You know me. You know my heart. You know my story. Ask yourself, do I look like a radical
socialist with a soft spot for rioters?"
It was effective. Still, Biden's address Monday hardly tied up all loose ends.
After his speech, fresh polling implied additional trouble for his campaign.
Emerson College , respected in the field, released research that found President Trump down
only two percent in the contest, with a double digit performance with African-Americans and
support among Hispanics nearing forty percent, both surprising. It's one poll, but it's
startling stuff. Since Biden declared his candidacy in 2019, his duel with Donald Trump has
been one-sided.
Despite press incentives to couch the race as anybody's game, Trump vs. Biden so far had had
all the makings of a rout, and without a traditional campaign, even a boring one at that (a
shocking statement on anything that involved Donald Trump). From the president's termination of
internal pollsters last year that showed him to the ex-veep losing badly, to Biden's astonishing,
intimidating comeback in the primary to the Democratic nominee's record of utter political
dominance since crisis opened up in America, it had not been a pretty picture for the White
House.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.406.0_en.html#goog_1525384837 00:06 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But that's now plainly shifted. Some partisans in early summer made the case that
relative administration restraint on violent protests in America's cities (including the
capital of Washington, D.C.) would lay bare the nature of certain left-wing tactics.
Politically, at least, it's beginning to look prescient. While overdone analogies to the mayhem
of 1968 abound -- the Nixon-Humphrey race occurred in a time closer to World War I than the
current year -- it's clear, now, that some devotees of the Democrats are, in fact, undermining
the cause.
Americans are fleeing the
city. Bad news for the donkey: some might argue that's a tacit rejection of liberal
politics. And it's certainly a reality Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien is licking his chops
to exploit. Urban America is almost monolithically controlled by the Democratic Party. And, in
a stunning reversal after decades of urban triumph, the city has become a political albatross.
Biden notoriously made his bones in his early political life as a sensitive ear on the
anxieties, reasonable or not, of white suburbanites. Speculation about senility aside, he would
seem to know what's up.
That's why Biden made a tactical error, in later veering off-message -- after the initial
upbraiding of his own side. He repudiated violence, but then engaged in both-siderism. He
implied the canard that anti-fascist chaos has been met with equal, odious might by the far
Right. It hasn't. The most recent, known victim of political violence was a
Trump-supporting man in Portland, Oregon. Whatever you think of his politics, he was
apparently essentially executed in the streets of a major American city.
Images of burned-out ruins in Kenosha, Wisconsin permeate cyberspace. Add in, for instance,
insane reports (if true) of laser attacks on law enforcement, and it's not hard to see how this
gets dicey in a hurry for the Democrats. The party's monofocus on police killings of
African-Americans, an essential issue, falls flat with the public when there is a failure to
also address the larger toxic brew that is the country's problems right now. So, true to form,
Biden strayed further from his initial path by talking, at bizarre length, about Russian
President Vladimir Putin and the dubious
Russian bounties story, where plenty of regional experts say the dust is far from settled.
"Donald Trump is determined to instill fear in America," Biden closed. "That's what his entire
campaign for the presidency has come down to: fear."
The former vice president then declined to take questions, failing to allay fears that he
only speaks when he absolutely has to.
Senator Harris did not say "riots'. To claim that she did is to promote a clear falsehood.
She said "protests". No American should have a problem with protests.
I don't really like either candidate and was all set to write in another name as a protest
(Andrew Basevich). Here is what changed my mind:
https://cwbchicago.com/2020... Click on the embedded video. This attack was folllowed up
by another vicious attack on a senior a couple of days later:
https://cwbchicago.com/2020...
I am not expecting any miracles in a second Trump term but I am one of many voters who
think Biden is a mere placeholder for the more radical Harris.
Trump's best hope for re-election are a) more examples of urban unrest/local politicians
failing to keep order and b) Biden continuing to show he is losing his marbles, particularly
in a debate. He will probably get both, but he would help himself out by hesitating just a
bit every time he feels like shooting off his mouth, which turns of a lot of people,
particularly wavering voters.
"In moments of despair it had occurred to me that there was something of a medieval Dark Age
about the current mood: Extinction Rebellion with its child saints and the self-flagellating
Woke culture. Being given an apparently sound reason to disable the most notable manifestations
of that historical tradition which we are now being encouraged to denounce: what could be
better suited to the weird, vaguely hysterical, fashion of the times?
Fear may be the most dangerous contagion but I am coming around to the view that this is not
simple fear. It is a mass neurosis of which irrational and prolonged anxiety is a symptom: a
corrosive loss of confidence and understanding of one's role and identity which will, if it
prevails, ultimately undermine the quality of modern life more irrevocably than any virus.
It is not only our official cultural institutions that are at risk here. One of the most
fundamental principles of post-war liberal democracy is on trial – or, at least, coming
up for examination." The Telegraph
--------------
Yes, I know. I am becoming even more boring about this, but Daly has her finger on the
essence of the matter. The call to wokeness is a siren song enlisting neurotic adherence to
a cause that demands rejection of the world as we have known it and the creation of a utopian
cult that does not know its own creed.
That remains to emerge when the putative victors in the struggle for a woke world fall
upon each other for control. What would President Bidoharris do in such a circumstance?
IMO they would cave in and the street fanatics would rule a barren landscape that was once a
prosperous and well run country. pl
IMO, This phenomenon is not organic. Rather, it has been deliberately induced by the
enemies of democracy and of the US - some of these enemies are foreign powers, some are
foreign individuals and some are domestic, and of those, even within our own government.
Allies with a common objective for the time being.
The US govt began systematically developing mind control techniques in the 1950s that
built on the work of Bernays. Some of the programs were for controlling individuals (e.g.
MK-ULTRA) and some for controlling masses. Those programs have come to fruition and are being
applied to the US population. It's easy now with mass media, social media and everyone being
wired into their devices 24/7.
As much as the Democrats have a war room, that war room is taking orders from another one
that is higher up the chain of command, IMO.
The current panic/hysteria could be reversed or morphed into something more positive
within a year if the powers running this operation wanted it to be done, but they don't want
that. They want to wreak havoc and destruction. They make a James Bond villain look like
child's play.
A terrified world was ready to believe in the Zombie Apocalypse. What are the roots of
that predeliction?
"Covid" was not the trigger; only the spark that set off the tinder already gathered. Loss
of religion - substituting drugs for the pain of personal growth - broken families - mass
media - age of disinformation - retreats from the challenges of daily interpersonal
connection to interactions by choice behind the computer screens
Rollo May, in his book "Love and Will" nailed it in the 1960's - the Age of Aquarius will
become the Age of Addiction- life-affirming passion is being replaced by life-sapping
lust.
However, this describes only the malaise and our own choices to this this mainstream.
There are still incredible people out there that reject all of the above. As the 1960's
taught us, if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. And part of the
problem may be tuning into the malaise ourselves and blocking out where the sunshine still
exists.
Mea culpa. Playing one of Eric Berne's Games People Play - "Ain't it Awful?"
What is the creed of the liberals, Colonel? Who are the liberal gods? Do you think the
problems facing western civilisation are a consequence of it turning its back on them? I have
a different thesis: The west didn't turn its back on the liberal gods. It embraced them
wholeheartedly, so much so it has now earned an audience with their prince, in his own abode
no less.
In the case of the ongoing George Fentanyl riots I would suggest that this is a mass
psychotic episode, caused by everything mentioned in the article plus drug use, especially
constant, long-term, vaporized marijuana use.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the worst of the rioting has occurred where
marijuana has either been legalized or effectively decriminalized.
You mean the Obamas and the Clintons? They do look a bit "alien" in the best sense of the
word. Barry rode a fantastic "train" of scholarships all the way to editor of the Harvard Law
Review. Michele and her brother were the beneficiaries of the Daly Machine's gratitude to her
father's role as a ward healer. This seems an amazing sequence of events in an indelibly
racist country.
Regarding the climatic aspects of it at least, there is some evidence in peer-reviewed
journals that there may be a Maunder Minimum beginning in the 2030, resulting in a
significant drop in average temperature. It's related to sunspot cycles. [Note: I'm citing a
popularization of it here:] https://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html
.
The detailed peer-reviewed article aboutmit in Nature is quite lengthy and technical.
Post 9-11, Dick Cheney pushed the One Percent Doctrine to justify invading Iraq - if there
is a one percent chance Saddam has nuclear weapons, the US must treat this as a 100%
chance.
This One Percent doctrine became widely discredited, and Ron Suskind wrote a book about it
- how indeed were government decisions made during the War on Terror?
How much of the One Percent Doctrine remains embedded in government decisions today, when
faced with the War on Covid? If it was discredited as the Cheney Doctrine as 100% overkill,
why is it still applied as our model for "covid" decision making?
Shut 100% down if there is a 1% risk -that some will die, and in fact some did die.
Shouldn't we be talking about this?
In the case of George Flloyd (et al) why has there been a pathologic avoidance in
virtually all media, right and left, to even mention resisting arrest and drug use as co
factors in these person's ultimate outcomes?
If one tried to raise these issues all one got back is "he did not deserve to die even if
he was a criminal high on drugs", "he did not deserve to be killed over passing a $20 bill"
......... that a death alone justifies the ongoing string of distortions.
What undergirds this intentional avoidance that prevents even the introduction of personal
responsibility for one's own outcomes? Liberal orthodoxy California-style requires only
blame; and shuns any possible hint that one set their own fate in motion by their own
choices. This bleeding hear overkill is oppressive.
The cult of victimization - is it now found in 99% of our society? Please, November 3,
show me I am wrong. Of course, my mind set is distorted by living in California. Asking for
personal responsibility is thee quickest way to get canceled and censored on any local blog
out here.
I vaguely remember when personal responsibility was a fundamental tenant of American life.
It was certainly the hall mark of my own growing up in the 1950's. In California.: When did
this change so dramatically? Was it LBJ and The Great Society?
Who was it that said fate is what life hands you; destiny is what you do with it. Fate is
being born a certain race, in a certain neighborhood to certain parents, or lack of them.
Destiny is certainly what one chooses to do with that fate. And well evidenced by the recent
RNC testimonies. Bravo.
The gist of this article;
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/schiff-pelosi-livid-after-intel-community-ditches-manipulated-election-briefings-written
Seems to be the marriage of convenience between the democrats and the intelligence community
is starting to fray, as the lightbulb over the head of the intelligence people has turned on,
that sticking to the, "Hillary as the rightful one," narrative for the last four years was
too many eggs in one basket and now they will be throwing the democrats under the bus.
Anyone sensing similar?
Does the 1955 Alan Ginbsurg beat poem "HowL" have any relevance to what is going on today?
Does "Rebel Without a Cause" speak the same message - rage, undefined, diffuse generational
rage .....at something.
Howl
BY ALLEN GINSBERG
For Carl Solomon
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in
the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness
of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on
tenement roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light
tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows
of the skull,
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burning their money in wastebaskets and
listening to the Terror through the wall,
who got busted in their pubic beards returning through Laredo with a belt of marijuana for
New York,
who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in Paradise Alley, death, or purgatoried
their torsos night after night
with dreams, with drugs, with waking nightmares, alcohol and cock and endless balls,
incomparable blind streets of shuddering cloud and lightning in the mind leaping toward
poles of Canada & Paterson, illuminating all the motionless world of Time between,
Peyote solidities of halls, backyard green tree cemetery dawns, wine drunkenness over the
rooftops, storefront boroughs of teahead joyride neon blinking traffic light, sun and moon
and tree vibrations in the roaring winter dusks of Brooklyn, ashcan rantings and kind king
light of mind,
who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on
benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked
and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo,..........
(etc, etc, etc)
Pat..come on. Tweaking the Obamas, Clintons and me the Cone Head Family are other
subjects. I was addressing your inference that the Trump family is running the country in a
well and prosperous manner. Hardly. Running the country on an overnight 4 trillion dollar
plus credit card charge and dribbling out dixi cups Less Taxes Kool Aid is pushing the
standard definition of a well run prosperous country.
It is the Democrat congressional party that wants to spend more funny money than Trump and
you know very well that if it had not been for the carefully encouraged CODIV panic and
shutdown the country would be hugely prosperous and Trump would have clear sailing to
re-election. As I have said before, I am quite good at taking a Le Carre style back-azimuth.
There is an ops room somewhere running The Resistance, always has been and at the bottom of
that chamber pot are painted familiar faces.
written by daniel
mcadams wednesday august 26, 2020
It was one of the most notorious cases of 'cancel culture' gone crazy. A young high school
student was relentlessly bullied and character-assassinated by the mainstream media because he
wore a MAGA hat while a bully screamed in his face. Nicholas Sandmann turned the tables and
walked away with millions of dollars after suing the media outlets that slandered him. But is
"cancel culture" going away? Or is it getting more violent? Watch today's Liberty Report:
How retarded do you have to be to think killing minorities in the US is acceptable when
each thug committing suicide by cop becomes a national conversation is beyond me, especially
when blacks pretty much slaughter each other and everyone else in crime stats.
It's clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way
they have branded struggling workers as "white nationalists" and "racists".
Divide and conquer is as old as civilization itself and just as effective as the first
time it was used. Some baby's never learn.
"... "Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate." ..."
"... "chose not to" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
George Orwell's novel
'1984' depicts life within Oceania, a totalitarian society strictly controlled by an omnipresent Party whose three simple yet
contradictory slogans are: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Citizens of Oceania were forced to accept
that two plus two may equal five if the Party deemed it so.
Akin to the Snake
game
found
on old Nokia mobile phones, woke movements become increasingly illogical and harder to control before eventually tying
themselves in knots or crashing into the walls of logic, sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Modern feminist movements
are having the wind taken out of their sails by other woke factions who argue that children should be taught boys can have
periods
,
so as not to distress transgender students, or that
terms
like
mother and father should be replaced with parent 1 and parent 2. Even the main UK doctors' union sent an internal memo
advising its staff to use the term 'pregnant people' rather than 'expectant
mothers'
to
avoid causing offense.
One could argue that
campaigns designed to remove the concept of male and female is a threat to women and their historical struggles. By
eliminating the 'existence' of women, it not only airbrushes out women's vast contribution to history but also removes the
whole notion of feminism – if womanhood does not exist, then the whole idea of misogyny becomes irrelevant. Perhaps one day
someone will decide that race is simply a construct and can be changed at will, thus making all debates about racism and
oppression irrelevant. Thus future woke cultists might argue themselves into a corner in which racism and thus 'white
privilege' does not exist.
In the West you are free
to choose any gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are not supposed to
question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Likewise, the much lauded concept of human rights and democracy – one of
the key pillars on which Western 'cultural superiority' rests and from which it sneers at 'undemocratic' and 'uncivilised'
countries – is used to justify the destruction, occupation and economic enslavement of other peoples.
Whether it is Libya, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen or Palestine we see that non-white lives do not matter when there are no political points to score.
Indeed, condemning the slaughter of Palestinians could be enough to get you labeled an anti-Semite by those who remain
suspiciously silent when real anti-Semitism rears its ugly head.
For example, far right and
neo-nazi militias in Ukraine,
some
of
whom take their symbols and ideology from the 1930-1940s
,
have
operated with relative impunity and perpetuated human rights abuses upon the people of the Donbass region. These groups were
part of the Maidan movement, visited by Western politicians and praised by liberals, that violently overthrew elected
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Some of the leaders of this movement included far right elements who had no qualms
being amidst white power logos and neo-nazi flags, or had in the past claimed that a
"Moscow-Jewish
mafia"
controls
Ukraine.
Neither
Western nor Israeli politicians seemed too interested in such developments, despite Israeli newspaper
Haaretz
reporting
that weapons sent by Israel to Ukraine were ending up in the hands of far right militias, such as the Azov battalion.
Paradoxically, copious effort and resources were allocated to make people believe that the UK Labour Party, led by left wing
leader Jeremy Corbyn, had a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
As soon as a party leader
like Jeremy Corbyn began to offer something outside the narrowly defined political bandwidth and stood up for the rights of
Palestinians, he was demonized by politicians as well as their media allies and big business handlers. A study conducted by
the London School of Economics and Political Science examined UK newspaper coverage of Corbyn in the months following his
election as Labour Party leader and found evidence of media
bias
such
that
"Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became
a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate."
It is welcome that recent
events in the US have highlighted racism faced by African Americans. Yet frequent murders of African Americans by a
militarized police force did not suddenly appear when Trump came to power. Many Democratic Party politicians who nowadays make
sure everyone knows they unquestioningly support the Black Lives Matter movement had few issues with the status quo before the
killing of George Floyd, and will probably regain their apathy if Biden wins the election.
Furthermore, little is
said about the role the Obama administration played only a few years ago in the destruction of Libya, formerly one of Africa's
richest and most stable nations, and its relinquishment to warlords and Al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Some of these groups were
quick to imprison and murder
citizens
from
sub-Saharan Africa who had migrated to Libya in search of a better life.
Slave
markets
selling sub-Saharan Africans now exist in the new post-Gaddafi Libya.
The UK Conservative Party, traditionally not fans of refugees or migrants, were responsible for the
Windrush
scandal
which saw Caribbean immigrants who had arrived in the UK decades earlier being threatened with deportation despite
having lived, worked, and paid taxes in this country for many years. The same party is now thinking of allowing nearly three
million Hong Kong citizens the opportunity to reside in the UK and later apply for
citizenship
.
When it comes to sticking two fingers up to China, we hear no talk about how the NHS and welfare system cannot afford to
absorb refugees and migrants.
These days many people,
especially celebrities, politicians and media figures, are falling over themselves to condemn racism and make sure everyone is
aware of their anti-racist credentials. The only remaining forms of racism deemed acceptable in the West include Russophobia
and Sinophobia. The media devotes endless hours hyping up the threat from Russia and China and in doing so surreptitiously
promotes animosity toward these nations and their peoples. The shadowy hand of the Russian government is deemed to be behind
every calamity or undesired election result. We are frequently reminded that a vague and poorly defined threat from Russia and
China looms large, though hard evidence is often sketchy, open to interpretation or questionable. At the same time NATO troops
encroach upon Russia's borders, yet the latter is deemed the aggressor, whilst the US sails warships through contested seas
near China's
borders
.
Whereas the UK seeks to provoke Russia for no logical reason, the US is determined to pick a fight with China and claims it
"chose
not to"
stop coronavirus from spreading beyond its borders.
The waning US empire and
its allies within the disintegrating EU prefer to attack their rivals Russia and China to deflect their own populations'
attention away from domestic problems with some good old-fashioned xenophobia. The UK, in particular, would do well to try and
improve its relationships with Russia and China as it is on track to have a lonely time post Brexit.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Portland Oregon BLM requested that whites step aside in the George Floyd murder protests.
I seriously wonder how it is that the approximately 95% whit Portland population finds that
the only thing worthy of protesting in America, or white people in other cities. I have been
to my share of protests and none of them ever accomplished anything so I do not recommend
protests as a way to change policy from my own experience. People often infiltrate protests
for nefarious reasons and often to incite violence to seize the narrative back, because if
the protesters are viewed as violent radicals they will not have sympathy and will not get
their message through. They rarely work, particularly with the militarized police state, I
could not in good faith urge people to risk their lives. The days of the original Boston Tea
Party are long gone.
Just raising hell without a clear direction or path forward is not a good idea. Is the
governmemt corrupt? Yes. Will protesters convince the government or police to change for the
better? I do not think so. In fact, the government has used protests as a reason to illegally
revoke rights over the past 100 years. So especially for that reason, I do not encourgae
people to go to protests after seeing that and never gaining anything else from the protests.
Not because oppose protesting but because I oppose wasting my time.
If wokeness is going to survive, the scourge of actors portraying characters that are in any
way different from themselves must end now.
I consider myself a devout crusader for the Church of Wokeness, a brave Knight of the Woke
Table if you will.
... The newest and most heinous of injustices that I unearthed occurred the other day, and
was so horrifying it literally left me shaking.
... The injustice of which I speak is that Netflix just announced that on its hit show
The Crown , Princess Diana – the most iconic of British Royals, will be played
by Elizabeth Debicki who is gasp Australian!
...
I wish there was a woke time machine so we could see who Octavia Spencer would cast instead
of Oscar-winner Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot and Oscar-nominee Leonardo DiCaprio
in What's Eating Gilbert Grape .
Those able-bodied bastards are acting abominations. Their crimes are almost as bad as
cis-gendered actors playing trans characters.
... Of course, even if an actor is the same race or ethnicity as a character, they aren't
safe from the righteous sword of wokeness. ... To avoid this woke backlash and the cancel
culture mob, white actresses Jenny Slate and Kristen Bell quit their roles voicing black
characters on cartoons.
... we could be one step closer to eradicating the art of acting and finally living in the
glorious utopia of talentlessness we woke are obviously so desperate to manifest.
Rudi Rat 48 minutes ago
What ... the new Diana actress is not black? That is pretty unwoke!
Smythe_Mogg 7 minutes ago
A very amusing piece. Of course, in many of the examples offered nobody but the 'woke' would
consider watching finished films based on 'trans' nonsense and militant lesbianism. Thus
'woke' speaks unto 'woke' and everyone else just gets on with life.
rnsglobal 1 hour ago
Writers like you who subscribe to the idea of "woke" are destroying our society. We don't
want or need opinions like yours that only serve to destroy careers, reputations, or the
normals of society. You are not doing the world a favor, rather you and your woke mobs are
trying to destroy history and re-write it the way you see fit instead of keeping our history
and learning from it. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Vargus_A_MS rnsglobal 43 minutes ago
Do you understand sarcasm? Or is this sarcasm for sarcasm.
InnocentJekyll 1 hour ago
I am like seriously literally actually offended on behalf of all people of color and
minorities right now. #NotMyArticle
Hollywood, despite its
reputation as a liberal bastion, has long been a hothouse of vicious reactionary sentiments.
For example, the
anti-communist mania of the late 1940s and '50s was a particularly shameful time in Hollywood's history. It was during this
Red Scare that Hollywood studios created a blacklist where any person thought to be a communist or associated with communists,
regardless of their ability, was barred from working in the industry.
Joseph McCarthy and the
House Un-American Activities Committee used the threat of the Hollywood blacklist to force many artists to become informers on
their colleagues in order to maintain their livelihoods.
Not surprisingly, as the
Black Lives Matter panic now rages, Hollywood is once again succumbing to the hideous siren's call of dehumanization and
discrimination. Except this time the accusation isn't about communism, but rather,
"Are
you now, or have you ever been, a white man?"
The Red Scare is now the White Male Scare. In Hollywood's current climate of rabid, politically correct, social-justice
hysteria, the message is clear: group identity trumps individual talent, skill and artistry, always and every time.
The black die has been
cast, and the end result of adhering to this devout dogma of diversity is that white men need not apply. Any white men who
raise issues with this mandate are racist and will, along with anyone who openly associates with them, be canceled.
A recent
example
of
this was when black filmmaker Ri-Karlo Handy put out a call on a Facebook group of film professionals for
"black
union editors."
When white editors took offense at this rank racialization, they were called racist, and
one
even
lost his job over it.
Black filmmaker Ava
DuVernay responded by
tweeting
"to
the white men if you don't get that job you were up for, kindly remember bias can go both ways. This is 2020 speaking."
This is reminiscent of
black filmmaker Jordan Peele
saying
,
"I
don't see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie."
Imagine if someone said either of those things about
black or Jewish people instead of
"white men."
Apparently, DuVernay and
Peele feel the best way to fight past racism is with more racism. How ethically and morally repugnant of them.
Who are the real racists? The woke mob tries to redefine racism to hide their own bigotry
Micah Curtis
is a game and tech
journalist from the US. Aside from writing for RT, he hosts the podcast Micah and The Hatman, and is an independent
comic book writer. Follow Micah at
@MindofMicahC
Racism is an evil thing.
People who are branded with that title are given a massive scarlet letter, and are generally cast out of civil society.
Rightfully so, as no one wants to interact with someone who is so malicious towards someone else's skin color. Individuals
like Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer are not tolerated (unless they're
commentating
for
CNN I suppose).
One of the above words
needs to be stressed: it's 'malicious'. As it has been understood for as far as I can remember, racism requires malice. This
is why the term 'hate group' was first coined. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, or other white
nationalists or white supremacists are considered 'hateful' because that is their modus operandi. They outright despise anyone
who isn't like they are.
However, racism isn't
something that is understood to be exclusive to a skin color either. Well, unless you're 'woke'. If you're America's Got
Talent host Nick Cannon, you can call white people and Jews
"
closer
to animals
"
and somehow you're not a racist. You can throw a
"
mute
white people
"
button on your platform and you're somehow totally cool. Bill De Blasio can tell Jewish
people
and
other religious groups that they can't assemble, but a BLM mural is serious business. And, of course, you can be a sitting
senator and brand all Trump supporters
"
white
supremacists
"
with no pushback.
The woke mob doesn't like
the current definition of racism because they fit it to a T. Most people that they are trying to say are racists are more
offended by pineapple on their pizza than anyone's melanin. Meanwhile, BLM supporters like Nick Cannon can spout something
that sounds like it would appear in Der Sturmer and he's fine. You're also going to have to explain to me how the Goya Foods
CEO, a Trump supporter, is a white supremacist when he's a Latino.
Why follow the rules or
adhere to definitions, when you can weaponize the debate to change the rules and definitions to suit your needs?
This is exactly how dopey
the conversation has become. The CDC had over a thousand employees asking the organization to
"declare
racism a public health
crisis
."
So
in the midst of an epidemic, your priority is declaring an irrational emotional response to melanin content in one's skin a
health crisis?! That's not even the CDC's job! Not to mention, acting as if America has anything close to the problems we had
in the 1960s and before is just revisionist. But then again, that's the problem with redefining a term that needs a strong
definition. Everything is becoming racist to the point that the term is becoming worthless.
We're at a point where no one knows who the racists are any more, because we can't even agree on the term. Certain groups are
excluded because they're 'the oppressed groups', as if that has anything to do with evil behavior. Racism is evil. Truly evil.
Evil is not relegated to a specific group or social class. Evil is simply evil. If we redefine something evil as the opposite
at any point, we open the door for tragedy. Many groups of people have been the victim of this behavior at one point in
history or another. If the woke mob gets its way, history will repeat itself.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
During the discussion with
former Public Enemy member Richard Griffin (who left the group after saying the
"Jews
are wicked"
in a 1989 interview), Cannon, who hosts the 'Masked Singer,' claimed it is impossible for him to be
antisemitic.
"It's never hate speech, you can't be anti-Semitic when we are the Semitic people,"
he
said.
"When we are the same people who they want to be. That's our birthright."
He
later insisted again that he is not promoting
"hate speech."
Cannon and Griffin also
spoke about various conspiracy theories regarding Jewish power in the global banking industry and there was even praise for
Louis Farrakhan, a political activist and preacher with a long history of statements deemed anti-Semitic.
Raising even more eyebrows
on social media were Cannon's words about white people.
A clip from the interview
shows Cannon discussing how white people are
"a little less"
and
"closer
to animals"
due to the pigment of their skin.
"When you have a person that has the lack of pigment, the lack of melanin, they know
that they will be annihilated, so therefore, however they got the power, they have the lack of compassion,"
he said,
going on to theorize that
"melanin"
-- which is the dark pigmentation of skin, hair,
or even eyes -- gives non-white people more
"compassion"
and
"soul."
"The people that don't have [melanin] are -- I'm going to say this carefully -- a little
less,"
he continued.
White people, according to
Cannon, do not have the
"power of the sun"
and are acting out of a
"deficiency"
in
their
"fear"
of black people.
Cannon has earned plenty
of critics thanks to the resurfaced interview -- which was originally released last summer, but reposted to Cannon's YouTube
page on June 30 -- with him being blasted online as a
"black supremacist."
Cannon responded to the
outrage in an interview with Fast Company, claiming he wants to be
"corrected"
if
he is wrong, but he refuses to apologize.
"You can say sorry in as many different languages as you want to, and it means nothing,"
he
said.
As for his praise of
Farrakhan, Cannon says he refuses to be held responsible for everything the religious leader said and can only take
responsibility for his own words.
"I can't be responsible for however long Minister Farrakhan has been ministering and
things that he said,"
the rapper said.
"That is his voice and his fight. I can only
be held accountable for what I've seen and what I've heard."
If you like this story,
share it with a friend!
851
4698
Can there ever be a true revolt that is led by the spoiled Children of the
Élite? If so, what would such a 'revolt' mean in America? Well, 25-years ago, a
prescient American cultural historian, Christopher Lasch, foresaw just such a revolution. He
wrote a book – Revolt of the Élite – to describe how, already in
1994, he perceived what lay ahead: A social revolution that would be pushed forward by radical
children of the bourgeoisie. Their leaders would have almost nothing to say about poverty or
unemployment. Their demands would be centred on utopian ideals: diversity and racial justice
– ideals pursued with the fervour of an abstract, millenarian ideology.
And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of
society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter,
rather, would be its facilitators and financiers. Yet the revolt would be resisted. Resisted,
paradoxically, by 'the masses' and by traditional upholders of America's 'golden age' virtues:
"It is not just that the masses have lost interest in revolution," Lasch wrote, but "their
political instincts are demonstrably more conservative than those of these self-appointed
spokesmen, and would-be liberators".
Lasch was undoubtedly prescient; but in fact, we have seen this before – in Russia of
the 1860s, where a type of reductive, abstract ideological obsession developed which was
fundamentally divorced from shared physical and political realities, as well as the emotive
qualities which drive humans towards empathy and compassion. Those early Russian
revolutionaries sought action, for
action's sake . And they practiced not just 'action', but also 'destruction' for its own
sake, too.
It is in this context that the emerging generation of 19 th Century Russian
radicals popularised the notion of the complete renunciation of all, and everything, standing
as 'Russia', and its flawed past.
One of Lasch's key insights was how future young American Marxisants would substitute
culture war for class war: "The culture wars that have convulsed America since the sixties are
best understood as a form of class warfare", he wrote, in which an enlightened élite (as
it thinks of itself), do not deign to persuade the majority (Middle America) by means of
rational public debate – but nonetheless, maintains the conceit of it bearing the torch
for human redemption.
It is essentially then, a revolt not against any powerful, socially élite,
classes, but one targeted against American 'deplorables' and 'reactionary' conservatives: "The
new elites are in revolt against 'Middle America,' as they imagine it: A nation technologically
backward, politically reactionary, repressive in its sexual morality, middle-brow in its
tastes, smug and complacent, dull and dowdy", Lasch wrote. They share a belief that humanity is
on a Grand March toward Progress. It is the splendid march on the road to ending institutional
injustices: It goes on and on, obstacles notwithstanding.
The woke attribution of bigotry and backwardness to their non-college educated compatriots
has inculcated in today's radical college graduates a snobbism and contempt (as also happened
in Russia in the 1800s) that forecloses on empathy for, or any iota of co-compatriotism with
fellow American 'reactionaries and dullards': see here for an example, as one bare-breasted, 'bourgeois
socialist' leader sneers and screams at the police for their lack of a college education, their
lack of bookishness, and yells at the back policemen "Traitors".
Lasch suggests that once, it was perceived that it was a 'revolt by the masses' which
threatened the social order, but today, the threat comes from 'the top of the social
hierarchy', and not from the masses. "It is the élites however, those who control the
international flow of money and information, that preside over philanthropic foundations and
institutions of higher learning that have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of
the West".
Lasch was prescient too, in predicting that the main threat would come from those who
preside over big institutions – and foreseeing the latter's potential symbiosis with the
woke generation. For these CEOs and college presidents collectively, of course, are their
parents; they are the hedonist Woodstock radicals of the 60s, made good, who now sit at the
apex of the institutional world, and Big Business. No surprise then that Big Philanthropy
shares aspirations and funds todays radicals. Big Philanthropy activities today bear no
relation to what most Americans suppose. The 'revolution' has already taken them. Rather, the
commanding heights of American philanthropy today are occupied by massive, well-heeled
institutions that have nothing but contempt for that traditional idea of philanthropy. Schambra
and Hartmann
write :
"[Foundations in America] have seen the need to shift away from merely coping with the
symptoms of problems -- which is all one could expect from local amateurs inspired by
retrograde morality and religious superstition
"Instead, this philanthropic ideal is manifested in an effort to bring about deep
structural change within society, challenging what are seen to be the fundamental institutional
injustices of the economic and political orders. In the words of Darren Walker, president of
the Ford Foundation -- one of the most towering pillars of liberal establishment philanthropy
in the United States -- it's time to move "from generosity to justice".
This means shifting power once again, away from the detached professional class of
managerial elites prized by the first stage of the philanthropic revolution. Since these elites
were so often white and male, they were, and are, part of society's structural injustice -- so
the story goes. They are now dismissed as "white saviours" in need of "decolonization."
Current thinking therefore, calls for putting foundation wealth directly into the hands
of those who have been systematically victimized. Edgar Villanueva, the progressive author
ofDecolonizing Wealth, recently released astatementsaying "philanthropy must take accountable action and release an
unprecedented amount of unrestricted funds to fuel long-term Black-led movements for racial
justice. This moment requires absolutely nothing less, if we profess to be dedicated to justice
".
Since Villanueva's book was released in October 2018, there's scarcely been a
professional meeting or training in the world of foundations that hasn't featured his
message".
This important ideological shift needs to be absorbed: Big Philanthropy, Big Tech and Big
CEOs are with
the 'woke' and BLM militants , and are ready to release Big Funding (some of these
foundations have resources that eclipse those of states). Big Philanthropy
gives BLM $100m (including $40m
from Ford Foundation for capacity building). And with big funding – inevitably
– comes 'guidance' (apolitical 'naturally'). There is a multiplier effect here too, as
Big Philanthropy, Big Tech and Big Biotechnology act as an interconnected network system. They
foresee a (dehumanised) tech and AI-led future, led by a multicultural aristocracy (i.e.
'them').
Fairly obviously, the deplorables and traditional Christian conservatives don't exactly fit
with this vision.
Lasch wrote: "Those who covet membership in the new aristocracy of brains tend to congregate
on the coasts, turning their back on the heartland and cultivating the international market in
fast-moving money, glamour, fashion, and popular culture Multiculturalism "suits them to
perfection, conjuring up the agreeable image of a global bazaar in which exotic cuisines,
exotic styles of dress, exotic music, exotic tribal customs can be savoured indiscriminately,
with no questions asked and no commitments required they illustrate how the western
élite has burned the candle at both ends – welcoming migration that transforms
society from below, even as the upper class floats up – into a post-national utopia,
which remains an undiscovered [and frightening prospect] for the people left behind".
Let's unpack this a little further: "floating up into a post-national utopia" – isn't
this just the WEF 'Davos'
Great Global Reset' project ? Doesn't this fit exactly with the objective of floating up
into a post-national, climate, bio-health and financial, global governance? A world of fast
moving, money, glamour, and celebrity, as Lasch saw it.
Who was Lasch? By training, Lasch was a historian of nineteenth and twentieth century
American culture. He came from a left-wing intellectual family and married into another. He was
thoroughly on the Left during the 1960s. Indeed, he later moved further in that direction .
Roger Kimball has written of Lasch's
searing retrospective on the Woodstock generation, entitled The Culture of Narcissism :
"What one witnessed in its pages, was the spectacle of an intelligent, politically committed
man of the Left struggling to make sense of a culture in the grip of a radicalism that had
turned out to be almost entirely bogus".
Kimball writes, Lasch "understood that consciousness-raising in the 1960s and 1970s was
mostly a blind for moralistic self-indulgence. Promises of liberation and transcendence, he
saw, often concealed new forms of tyranny and irresponsibility". It was nonetheless exactly
this radicalism of the preceding Woodstock generation, combined with the commitment to
'Progress', that would lead to extremism and division in the succeeding gilded generation, he
believed.
Lasch also saw that the eroding of a common culture, values and standards, which was the
major legacy of 60s cultural radicalism, ended up creating a gulf between social classes. If
there were no common values to hold people together, what was to stop the rich and powerful
trampling over the rest of society, cloaking their self-interest in furious
self-righteousness?
And so it has come to pass.
So, what can we make of all this? The US has suddenly exploded into, on the one hand,
culture cancelation, and on the other, into silent seething at the lawlessness, and at all the
statues toppled. It is a nation
becoming angrier , and edging towards violence.
One segment of the country believes that America is inherently and institutionally racist,
and incapable of self-correcting its flawed founding principles – absent the required
chemotherapy to kill-off the deadly mutated cells of its past history, traditions and
customs.
Another, affirms those principles that underlay America's 'golden age'; which made America
great; and which, in their view, are precisely those qualities which can make it great
again.
A third – more cynically – swims with this woke tide, offering to 'take the
knee', hoping to shape and mould the woke uprising, in ways that serve the end of toppling
Trump, and paving the way to a tech and AI vision of the future.
The woke 20+ and 30+ year-old revolutionaries however, have already invaded and culturally
captured virtually all the principal institutions of Big Media, Big Money and Big Philanthropy.
And even
West Point Military Academy too, it seems. Or, perhaps we should say, the old 'Woodstock
ethos' of sympathy for corporate organisation has (reciprocally) captured them too.
The Culture War has long since been lost at the legal level. Even conservative parents have
had little choice, but to sacrifice their children to the altars of top-tier colleges and
universities. It is just not possible to chart a path into the rarefied world of 'Big Anything'
if you are not part of the élite sorting structures. Smart parents know this. They see
it every day; but nevertheless these colleges and institutions precisely are a part of the
industrial manufactory of woke. And Big Tech has played its part: It has seen to it that young
imaginations are
filtered through Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat – all dominated by the fully
woke.
The US lies in the flood plain of a cultural tsunami – and the question is whether
there is anything on the horizon that will provide a stopper, or a levée that will hold?
Will an appeal to Law and Order traditionalists, or to a newly-formulated nationalist culture,
succeed in stemming the 'Demographic ring' from snapping-shut on white conservatives in
November? (That constituency has been a minority for some years, already).
Once the nature of the woke cultural war is understood, the problems become obvious. Any
defence of traditional sources of American identity will be construed by the woke ideologues as
racially offensive. Traditional American nationalism, in the woke view, is white
nationalism . But the woke coalition (Big Media, Big institutions) will not accept to fight
on a 'nationalism' terrain. They simply will insist that traditional American beliefs amount to
race hatred. How can you have 'cultural nationalism' when the forces of woke believe that the
nation itself is irredeemably racist and bigoted?
Nothing is certain for November: there are too many unknowns. What we might conclude
however, is that today the US is 'rhyming' with (if not repeating) history – 1860 Italy
to be precise. An ambitious rising 'class' intends to displace an old aristocracy, and install
itself in its palaces. Then, it was a rising, increasingly prosperous, middle class that was
intent on becoming the new aristocrats, in place of old aristocracy. Today, however, it is the
old 'Anglo' imperial aristocracy that is being targeted by the cosmopolitan 'thinking
aristocracy' of Silicon Valley, of Wall Street, Big Pharma and Big Philanthropy. The woke
troops are simply their chaff.
America's 'Golden Era' nostalgia may be the strongest player on the board, for now. But to
all other players, the latter is viewed now as so toxic, that the aspirant new 'aristocrats' of
the 'Grand March toward Progress', may push aside old rivalries very quickly, to combine for
the defeat of the 'old'. The old aristocracy ultimately may opt for peace at any price, in
which case the political 'ring' – along with the demographic – will snap shut. It
did in 1860. It was over.
"America's financial and political establishment has always been most terrified of an
inclusive underclass movement. So it evangelizes a bizarre transgressive politics that tells
white conservatives to fuck themselves and embraces a leftist sub-theology that preaches
class as a racist canard." - Matt Taibbi
Frank, according to Taibbi , not only predicted the current culture war we currently find
ourselves in - he's hit the nail on the head once again when it comes to the left's inability
to learn from their mistakes - after the party abandoned blue-collar America for condescending,
coastal intellectuals.
Frank published What's the Matter with Kansas? in 2004, at the height of the George W.
Bush presidency. The Iraq War was already looking like a disaster, but the Democratic Party
was helpless to take advantage, a fact the opinion-shaping class on the coasts found
puzzling. Blue-staters felt sure they'd conquered the electoral failure problem in the
nineties, when a combination of Bill Clinton's Arkansas twang, policy pandering (a
middle-class tax cut!) and a heavy dose of unsubtle race politics (e.g. ending welfare "
as we know it ") appeared to cut the heart out of the Republican "Southern strategy."
Yet Clinton's chosen successor Al Gore flopped, the party's latest Kennedy wannabe, John
Kerry, did worse , and by the mid-2000s, Bushian conservatism was culturally ascendant,
despite obvious failures. Every gathering of self-described liberals back then devolved into
the same sad-faced anthropological speculation about Republicans: "Why do they vote against
their own interests?" -Matt Taibbi
And instead of trying to actually figure out what motivates voters from poor swaths of
America, the left has chalked it up to ' racial animus and Christian superstition. '
Taibbi further notes: "The Kansas title alone spoke to one of Frank's central observations:
while red state voters might frame objections in terms of issues like abortion or busing, in a
broader sense the Republican voter is recoiling from urban liberal condescension ."
That Democrats needed Thomas Frank to tell them what conservatives fifteen miles outside
the cities were thinking was damning in itself. Even worse was the basically unbroken string
of insults emanating from pop culture (including from magazines like Rolling Stone: I was
very guilty of this) describing life between the cities as a prole horror peopled by obese,
Bible-thumping dolts who couldn't navigate a Thai menu and polished gun lockers instead of
reading.
Republicans may have controlled government at the time, but when they turned on TV sets or
looked up at movie screens, their voters felt accused of something just for living in little
towns, raising kids, and visiting church on Sundays . What's the matter , they were asking,
with that ? -Matt Taibbi
And since the 2016 US election, instead of introspection over why Trump resonates with
blue-collar America, the left has learned nothing.
After 2016 it became axiomatic that the Trump voter, or the Leave voter, was –
without exception now – a crazed, racist monster. As detailed here multiple times,
ruminations on Republican voter behaviors became not merely uninteresting to pundits after
November 2016, but actively taboo. By 2020, the official answer to What's the Matter with
Kansas? was Kansas is a White Supremacist Project and Can Go Fuck Itself. -Matt Taibbi
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"Yesterday, there was a Tzar and there were slaves. Today, there is no Tzar, but the slaves
are still here. We have gone through the epoch when the masses were oppressed. We are now going
through the epoch when the individual is to be oppressed in the name of the masses." ―
Yevgeny Zamyatin, A Soviet Heretic
Legendary British comedian John Cleese has hit out at permanently offended woke people,
insisting that they have no sense of humour and are contributing to the death of comedy.
In an appearance on the Daily Beast's The Last Laugh Podcast, Cleese noted that woke people
simply do not understand the intricacies of comedy.
"There's plenty of people who are PC now who have absolutely zero sense of humour. I would
love to debate, in a friendly way, a couple of 'woke' people in front of an audience. And I
think the first thing I would say is, please tell me a good 'woke' joke," Cleese urged.
"What they don't understand is that there's two types of teasing," Cleese continued, noting
that "There's really nasty teasing, which is horrible, and we shouldn't do it, full stop. But
the other type of teasing is affectionate. You can tease people hugely affectionately and it's
a bonding mechanism."
"All humour is critical. You cannot get laughs out of perfect human beings," Cleese
continued, adding that "If you've got someone up on the screen who is perfect, intelligent and
kind and flexible and a good person, there's nothing funny about that. So we only laugh at
people's frailties, but that's not cruel. You can laugh at people's frailties in very funny and
generous ways."
Cleese was recently at the centre of a 'woke' storm when his
Fawlty Towers show, made some 40 years ago was temporarily canceled after complaints that it
featured a 'racist' character.
Cleese called the BBC "cowardly and gutless" for removing an episode of the show, pointing
out that the racist character in question was the target of ridicule in the show.
Cleese has previously warned that political correctness will lead to the death of comedy,
noting that "If you start to say we mustn't, we mustn't criticize or offend them then humor is
gone. With humor goes a sense of proportion. And then as far as I'm concerned you're living in
1984."
After daring to question the diversity overlords, Cleese also recently found himself being
labeled a 'racist'
Nunyadambizness , 3 hours ago
Cleese is absolutely spot on.
The vast majority of "woke" people have fallen subject to the Cultural Marxism that is
political correctness, and frankly have the intellectual capacity of my shoe. Disagree?
You're a racist/sexist/homophobe/islamophobe/ etc., etc., etc. One cannot debate ideas
because if your idea is different then theirs, they cannot accept the fact that you have a
different idea than the "woke" theology--same as Islam demands submission to their
theology.
WorkingClassMan , 2 hours ago
The man IS a comedic genius. Even when he made fun of 'The Germans," he did it in such a
unique and awesome way it even had this German-American laughing. He can get away with a
Hitler skit--he's THAT good.
EvlTheCat , 2 hours ago
"Woke" in itself is a joke and a oxymoron, which if you know the definition makes it
ironic also. Touches all bases John.
seryanhoj , 2 hours ago
Also a grammatical error. The chosen ones who may not be questioned, are awakened.
Clese is right . The " woke " have less sense of humour than the state dept. or the
Pentagon or the NRA.
Anyone who tskes himself seriously is a threat. Fortunately even he will soon be dead and
forgotten.
EvlTheCat , 1 hour ago
Mr. Fawlty will never be forgotten.
Simple past participle.
Bay Area Guy , 2 hours ago
I wonder what George Carlin would have to say about the situation today. I think he would
say a lot of things similar to what Cleese has said. Carlin was most definitely a staunch
liberal, but he also stood up for true free speech. I recall a skit he did that skewered
feminists. Undoubtedly, they would try to silence him today.
I'm not sure a true wokester could ever tell a joke. They'd be deathly afraid of someone
in their crowd taking it the wrong way and getting canceled. Besides, the concept of humor is
totally foreign to them. When you spend your entire waking life (and probably your dream
state as well) constantly finding things to be offended at and be outraged by, humor is going
to go completely over their heads. My guess is the best joke in the world would be met with
glassy eyes and the need to explain the joke which, of course, totally negates the value of
the joke.
ZenoOfCitium , 2 hours ago
Here is a good woke joke for you: Woke people care about only their woke-selves,
period!
Being "Woke" is being selfish. Being only interested in oneself. Being woke is believing
only minorities can succeed without one's woke self interference.
Being woke is about protesting fascism, while demanding authoritarian and dictatorial
power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of
the economy.
El Chapo Read , 2 hours ago
The BBC executive staff transitioned into a chosenite-dominated lineup over the last 20
years.
They ruin everything.
gcjohns1971 , 2 hours ago
I love Cleese's work.
He demonstrated a particular talent for shredding the self-important imbeciles of the
1970s... but somehow became both self important and unwilling to shred crowds with whom he
sympathized in the 1990's, 2000's and today.
Mores the pity. His work could have saved a generation. It is a tragedy.
The wokesters are like the terminator...but with sensitive ears that cannot withstand the
slightest disagreement, much less criticism. Their motto is the reverse of the one we learned
as children, "Words and verbs destroy my world, but sticks can never hurt me".
Cleese, there, could have been a weapon of mass comedy.
You can't really grow up until you can laugh at yourself. But the wokesters are
coffee-shop commando's simmering in malevolent pike while eating soy and sipping coffee...but
only of the poshest and most stylish blend.
GeezerGeek , 1 hour ago
Cleese is a little late to the party; plenty of others have already announced the death of
comedy, particularly on campus. Comedy clubs still exist, but the PC crowd has limited the
subjects about which one can tell jokes.
I wonder how the wokesters would treat Carlin if he was still alive. I doubt he'd be very
kind to them.
simulkra , 3 hours ago
I read a book years ago, the thesis of which was that humour was closely related to
inventiveness. It argued that both involved making connections between the apparently
unrelated.
Ideologues, of the useful idiot variety, often do not have the capacity for humour, as
they do not have the cognitive ability to think in the abstract and make these connections.
Their inferiority drives them to attempt to reduce others to their level, by elevating the
slogan's they have managed to learn by rote, to absolute importance. They are the sheep in
Animal Farm.
Do not grace them with the moniker of 'woke', as they are sleepwalkers in someone else's
dream. What we are seeing here is the media promotion of the idiot horde.
High Vigilante , 3 hours ago
Humour requires intelligence.
Doom88 , 3 hours ago
For the woke crowd comedy is no laughing matter.
Cognitive Dissonance , 2 hours ago
Humour requires intelligence.
Or at the very least perspective and self awareness, something categorically lacking in
the so-called 'woke' crowd.
john doeberg , 3 hours ago
People with mental disorders ... can't be funny.
Their brains are fried.
Saddam Miser , 3 hours ago
Woke people have zero sense of anything because they're all closet schizos. Try talking to
one. You would think you're talking to a completely psychopathic schizo.
Paolo Roberto, 50, a native of Sweden (his father was an Italian), had made a name for
himself: a well-known boxer, he had his own TV show, he appeared in many programmes; Swedish
girls loved to dance with him in Dancing with the Stars ; he also had a profitable
business: he imported Italian olive oil and gastronomic products sold in the large Swedish
supermarket chain CO-OP. All that glory vanished in a moment. Swedish police trapped him as he
visited a girl of dubious character and then paid her for her services. It was a honey-trap.
The policemen appeared from their hiding places and whisked Roberto off to the local precinct
where he was booked and the nation alerted. He didn't deny a thing; he expressed extreme
remorse.
In Sweden, it is perfectly legal to be engaged in prostitution. Today no one in Sweden can
tell a woman what to do with her own body, be it abortion, sex change or prostitution. Yet it
is a crime for a man to pay a woman for sex.
It is not sane; it is as though selling crack were legal while buying crack is the only
crime. Usually it is other way around, a casual user goes free while the pusher is arrested.
But it does not matter; Sweden is not the only country in the world with such a strange law on
her books.
Roberto was charged for this crime. It could be worse: Sweden has some extraordinary crimes
in its law book, one of them is Rape by Misadventure or Careless Rape which is
committed by a man who has sex with a woman who ostensibly agrees to or even solicits sex but
inwardly she is not willing. She may be doing it for money, or boredom, but not for pleasure,
and the man carelessly overlooked her conflicting emotions. It is Swedish Rape. Pity they never
apply the same logic to working people; we often do even less pleasant things for money, to buy
food or pay rent, but the landlord is not punished for raping his tenants.
This new definition of rape deserves Victor Hugo's pen. It is Swedish Rape to have sex
without a condom. It is Swedish Rape if the next day, or a few days later, the woman feels she
may have been raped. Or cheated, or underpaid, or mistreated. For this ill-defined offence,
Julian Assange has already spent ten years in various detention halls. If he would have killed
the girl he would be free by now. Note that you may be guilty of Swedish Rape if you claim to
be infertile and your partner becomes pregnant. Are you guilty of rape if you claim to be a Jew
but aren't? This is an Israeli contribution to the concept of rape. But I digress.
Paolo Roberto is charged with paying a woman for sex, the crime Judah, son of Jacob,
committed with Tamar (Genesis 38). The 25-year-old girl consented, but that does not matter.
She came from a rather poor South European country, so probably her consent doesn't mean much.
Or perhaps she consented just in order to entrap the guy and this is how Swedish justice works.
Swedish prisons would be empty if police weren't allowed to entice and entrap Swedes.
The consequences for Paolo were terrible: he hasn't been tried yet; he hasn't been found
guilty; his likely punishment is little more than a fine; but he was dropped like a hot potato
by Swedish TV, by Swedish sports, by the Swedish chain that marketed his olive oil. His company
was bankrupted overnight. The man was crushed like a bug. It was not Swedish law that crushed
him. In the eyes of Swedish law he is still innocent until proven guilty. Swedish law did not
force the supermarkets to remove his olive oil (actually, a very good one, I used to buy it)
from its shelves. Paolo was lynched by the New Puritan spirit that is part and parcel of the
New Normal.
Once upon a time, Sweden was an extremely liberal and free country. Swedes were known, or
even notorious for free sexual mores. Independent and brave Swedish girls weren't shy, and they
were comfortable with very unorthodox 'family' unions. But, while the US has always espoused
its own brand of politically-correct Puritanism, the global media is now dragging along the
other Western states in its wake. France and even Sweden participated in their own renditions
of the American BLM protests, called for #MeToo, and seem eager to trade in their own cultures
for the New Puritanism.
This rising Puritanism is a contrarian response to the personal freedom we enjoyed since the
1960's, and a jaded weariness with the excessive commercial sexuality of the mass media. The
media sells everything with a lot of sex. You cannot turn a TV on, daytime or night, without
seeing an implied or explicit act of copulation. They sell cars, snacks and sneakers by
displaying naked bodies. This flood of pornography is turning the public mood against sex. Who
should we blame for this blatant exploitation of sex? Men.
The Old Puritanism was hard on women; the witches were burned, and the whores were evicted
from their homes. The New Puritanism is hard on men. Men are being taught that hanky-panky can
have serious consequences. On the site of one of their destroyed statues of Jefferson, the
Americans should erect a statue of Andrea Dworkin, the obese lying feminist who famously
said that every intercourse is rape, and Penetration is Violation . She is an icon
of New Puritan America.
They could not outlaw sex per se, so they invent sordid stories of incestuous sex, of
paedophilia, of abusing priests, each storyteller trying to outdo the last. The vast majority
of these stories are sheer inventions, like the witchcraft stories of the 17 th
century in Old Puritan New England. We are in the midst of a global media campaign, and men are
the targets. The Patriarchy will be diminished by the systematic demonization of boys and
men.
In the current media frenzy I cannot trust any story, any accusation of a man involved in a
sordid sexual crime: these media campaigns are too often employed to unseat a commercial
competitor or destroy the popularity of a political rival. Often the man is not even accused of
any crime, but only of frivolous behaviour: a touch, or an immodest proposal; natural acts
celebrated in the days of my youth. Yes, my young readers, in the 1970's you could touch a
woman's knee and suggest she accompany you on a passionate weekend at a seaside resort, and she
would often agree. This libertine era is over completely. Even to me, it now seems mythical,
like Atlantis. It is gone.
The US is the media's inspirational model of the New Puritanism. Remember the women who
lined up to claim that the future Supreme Court
judge tried to kiss or even rape them when they were kids in college? The most credible of
them would not even allege he behaved criminally; just immorally according to New Puritan
standards. Now every relationship must be re-evaluated in the light of the New Puritanical
historical revisionism. Women who pose for a picture with a presidential candidate now have a
certain amount of power over him. During a media campaign the allegations come fast and
furious, but upon investigation they turn out to be spurious and motivated by self-interest or
politics.
It is good to see that sometimes, quite rarely, a man can still escape a close encounter
with his life intact. Former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond had been accused of all
the usual sexual sins and was fully cleared by the court . No less than
ten women were recruited (apparently with the knowledge of Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond's
successor); they came forward and claimed that they were sexually attacked by Salmond. They
were rather sloppy with their proofs, and it turns out that they claimed they were attacked at
times and places where Salmond could not have been present. The case was dismissed and Salmond
was found not guilty . Scottish prosecutors had spent years of labour trying to condemn
Salmond, and it spectacularly failed.
You might ask, why have these perjurers (who are well-connected women close to the centre of
power of the ruling SNP party) not been prosecuted for their attempt to frame the man? Well,
the very idea of these trials is that the accusing woman can't lose. If she wins, she can
collect millions, and if she loses, even her name remains secret. These ten perjurers are
exempt from legal consequence; nor are they required pay expenses and damages. The women are
protected. Who pays? Our colleague, the excellent writer and former HM Ambassador Craig Murray , that's who. Murray was
reporting on the trial of Alex Salmond for the public's benefit, published onto his own blog,
when he was charged with disclosing the identities of some of the perjuring women. A
conscientious man, Craig wasn't guilty of naming names, but even his vague description of "an
SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil
servants and officials" was considered by the court to be a monstrous breach of
confidentiality.
The public was well prepared for this onslaught on mankind by the poisonous #MeToo culture,
a massive wave of carefully coordinated media hysteria. Women in communes and nunneries are
known to menstruate at the same time when living in close proximity. #MeToo was a similar mass
event. It was designed to push women's buttons. They even offered up an appropriately grotesque
scapegoat: Harvey Weinstein, a movie producer with 386 Hollywood production credits under his belt.
The actresses that accused Weinstein (over eighty women) would still be unknowns if he had
not given them parts in his movies. And they repaid him with such cruel ingratitude. Actresses
have a certain psychological setup that makes them extremely untrustworthy. They have many
other qualities to offset this deficiency, but you can't just accept the words of a lady who
plays today Lady Macbeth and tomorrow Madam Butterfly as solid truth. They are acting, in life
as well as in their line of work.
Consider the beautiful Angelina Jolie. She is mad as a hatter. Even her own father said that
she had "serious mental problems." Her long history of violent self-abuse culminated with her
choice to cut off her breasts because of a DNA test that indicated risk for breast cancer. She
has had a long line of boyfriends and husbands, and a lot of kids adopted out of Africa, taken
away from their natural parents. Is she a reliable witness? She would say anything that is
fashionable. The woman wants to be adored as the model of an excellent person; this is a
honourable goal, but she is extremely unsuitable for it.
Weinstein's eighty accusers collected millions; the great producer went to a life-long jail
sentence. The public, the great American public was eager to lynch the man who gave them
True Romance and Pulp Fiction . Was he guilty as charged? Even the charges were a
travesty of justice. Men of his generation (and of mine, too) routinely propositioned women. We
are all guilty, though not many of us racked up Weinstein's numbers. Yet every woman was free
to refuse. No
police reports against Weinstein appeared until the #MeToo media campaign was in full
swing. Did he harass them? You and me are harassed daily by offers to take another credit card
or bank loan; we are free to refuse this definitely harassing offer. Every unsolicited proposal
is harassment; and we receive daily hundreds of proposals of various nature. What is so
different about a sexual proposal to a woman? Weinstein may or may not have committed a crime,
but in the poisonous air of #MeToo there is no need to prove any accusation, and the man was
lynched.
Perhaps now I am going to lose your tentative sympathy, but I do not believe the allegations
against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, either. And the attack on Prince Andrew is
similarly unbelievable. Chapeau for Mr Trump who dared to express sympathy to Ms Maxwell. This
was an act of incredible bravery, to step out of line and to say a few kind words to her and
about her. The cowardly Clinton and Obama, who were close friends with Epstein and Maxwell,
were mum. Trump who was not particularly close to the couple, spoke up for them. He really
deserves being re-elected, despite his many faults. Such a man is a master of his own mind, and
this is a very rare quality.
I may mull over a proposal to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, but how possibly can one believe the
stories of the disturbed woman who claims that she had to be forced to have sex with fabulously
wealthy Mr Epstein or to meet glamorous Prince Andrew, let alone that she suffered "extreme
distress, humiliation, fear, psychological trauma, loss of dignity and self esteem and invasion
of her privacy" on his island retreat? The complete absence of evidence and the complete lack
of objectivity could only prevail in the midst of a media campaign. It is believable what Ms
Maxwell said in a deposition, that Ms Giuffre was "totally lying." Indeed all these gold
diggers are totally lying.
Like this one : An
anonymous accuser says she'll testify that 'evil' Ghislaine Maxwell raped her '20-30 times'
starting from when she was 14 and claims she was forced to abort Jeffrey Epstein's baby. Honest
and reputable men like Prince Andrew are forced into the demeaning and impossible position of
having to argue and justify themselves against wild accusations. There are no reasonably
believable accusations of crime against these people. A woman had a photo of her taken with
Prince Andrew. She was at least 17; at this age girls in England are perfectly entitled to have
an affair with a man. Other girls in other photos were apparently of age, too. Young, yes, but
not criminally young. Furthermore, a posed photo does not always indicate a sexual
relationship. Some women claim they were babies and they were raped, but there are no proofs of
anything except their greed.
Mike Robeson who investigated the claims came to conclusion that they were often initiated
by big business to rip off rich Jews. New Puritanism is the Joker card that can trump the
antisemitism ace. He wrote:
I've read Whitney Webb's investigative articles on Epstein, which are often cited by the
alternative and leftist crowd as evidence of his Mossad connections and blackmailing
activities. But Webb's articles are actually full of unsubstantiated rumors, possible immoral
or illegal activities between high level people based on coincidental social or business
connections and potentially damning rumors corroborated mainly by her previous articles and
posts. She has done some fine reporting on other issues. But on the Epstein case, she is part
of what Israel rightly refers to as the New Puritanism.
Supposed evidence of Frau Maxwell's salacious involvement is the famous photo of Prince
Andrew below. This is all the New Puritans need to justify believing the rumors and drawing
their "I told ya' so!" conclusions. But hobnobbing has long been a sport played by the
wannabes with the tacit collusion of the rich and/or famous.
Take a look at the fun couple under Prince Andrew and his alleged squeeze. You may
recognize Rosalynn Carter, then First Lady of the US. Standing next to her is none other than
William Gacy , a
few months before he was arrested as a serial killer and cannibal of those he'd butchered.
Are we to draw certain conclusions from this photo?
Below Rosalynn Carter is another photo, this one showing then President George Bush being
hobnobbed by political has-been George Wallace and by young political wannabe Bill Clinton.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? Was George already then grooming Billy Boy for
higher things in life? Or is it merely more photographic evidence of how wannabes crawl up
the ladder of personal and career advancement? For it is clear that the rich and/or famous,
like Rosalynn Carter and Prince Andrew, have to put up with photo ops, sometimes to their
later discredit.
Very little about the Epstein case makes sense – not his social and financial
connections and especially not his alleged links with the Mossad. Every rich Jew in the US is
sayanim, but that doesn't mean they are running blackmail ops. And the pedo accusations are
ridiculous. His 'victims', none of whom were less than 16 (legal to marry in most European
countries and many American states) were willing, well paid and well taken care of gals who
got lucky to catch a good-looking sugar daddy. Whatever he knew about his rich and famous
clients that may have gotten him killed may have had something to do with what he knew about
them, sure. He probably shared his largesse with his friends and possible donors and
contributors. But if he had been sexually blackmailing them over the years, why did they keep
going back to him?
The blackmail angle doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that a lot of famous people
may have preferred him dead to testifying about his activities. Who, famous or not famous,
would want to get dragged through the mud by the overzealous New Puritan prosecution teams
that had already destroyed the lives of innocent defendants of sexual accusations like Jerry
Sandusky and Larry Nasser, as well as hundreds of others in the past decades of America's
sexual abuse/devil worship hysteria. The Pizzagate fiasco is a demonstration of how mobs can
be raised, aimed and defused by an orchestrated media campaign.
From what I see of Epstein's photos, he was an intelligent, good lucking, confident, fun
loving guy. If he was nailing more hot chicks than I ever did, more power to him.
Another motivation for the liquidation of Epstein's empire is the collaboration between
the media and the unknown figures behind the scenes who are likely to walk away with
Epstein's millions. Are you familiar with the story of Howard Hughes and the destruction of
his Las Vegas empire? It happened to him. Something similar has happened in the past few
years to other wealthy Jews like Donald Sterling , who was first falsely
accused of being a racist and then forced to relinquish his ownership of an NBA team. Other
examples? Richard Fuld of Lehmann Bros. and Bernie Madoff were taken down by their Wall
Street rivals and then used as scapegoats to expiate the sins of corporate raiders. Harvey
Weinstein was the sacrificial schwein to absolve the sick Hollywood culture. Now that
Weinstein has been destroyed, Hollywood can go back to business as usual.
But what about the intimidation faced by hundreds of girls victimized on Epstein's private
island? Why do they claim to be afraid of retribution even after his death? The girls were
treated well. They admit that they cooperated in finding more girls who would massage
Epstein, even supposedly knowing that they too would be 'horribly abused' by the 'monster'.
The reporters and the interviewed women are perfect examples of New Puritans. I feel dirty
after watching them perform. None of their emotional anecdotes reach evidentiary standards
and any court would dismiss their cases out of hand.
As for the source of Epstein's fortune, here is a plausible
investigation . It is interesting that no one can really agree on the amount nor the
source of his millions.
Justice, or what is passing under that name, gets screwed whenever the law is used to
empower a person with a personal grudge, either on his own behalf or to benefit a media
consortium. Emotional appeals could never been considered in the better world of Jefferson,
Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they had slaves, but they would not have condemned a man, free
or slave, on the basis of empty accusations. Physical evidence is still required in the legal
courts. Only on TV can people be destroyed by edited testimony.
I am very tolerant of anti-Jewish rhetoric. So tolerant that I am often accused of it
myself. Still, the accusations against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and let's not forget
poor Mr Harvey Weinstein, are often marked by cliché characters such as the crass
foul-mouthed Jew and the innocent girl he despoils. Meanwhile, the facts of each case are
monotonously repeated: one man's career is destroyed while dozens of girls become famous;
millions of dollars are suddenly difficult to track and soon begin to evaporate; the man is
demonized and the women are sainted.
Can the New Puritanism overturn the Jews and their unstoppable juggernaut cry of
antisemitism? Leo Frank was lynched by the mob and the ADL was formed to make sure it never
happened again, no matter what the crime. Is New Puritanism the new mob violence? Perhaps mob
violence is the only way our rulers can overwhelm the paralyzing effects of being called
antisemitic. Perhaps the New Puritanism is an opening salvo in a larger war between shadow
forces.
But I could never believe that Maxwell and Epstein were connected with the Israeli
Intelligence agency, the Mossad. With all my sympathy to our esteemed colleagues Philip
Giraldi and Whitney
Webb , there is not a single shred of evidence for such connection. Conjecture, yes;
evidence, no. Even the father of Ghislaine, the late Mr Maxwell, who was not a saintly person
by any means, might be with better evidence accused of collaborating with Soviet Intelligence,
the KGB, than with the Israelis. A person of his standing probably connected with Israelis,
too, but he was no Mossad agent.
I can understand my American friends. There never was a time worse for American men, when
the statues and memorials of their great ancestors have been uprooted, when their wives and
daughters are queuing to press their pink lips upon the boots of black ghetto dwellers, when
their manhood is defined as "toxic" and their sons are dreaming of a same-sex union with a
glorious black buck. If the US were occupied by the Communists as Amerika envisaged, it wouldn't be as bad as what
you've got now. You have been humiliated thoroughly. I understand that in such a situation you
might jump at the chance to break the bones of rich Liberal Jews like Epstein and Weinstein. I
wouldn't refuse you this comfort. They are anyway already lynched.
However, if you want ever to walk free, you'd better deal with the New Puritan takeover.
Women are wonderful creatures, but often they can be manipulated and do what they are asked to
do. They are also excellent actors and are not troubled by honour. Men are more independent and
solitary by nature; that is why our Masters want to suppress masculinity. It is easier to
shepherd a flock of cows than so many bulls. Women love to be the victims, to blame men for
their failings; add social distance and fear of viral infection; add the mask (the New Western
Burka); add lockdown, and the problem of how to send the children to school might just solve
itself. No
children. The New Puritans are currently purging Hollywood of the most relentlessly
heterosexual men, but when they run out of rich Jews, they just might come after you.
The New Normal is the New Puritan. The pandemic fit into it tight as a glove. Under millions
of cameras and tracing applications, privacy shrinks and disappears. New Puritanism erases the
gap between public and private realms. In the world we knew, there was a difference between the
twain. A man having an affair with a woman (or with another man) was in a private realm. Do
whatever you wish in privacy of your home; just don't frighten the horses, Victorians once
said. Now there can be no privacy. Sex is already more of a political opinion than a physical
act. You might be lionized as a homosexual or despised as a breeder, your choice. Any affair,
or even the attempt to start an affair could be deadly in the post #MeToo world. In an era of
socialized medicine, sex is seen as a dangerous weakness that might endanger lives and imperil
the global healthcare system.
Much of the severity of New Puritanism can be sourced directly to American culture. America
was founded by the Old Puritans of Mayflower in 1620 and has periodically been subject
to hysterical outbursts, from witches to Red scares. Nowhere has the use of sex for advertising
and commerce been so widely spread as in the US. As the US has become the model for the world,
an epidemic of American hysteria is starting to infect countries all around the world. #MeToo
reached even Russia, but it is still only a minor phenomenon, mainly to be found among only the
most woke of hipsters.
Orwell imagined a future of "state-enforced repression and celibacy" while Huxley predicted
"deliberate, narcotising promiscuity". The New Puritans have chosen Orwell's world. I grew up
in something more akin to Huxley's, and I can tell you which one is better. Communist Russia
was very permissive in the private sphere. People had a lot of sex, with their girl/boy
friends, with spouses, with neighbours, with wives of their friends, with their colleagues,
with their teachers and students. The Soviets had none of the restrictions we have now against
sexual relations in the University between teachers and students; in fact, no restrictions
against sex with coworkers, something that now we would call abusive and then call the police.
As religion had little influence in Soviet society, adultery was frequent, and unless connected
with a public scandal, had no consequences.
Russians as well as the French could not understand why Clinton's affair with Monica
Lewinsky made waves in the US that blew into an impeachment trial and ended with the
bombardment of Belgrade. Bill was unfaithful to Hillary? That's not nice, but it is their
private affair. President Clinton lied? Well, he was not in the confession booth. Traditional
religions, be it Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, are quite tolerant of venial sin. Puritanism,
the Old as well as its New offspring are deadly serious in everything, and are unafraid of
killing or bullying a sinner to death. They may have begun with witches, but they are ending up
targeting ordinary folk.
Currently their targets have a lot of wampum, for it is no fun to bully a person for no
material gain. Us, impecunious men, we have nothing to be afraid of yet. But it might be wise
to save society before the New Puritans bring down disaster onto all of us. In my opinion,
America's influence on the world should be reversed, or at least limited. Let America get
influenced by Europe for a change. Mercifully, Europe is suffering from a very light case of
New Puritanism that may be entirely cured with a healthy dose of Anti-Americanism. I hear the
vaccine is under development.
Picture two is not proof, it's illustration. In fact Cord Meyer recruited Clinton as a
Rhodes scholar at Oxford, feathered his wife's nest with a ridiculous bonanza of commodity
trading top-ticks, then appointed Bill to run the CIA covert ops slush fund at Mena airfield.
That picture is junior secret agent Bill Clinton at the office picnic with his big boss the
DCI.
As for picture number one, I'll be forever grateful for the heartwarming thought that
Rosalyn also puts on a clown costume, handcuffs boys, buttfucks them, strangles them, and
buries them in the crawlspace.
Virtually all you wrote is true but with "Very little about the Epstein case makes sense
– not his social and financial connections and especially not his alleged links with
the Mossad" you seem to have quite deliberately blown your cover as another lying judaizer to
those who think Jews are normally incapable of true conversion and that your role in creation
is to show what bad is compared to good.
Indeed, it appears so: a very incisive first half of the article, describing a real
phenomenon (used to manipulate public opinion and society) seems designed to drop the Epstein
turd into.
Epstein is no Puritan witch hunt: Robert Maxwell gets something akin to a state funeral in
Israel, his daughter pimps for guy who uses lavish Wexner money for beehives of celebrities
into which a steady supply of young female flesh is injected and this guy is telling us we
just need to relax a bit.
" then First Lady of the US. Standing next to her is none other than William Gacy, a few
months before he was arrested as a serial killer and cannibal of those he'd butchered. Are
we to draw certain conclusions from this photo?"
Thanks, Israel. Well reasoned and well presented. Although some or many may not agree with
you, it's refreshing to read a straight forward exposition. At least you're laying it out
there for others to take a crack at it.
"Women are wonderful creatures, but often they can be manipulated and do what they are
asked to do. They are also excellent actors and are not troubled by honour. "
I've never met a woman who wasn't a bald-faced liar about anything that concerned her
personally. (And no, I'm not an Incel. Far from it)
"Much of the severity of New Puritanism can be sourced directly to American culture.
America was founded by the Old Puritans of Mayflower in 1620 and has periodically been
subject to hysterical outbursts, from witches to Red scares."
So true. The country was settled by all manner of religious zealots, each and every one of
them forming some sort of utopian colony here–almost all of which went down in
flames.
The Old Puritanism was hard on women; the witches were burned, and the whores were
evicted from their homes. The New Puritanism is hard on men.
Well, it is particularly hard on "beta" men. Their idea is basically to let "alphas" have
harems but all other men to become incels or worse. Just look at this guy, punished for
visiting a whore (in their view anyone who pays for sex is by definition not an alpha, so it
makes sense to punish johns but allow or even celebrate whores)
Yes, Feminism is a kind of inverted puritanism. But being hard on sluts and whore makes
sense if you want to preserve society's order and families. Feminist rules against men only
help to destroy society.
So there's a very big difference between the Old Puritanism and the New Puritanism.
From what I see of Epstein's photos, he was an intelligent, good lucking, confident, fun
loving guy. If he was nailing more hot chicks than I ever did, more power to him.
Come on. No one knows how this guy made money. For all purposes he was a nobody. Yet he
was seen with Elon Musk, Woody Allen, Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, anyone who
was "someone" dined with him and maybe one of his girls. There's something very fishy about
this. I don't know, maybe he and Maxwell were just the preferred pimp of the elites, or maybe
there's something else. Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine's dad) was an Israeli spy and a media
magnate, just that is very suspicious.
I mean, of course I don't trust the little whore Giuffre (whoever trusts whores or
actresses, but I repeat myself, is an idiot). But there is something very strange and rotten
about Epstein and the fact that he met with almost everybody in the so-called elite.
Much of this article makes sense, though I can't buy the defense of Epstein and Maxwell.
It's absurd to call him a "pedophile" as many journalists do. He was a pimp for the Deep
State's extortion racket.
Thanks for this. I have been criticized by many for observing holes in the narrative and
objecting to trial by media.
I have, since the start of the last Epstein narrative questioned the "intelligence"
connection. Not because it wasn't possible, rather that Virginia Roberts narrative about
escaping was implausible. If Epstein was doing his alleged blackmail routine for Mossad or
any other intelligence service, Roberts would have been suicided long ago. Loose ends like
that are a danger to the operation.
That doesn't mean that Epstein wasn't diddling underage girls nor does it mean that Maxwell
wasn't recruiting girls to massage Epstein. In Maxwell's case, she may, or may not have known
Epstein was diddling them as alleged. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how these
underage girls got passports without parental consent, and if they did, who was the
guarantor? Apparently, all of these accusers had parents who were uninterested in their
underage daughters traveling with a male more than twice their age, on his private jet.
As for Weinstein, Shirley Temple's mother complained people in the studio were trying to get
into her daughter's pants and she had to be vigilant. Marilyn Monroe, on marrying Joe
DiMaggio, is reported to have said that she`d never have to suck another cock. The casting
couch stories have been rampant for as long as I have been alive, yet I am supposed to
believe that none of Weinstein`s accusers knew that it was the price of admission. That does
not mean I approve of taking advantage of women, that has always been done in many ways. Post
war turned millions of German and Italian women into prostitutes, for occupying soldiers, in
order to feed themselves and their families. Apparently that was ok, but young actresses
being turned into millionaires is not.
Not true at all, the majority of people who settled the USA were regular Anglos,
especially in the South.
And Anglo DNA is something like 25% of the USA. This country is full of immigrants from
other stocks, and you know what? They are far more likely to be Democrat-voting liberals,
while the Anglo Americans are more likely to be rural Republicans who think things like MeToo
and BLM are crazy.
What a total crock of shit. I have long maintained that Shamir is Mossad and a pretend
convert to Christianity. This is the guy who argued with passion that those who say that
Muslims did not do 9/11 are depriving them of credit for their rare success. It's
nevertheless surprising to see him cashing in his chips in such a stupid and lazy way. It's
in fact so stupid that it brings to mind Gordon Duff, himself an intelligence figure,
alerting me to the hugely disparate quality of Shamir emissions with the explanation that the
persona "Israel Shamir" is the work of a committee. It looks like desperate times for the big
Jews. The big satanic game -- implicating the Rothschilds, the British royals, and a whole
gaggle of Jews and crypto-Jews including Trump and Bill Gates, and all their attendant goys
such as the Clintons -- could all fall apart.
Israel Adam pretend-Christian Shamir, who is Moloch and why was there a temple to him on
Epstein's island?
Anyone who finds Shamir's protestations of Jewish innocence plausible need look no farther
than Maria Farmer's interview with Whitney Webb. Maria doesn't mention Moloch, but she keeps
wondering what happened to all those girls. Thousands seem to have just disappeared.
innocent defendants of sexual accusations like Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nasser,
I agree with most of the article, but do you have any proof that Jerry Sandusky and Larry
Nasser are innocent?
Prince Andrew fooling around with a consenting 17 year old does not compare with what
Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nasser were accused and convicted of doing.
How much have you seen, first hand, of America? The East Coast and Midwest is littered
with former religious communes. Okay, I may have indulged in a little hyperbole, but
nevertheless, there were a lot of them. And I don't know what you're going on about
Democrats, Anglos and such. Seems off topic to me.
I have long maintained that Shamir is Mossad and a pretend convert to Christianity. This
is the guy who argued with passion that those who say that Muslims did not do 9/11 are
depriving them of credit for their rare success. It's nevertheless surprising to see him
cashing in his chips in such a stupid and lazy way.
It's hard to imagine an authentic Christian would defend the deep state and Zionist Hebrew
pedophile operative Epstein. Hebrew-supremacist blood is thicker than any ideology, I guess.
His big Hebrew ego just can't let go of it's delusions of being forged by sacred, primeval
forces. I'm sure a rat would have a huge ego if it could speak, too.
Yes, the anti-Semitic trope of the Jew despoiling the innocent. The only stereotype I can
read here is that of the eternal victim. So Madoff didn't steal millions from elderly
pensioners. And Epstein wasn't linked to the former head of Israeli intelligence or invest in
security companies run by former Unit 8200 types. And Wexner (of Mega Group) didn't gift him
a multimillion dollar surveillance lair. And Maxwell was trolling the parking lot of Groton
School and Philips Andover after the kiddies got released from their chemistry AP test, not
preying on broken girls from broken homes. F#ck you Shamir.
He had murdered the girl, don't forget, and had been convicted by the courts,
despite a protracted and lavishly financed Jewish effort to pin the crime on a Black man who
had not committed it. The mob dragged Frank out of prison and lynched him only after his
death sentence had been commuted by the Governor of Georgia.
All of us regulars at Unz Review know fully well that speaking of Leo Frank being lynched
by the mob as the main story just won't do. Whoever is handling the Israel Shamir persona at
Herzliya these days doesn't have all that much interest in what Ron and others here have been
discussing.
Here is additional support for Shamir's take on Epstein's primary accuser –
"Virginia Roberts . claimed to have met him when she was fifteen and to have been forced to
work as his sex slave. In reality, she was seventeen, which is still below the age of consent
in Florida, but does materially alter her claim that she had sex with Prince Andrew when she
was under age because the age of consent in England is sixteen, something of which she was
almost certainly unaware .
Edward J.Epstein, a long time investigative journalist including on the JFK assassination,
recently published his own angle on the sources of Jeffrey Epstein's riches, and they have
nothing to do with sexual blackmail –
"An extremely savvy financier and philanthropist told me after Epstein's death about a
proposition Epstein had once made him: that he could save more than $40 million in US taxes
if he gave him $100 million to manage.
Epstein claimed the money would be concealed in a maze of offshore non-profits he
controlled so that part of the profits would be transferred to the financier's own
philanthropic foundation, with the balance retained offshore and out of the reach of the
taxman.
When the financier told him that the scheme amounted to illicit tax evasion, Epstein said
it was highly unlikely the Internal Revenue Service would unravel it, and, if it did, he
would protect the financier from any criminal exposure.
The financier asked him how? Epstein said the financier would have to sign over the funds
to him, thus giving him total discretion over where and how the money was invested. This
piece of paper, he said, would provide an alibi to the US tax authorities.
The financier turned down Epstein's proposition, but others – Arab princes, Russian
oligarchs and those interested in hiding some part of their wealth – might have
accepted it.
Indeed, shortly before his arrest last year, Epstein told an associate that he was going
into the business of hiding funds for billionaires who were contemplating divorcing their
wives – for a hefty commission, of course.
He also claimed to be in the final stages of buying a property in Morocco, one of four
countries in the world not to have an extradition treaty with the US.
So perhaps the mystery of Epstein's fortune is not how he made his millions, but to whom
the money ultimately belongs.
Many very powerful people may have had cause to rue Epstein's incarceration on sex charges
– and, given the fact that they were hiding their assets from the authorities, it's
highly unlikely they will ever publicly come forward to try to recover their
investments."
The column seems intended to discomfit and/or discredit as many different people around
here as possible. (I just checked Wikipedia to see how Mr. Multiname is being curated these
days, and noticed that the first of the "RELATED ARTICLES" is Gilad Atzmon.) The oddest yet
from this website's oddest writer.
" Even the father of Ghislaine, the late Mr Maxwell, might be with better evidence accused
of collaborating with Soviet Intelligence, the KGB, than with the Israelis. "
Of course. This makes perfect sense. It explains why the Israeli's gave him a state
funeral attended by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli President Chaim Herzog,
and "no less than six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence" .. because, after
all, he was KGB Right.
@Anonymous in the Nasser
case, a number of public figures have come forward in Sandusky's defence. The most active is
John Ziegler who maintains a website full of articles showing that the case against Sandusky
and Penn State was and is a sham and money grab. ( http://johnziegler.com/ )
There is also the well known author Mark Pendergrast who wrote a book on the case. Here are
links to two video interviews of both –
@Anonymous likely that
Nassar was sacrificed to atone for all the sex abuse that happens in kids sports. Now that he
is destroyed then child sporting can go back to business as usual because the monster was
vanquished. Note that the Nassar story could have been spun to criticize the families who
hand their children over to strangers, or to attack child sports in general. But it wasn't.
It was aimed directly at one man, and when he was gone the story was gone. That makes him the
sacrificial lamb.
On the other hand, the Sandusky story was immediately expanded into the Pedo Rings story,
indicating it was part of this long term project.
This use of "Puritan" as a swear-word looks simplistic, beyond simplistic, to me. Like
brain-washed Americans using "Socialist" as a swear-word in just the same way.
They might have been bible-fundamentalists, they might have been creationists, they might
have thought the world was flat, but was every witch ever burned in Germany burned by
Puritans? Was witchcraft a solely Puritan fantasy? The first ever mention of a witch was by
them?
But thanks for reminding me of the mad hatter. I'll get a copy of Alice In Wonderland and
compare it with what you write.
PS PC has a very different origin, a different so-called religion.
And this excuses Prince Andrew for fucking teenagers how? A man born into royalty with
every advantage but apparently unable to handle actual mature women. So that makes it cool
for him to partake of sleazy Jeff's procured girls?
No decent guy thinks of doing stuff like that. If that's what having money does to men,
I'll happily remain relatively poor.
Thanks Mr Shamir. What you wrote sounds about right. I do not like the fact that rich and
powerful men got their way with young girls. But this has been the way of the world since
time immemorial. It was all done in the open, and for decades, right under the noses of the
NYT. But neither they nor the New Puritans thought it fit to investigate, since their focus
was elsewhere, namely to tame the Catholic Church through grinding it in the pedophile mill
over alleged crimes largely committed in the 70s. Only now that the Pavlovian Dog known as
Public Opinion can't get any further stimulus from allegations concerning the Papists, they
have turned to Epstein and the Jews with a Royal thrown in instead. But at the end of it, it
would make no difference to the men, women and children trafficked for sex, since the New
Puritans would have turned their focus elsewhere. And for what it is worth I don't think this
a Mossad operation either. I mean how good are these guys? And is it not the responsibility
of politicians holding or aspiring to high office to keep themselves clear of such people and
places?
You're right, you lost my sympathy with this robust defense of Jeffrey Epstein. I
appreciate that it's good to be skeptical of what is reported as well as of the mob mentality
but there is no real defense of this guy based on what I've seen and heard over the past two
years.
All of his residences with surveillance cameras covering every room.
The source of his money being very murky.
His willingness to share his paid-for harem with the most powerful and connected. Out of
the goodness of his heart? No.
The 100% implausible jail suicide.
Isn't that enough red flags?
Even swine like Bret Kavanaugh deserve to not be lynched but Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaineare in a whole other rarefied class of scum. Why bother to make excuses for them? Do
you really believe that Trump wished Maxwell well out of magnanimity? More like he's hoping
that none of their dirt on him will see daylight.
Xymphora is also having none of it. (It's an indication of Ron Unz's good editorial
judgment that Shamir's article is not listed on the main page.)
Xymphora (from the website) :
"The New Puritans" (Shamir). Besides being completely clueless about #metoo – it's
about power relationships, not flirting – he has a list of completely innocent
people: Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nasser, Donald Sterling, Richard Fuld, Bernie Madoff and, of
course, Harvey Weinstein, goyim. Then he tell us that the Mossad has nothing to do with
Epstein-Maxwell. I'm starting to think Shamir's history of being an 'anti-Semite' was just
producing credibility for this important career-defining moment when the operations of the
Mossad and the MEGA Group required protection.
As clear and intelligent as ever. "It is easier to shepherd a flock of cows than so many
bulls".
I suspect the Epstein ring may be linked to Mossad. It is clearly some sort of Jewish
influencing network so seems like an Israeli soft power operation. Having said that Shamir is
spot on about all the pearl-clutching even by sensible alt-right figures.
President Clinton lied? Well, he was not in the confession booth.
Clinton lied under oath in a deposition submitted in a judicial proceeding. He also
coached other witnesses to support his story. These were crimes more serious than any that
could have been charged against Nixon, who was hounded out of office. Clinton took serious
charges and spun them into a story of a harmless peccadillo. Utter brilliance. And while the
Judge in the case tried to sweep these actual crimes under the rug as immaterial to the case,
it nevertheless cost the President his law licence.
How a society views sexuality has a tremendous influence on it's long-term structure and
stability.
I do not agree that the Epstein/MOSSAD-blackmail angle makes no sense, but I think that
Mr. Shamir makes some good points. Excessively strict public morals is a ripe breeding ground
for sanctimonious hypocrisy, and hidden rot, and can have frigthening consequences, and it
would not surprise me to learn that the damnable Jesuit Order has a hidden yet decisive
influence on this "New Puritanism" that the article traces the tentative outlines of.
On the other hand, too loose sexual morals fosters dissipation – as seen in the
lives of highly promiscuous people, or on a larger scale, societies such as Soviet Russia, or
various empires after they lost their moral vigour – such as much of contemporary
America. Some amount of discipline and self-restraint is needed – this seems to be a
moral law of nature.
These waters call for good personal judgment, fairness and balance, and wisdom.
Today, more of the same in Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/30/former-tory-mp-charlie-elphicke-guilty-sexually-assaulting-two/
The woman complained that Elphicke sexually assaulted her after inviting her for a drink at
his London home in 2007.
She was in her early 30s and said Elphicke – who had recently become a father for the
second time – proceeded to kiss her, grope her breast and then chase her round his
house trying to slap her bottom, chanting: "I'm a naughty Tory".
The woman came close to selling her story to The Mirror newspaper for £30,000 around a
decade later, but instead went to police.
She broke down as she gave evidence to the court. She cannot be identified for legal reasons.
END QUOTE.
Is not it typical. The guy had a try 14 years ago. Why didn't she report it to police same
day? Why wait for so long? Act now, or forget. She tried to make money of this allegation.
Still she can't be identified for legal reasons. So she can try it again, with another victim
who made a pass at her some time or another during last thirty years. This is incredible!
I haven't read the entire article yet, so this comment applies only to its initial
part.
Shamir is not very persuasive. He has the merit of explaining the situation clearly, but,
by doing so, he makes his criticism of Swedish law somewhat misdirected. As he explains it,
the legal punishment is very mild. The biggest punishment, he tells us, comes from private
entities. But doesn't that imply that, even if that law did not exist, things would happen
almost exactly as they did?
So, the problem, if it exists, is one of societal codes of moral. I, for one, think that
Sweden is autonomous to decide which codes of moral are best to itself. It's not society
which reflects the law, but the other way around. It is the law which reflects the wish of
the majority of Swedes, which is normal in a healthy democracy.
I don't find Shamir persuasive either. He has a point, women are not particularly more
moral or ethical than men, they need to be watched just like anybody, but OTOH regular
witch-hunts for politicians and plutocrats of both genders who cannot resist exploiting their
positions financially or keep their hands off the staff could be a good thing, overall.
He comes across as somebody with skin in the game here too.
This is stated in the quote from Mike Robeson, so it is better he will respond to the
items mentioned in his quote (signposted on the webpage). I have too little knowledge about
these details.
Sure, but Americans especially American Presidents are exempted from international laws
governing war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's why they can sanction entire
populations with impunity.
The irony of America bombing an aspirin factory in another country, however, is that much
of America's asprin needs are met with imports.
I commented on Xymphora: Regarding the New Puritans: " Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nasser,
Donald Sterling, Richard Fuld, Bernie Madoff and, of course, Harvey Weinstein, goyim."
– these are words of Mike Robeson I quote. It is even signposted as the quote. I hardly
know these names (excepting Weinstein). So I think you may correct your post.
Yes. I'm not sure how it is puritanical to not want middle aged rich men to buy the
services of even one minor girl for any sexual purposes. I thought that was just a civilized
notion of protecting the young.
Perhaps now I am going to lose your tentative sympathy, but I do not believe the
allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, either. And the attack on
Prince Andrew is similarly unbelievable. Chapeau for Mr Trump who dared to express sympathy
to Ms Maxwell.
Trump's "sympathy" to Maxmossad was political noncommitment. Being a gentleman.
"It's not society which reflects the law, but the other way around. It is the law which
reflects the wish of the majority of Swedes, which is normal in a healthy democracy.
"
One of us is an idiot.
@Jefferson Temple Unless
you have inside information, his apparent inability to handle actual mature women is
conjecture, and open ended. Some women are mature at 20, others are not mature at 50.
Jeff's procured girls, beyond them having been employed by him, are unproven allegations.
Curious the parents were seemingly disinterested in their daughters traveling with a male
more than twice the age of their daughter.
That does not mean girls were not procured for illicit purposes or that Andrew may be
morally bankrupt, regardless of whatever happened between him and Giuffre.
@Chris Moore That said, I
disagree with the two main points of the article. One, this is not a "new puritanism", it's
something else, the comparison is patently false. How "puritan" is modern society if there's
porn everywhere?
Two, there's no way to defend Epstein and say that he was just a "normal, rich,
intelligent guy". The guy was, at best, a pervert and a well-connected pimp for politicians
(but how did he get there?). At worst , well, there are many theories and I won't dwell into
that. No way to defend that Jewish scum (sorry, but, he was Jewish, and he was scum).
If the US were occupied by the Communists as Amerika envisaged, it wouldn't be as bad
as what you've got now.
And that's the horrifying truth. For non-rich white Americans, Stalinism, as evil as it
was, would not have been as bad as what we now have under Anglo-Zionist Capitalist
Globalism.
In my Catholic family, putting your hands on a female relatives' body in any unwanted way,
would result in a visit from one of her brothers or cousins and a serious beating. It's also
interesting to see that my old parish priests were right when they spoke about the immorality
of the godless communists in that apparently adultery was common and accepted in the Soviet
Union.
The older I get, the more respect I gain for the moral teachings of the Christian Faith,
adhering to it will keep any young man out of the trouble Mr Shamir writes about.
Using Mick Jagger as a yardstick for acceptable behavior? Is that really what you
meant?
I'm thinking that at least some of those girls actually were responsible for their choices
but under the law, I don't think they can be held responsible. No character flaw or selfish
motive changes the fact that they were minors. A full grown man and woman is a different
story. They get the full advantages that society affords to adults as well as the
accountability. I don't care who rich guys want to fuck. If they target my daughter, they're
going to need an ambulance.
You quoted a big passage from Mike Robeson without reservation. So what if it's signposted
as a quote? One assumes from the context that you are endorsing his views. It does make you
look ridiculous, and I can understand your subsequent eagerness to dissociate yourself from
the quote. But there it is.
I don't think you quite understand Catholics if you think we have a healthy and casual
outlook on sex
("We" in my case is cultural and geographic history. I haven't been actually practicing
nor even much of a believer for a long time. But the culture tends to stick with you for
life, no matter what you do)
For one thing, we are probably only second to Jews when it comes to being guilt-ridden
from birth about sex (among most other things). The jury is still out whether this drives
more of us toward sin than away from it. Catholics are infamously indiscriminately
promiscuous (Zappa wrote a song about it) and somewhat less good at learning from their
mistakes as many others
The incidence of priestly abuse may be exaggerated for Puritanical effect, but it's by no
means an unfounded myth; we were joking about altar boys at least as far back as the 70s when
I took First Communion. BTW we had a Father Chester and, whatever the truth was, his nickname
rhymed
@anon a, Arkansas to run
drugs into the USA. Must of have had some local pull.
An early image of William Jefferson Clinton seated next to George Herbert Walker Bush may
shed light on the Intelligence connections of Bill, besides the two spook schools Yale and
Oxford.
Then there is Hillary's lesbianism. Why would a supposed hetero male marry a lesbian? Bill
did not need her political connections, nor her family connections. Chelsea looks like Bill,
not. Possible that Bill's taste was never a Monica, nor a Hillary, nor a 16 year old Lolita.
Bill and Hill, a match made in Langley.
Israel Shamir: "Currently their targets have a lot of wampum, for it is no fun to bully a
person for no material gain. Us, impecunious men, we have nothing to be afraid of yet."
This isn't true at all, at least in America, and I suspect it's the same elsewhere. Here,
so-called sexual harassment has been a cause of action since at least the 1980s. As someone
who was metooed way back then, before it became a thing, I can tell you that poverty is no
guarantee you won't be targeted. People are scum and really get a kick out of victimizing
each other. They'll do it just for the fun of it. Financial incentives aren't the cause of
this; it's just the icing on the cake for the so-called victim. Also, there is an absurd
culture of chivalry toward women in the matriarchal West that has lingered long past its
expiration date, such that a certain type of man enjoys "white knighting" for women who make
such claims. For such men, and they are very numerous, all a woman has to do is turn on the
water works, start crying and acting hysterical, and she'll be believed. Often it won't even
take that. From my point of view, when I see guys at the top, like Weinstein and Epstein,
having now to deal with it too, I have to confess to a certain degree of shadenfreude. During
my own tribulations with this, they were the ones getting away with it, and often even the
enforcers and enablers of it.
I see it as yet another unintended side effect of two fundamental, revolutionary
technological changes. These changes were first thought by almost everyone concerned to be
wonderful, a sign of Progress at last, but nobody was looking down the road far enough.
First, due to the advent and widespread use of scientific birth control and abortion, women
were given for the first time in history complete control over their own fertility. This led
directly to sexual liberation and modern feminism, both of which would be impossible without
this development. Second, a change in the political technology, namely the extension of the
vote to women. Why, you might ask, did an all-male government ever pass such laws, or in
America, empower its enforcement arm, the EEOC? Because of the woman's vote, of course. No
politician today can hope to succeed without it.
But I could never believe that Maxwell and Epstein were connected with the Israeli
Intelligence agency, the Mossad. With all my sympathy to our esteemed colleagues Philip
Giraldi and Whitney Webb, there is not a single shred of evidence for such connection.
Is this one of C.J. Hopkins "I'm a Russian Asset" parodies? Are you serious?
How many Mossad heads attended "Robert Maxwell's" funeral, Shamir?
Weinstein did nothing wrong?
What do they have on you, Izzy? Blink three times fast in your next video appearance to
let us know they got to you.
No one with their head north of their colon believes anything you just said here. So
that's a plus.
Thanks. I didn't take it personally. But it seems that Kavanaugh is dirty, and so is
Trump. Makes me wonder about the operations to take them down. Russia gate for Trump and
Blasey Ford gate for Kavanaugh. Both so ridiculous that it is almost as if their foes
couldn't use the real dirt without self-incriminating.
@Sollipsist l, impossible
for little children to doubt what the big person says, whether Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy,
Easter Rabbit, anything. So easy to indoctrinate. And it's continued to the present day, the
only denomination that has it's own elementary schools everywhere. Everywhere. All about
capturing the children.
But going back to "Puritan", Wikipedia on Savonarola, in 1494 "he instituted an extreme
puritanical campaign "
So, Ha! Ha!, Roman "Catholic" Puritans of the Fifteenth Century! Didn't molest
children back then, but have ever since!
Feel free to check out how these egalitarian English men have in 10 min permanently banned
my 6 year old Wikipedia account over a comment I made three years ago – proclaiming
that marriage is between a man and a woman is considered homophobic now. (It's a self-plug,
but it's also Christian psychology in real-time, you might appreciate it.)
Does this homosexual psychosis stem from technology, too? The most industrialized nations
on the planet are not sodomitic at all. It all seems to me like an American cultural
thing.
Adûnâi: "Are you not confusing the cause and effect?"
Certainly there is an interplay between the two factors I mentioned that magnifies their
societal effects. They strengthen and support each other.
Adûnâi: "But why did women get the vote to begin with? You don't explain.
From what I know, they were first employed in WW1, and it was a "symbol of gratitude"?
Sounds quite cucked and Christian."
Technology develops according to its own internal logic, often with unpredictable and
sometimes even catastrophic effects on human societies. It is deeply hostile to natural
distinctions of race, sex, and culture that impede its efficient operation. Technological
change drives cultural change, and war stimulates technological change.
Adûnâi: "Why then have the Eastern countries not faced it? Neither the USSR nor
modern China?"
I'd say they have, in their own way. There are, for example, plenty of female
professionals in both countries, who function in their jobs as the equivalent of men. This
would be impossible if they were constantly pregnant and caring for children. Then too, there
is the low birth rate, which is only possible with scientific birth control. They also
participate equally with men in politics, AFAIK, and have equal rights as citizens. N.b. too
that in China, at least, this happened without Christianity -- although, as has been said by
Spengler and others, Marxism can itself be regarded as a form of Christianity.
Adûnâi: "Does this homosexual psychosis stem from technology, too?"
Efficiency is the god of technology, and that is unquestionably true all over the world.
To the extent that cultural factors impede the efficient operation of technology, they have
to change, or all that results is inferior technology. Man's increasing dependence on
technology is why a kind of global culture is emerging now, instead of earlier in history.
Cultural distinctions are being destroyed at an accelerating pace, and also races are being
mixed as an unintended and unforeseen consequence of this dependence.
Because of this, I suspect the decadence you notice today in the West will eventually show
up in the East as well. It's just that because they were relative late comers to technology
and industrialization, it may take a little longer, that's all. There's a certain cultural
inertia that needs to be overcome.
Russian method
In a far away Russian village, gals have heard of the Western way to deal with men, and they
brought their rape complaints to local police. Police checked the claims, found them without
merit, and both ladies were fined 5000 ruble ($80) each. How neat! https://pervo.info/v-achite-eshhyo-odno-lozhnoe-iznasilovanie/
Even without technology, give humans enough time, and one race will emerge triumphant.
Whereas the high tide of Islam failed to conquer Anatolia, the Seljuks came to the Aegean,
and the Ottomans reached Vienna. Failures are weeded out, and those remain who are strong,
not who can make money most efficiently.
@Israel Shamir
And yet, the rural folk of Russia is dying out. Natural change (2018): -3 per 1000 rural
vs -1 per 1000 urban.
Adûnâi: "Everything indeed will be shown in due time. What else are we doing
here but trying to predict the future?"
Yes, I agree with most of what you wrote in this comment. All I'm doing is pointing to the
trend, the way the technological system tends to grind away cultural differences. Of course,
some cultural differences may not affect the efficiency of the system, and those might
remain. Western "decadence" might or might not be one of those things. Ted Kaczynski says
something relevant about this in ISAIF:
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his
real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in
rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into
high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools;
the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to
integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist
just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they
want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve
African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture
consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to
black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque.
In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects
more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white,
middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a
scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good
as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become
nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The
system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears
or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job,
climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect,
however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into
the system and make him adopt its values.
A corollary of this would seem to be that only trivial differences will remain between
cultures as different cultures fully adapt themselves to the global technological system. The
urging of "oversocialized leftists" isn't actually necessary, as the system itself contains
its own rewards for compliance and punishments for failure to comply. There's also nothing
particularly tied to naturally-occurring races in that system of values; at least, not
obviously so. The system is hostile to natural race distinctions precisely because it is
necessarily race-neutral. Might it create its own artificial race of genetically engineered
humans in order to maximize efficiency? That could be. Certainly, genetic changes to man have
been a side effect of civilization itself. E.g., human beings are much less violent than they
used to be. Obedience, non-violence (at least on a personal level), and conformity has been
bred into us modern humans.
Adûnâi: "Are you of the view that collapse is imminent, even without Unabombers?
And if it is, there will be no going back to high technology?"
It's probably a mistake to underestimate the resilience of the system. Anyone interested
in trying to preserve the status quo as to race will have to act fast to bring the system
down, or it will be too late. Whether high tech can be rebuilt after a global collapse would
depend on a lot of factors impossible to know without knowing at least the method used to
cause the collapse, as that would have an effect on how long any ensuing "Dark Age" would
last.
Yes its kind of strange. Kavanaugh is not an ideological conservative in the mould of
Scalia or Thomas. Makes one wonder what the fuss was all about. I must revisit what you wrote
about earlier on his earlier judgements.
I'm not disagreeing, but don't forget it was 19th Century "Great Awakening" Protestants
who were responsible for creating the public school system in the US. Can we question their
motives?
In England, a struggle to dismiss a parliamentarian because of a vague complaint
Chief whip Mark Spencer today stood by his decision not to suspend the senior Tory MP
arrested on suspicion of rape.
The party is under mounting pressure, including from the alleged victim, to strip the
ex-minister of the Conservative whip.
But Mr Spencer said it was right to allow the police to conclude their investigation before
taking any action, while also stressing the need to protect the identity of the accuser.
The former parliamentary researcher in her 20s has alleged she was assaulted and forced to
have sex.
What does "forced to have sex" means?
@Dr.
Robert Morgan , it's "a triumph of the Natural, Racial Order" that confuses the plans of
the globo. The very globohomo is contingent upon the qualities of the Nordic race. It has
evolved to seek efficiency, and now – under the guidance of Christianity – it is
employing it in its own self-destruction. But as they near the end, their efforts become
discordant, muffled, inefficient.
> "Ted Kaczynski"
By the way, why do you prefer calling him his real name instead of "the Unabomber"? "Ted"
is so much more boring, and the in "Kaczynski" is mispronounced as by Americans while it
should be in Polish. The Unabomber has a ring to it.
Shamir now confesses to be a Mossad Psyop who pretended to be a hero of the Goyim. The
choosen ones raping and pimping gentile children and women is nothing to him. Criticism is
New Puretanism. A surrogate for the word Antisemitism as Derschowitz uses it for his accuser?
Calling Robert Maxell a KGB Agent i and other are struggling to understand if you are
trolling or trutly a Mossad apologet. The worst is you are friends with Gilad Atzmon
hopefully he is as bluffed by your (new?) behaviour and views as we are.
Anyway, just noticed more ammo lying on the ground right here at UR. Andy Flick-Chick, his
2020-02-13 article, The Philippines Are Choosing New Allies: Pres. Duterte, hugely
popular there, "sexually molested by a priest when he was a child, he holds a grudge against
Christianity."
@Dr.
Robert Morgan he principle of the pursuit of individual happiness trumps any search for
the efficiency of the collective.
I would concede that the history of technological intelligent life on this planet has been
aimed at the discovery of the correct proportion between efficiency and race. But not more.
Simply put, what I am observing to-day is the death of race-denialists in the Occident and
the triumph of racists in the Orient. The latter are more efficient, too.
A little video celebrating the unity of the Man and the Machine. Those visions are not
Checharian and not bucolic.
Adûnâi: "If it were indeed calculating the most efficient society, it would
probably try to mix and match, and as homosexualism is not exactly important, it would be
discounted as a Western obstacle." I would say, if there is no reason ruling the system, it
turns into idiocracy."
You have to keep in mind that the focus of technique when evaluating efficiency is
necessarily quite narrow. For instance, having a horse is more efficient (in some ways) than
walking, while having an automobile is still more efficient than having a horse. So an
evaluation of efficiency is both relative and contextual. Someone might object, for example,
that automobiles aren't really more efficient than walking, because by using automobiles, you
have to accept that tens of thousands of people are going to die annually in car accidents.
That's true, but still, the judgement of society (i.e., the "group mind" that I've referred
to) has been that using automobiles is worth it, i.e., more "efficient". And there can be
little doubt that, overall, a society that has the technology necessary to produce and use
automobiles would defeat a society at a more primitive technological level in the contest of
survival between them.
But generally, one cannot determine in advance "the most efficient society" any more than
one can determine in advance "the fittest animal". Whatever form of social organization is
most efficient must emerge gradually, as man does his dance of death with technology.
Humanity is like a blind man groping his way down a corridor. Nobody knows where
technological development will lead, and its development cannot be steered. Attempts to allow
ideology to steer technology only result in inferior technology.
As for "homosexualism", thinking about it some more, I'd say it's just another side effect
of female empowerment. Due to the development of scientific birth control methods women are
now participating in work and politics on equal footing with men, and there are social
consequences that weren't foreseen: e.g., more men are raised without a father in the home;
more men who, in their work life, will necessarily have a woman as their "boss"; decoupling
sex from its natural function of reproduction leads to regarding sexuality as a matter of
"lifestyle choice". Given basic human psychology, I'd say these trends favor an increase in
"homosexualism". Certainly they are quite destructive of patriarchy.
Adûnâi: "A lack of will is a lack of life. I emphasise the role of the
individual in history. If the system is so smart, why does it allow the vector to turn
towards disorder* for a period?"
Individual will has nothing to do with technique. It can't control it. Just to stick with
the example of birth control technologies, you cannot "will" away the fact that they empower
women, and at the same time disempower men. To use the technique at all, you just have to
accept this, just as with the use of automobiles, a society accepts that the cost is tens of
thousands of lives every year.
Disorder arises, and empires fall, precisely because all the consequences of a given
technological configuration aren't foreseen; in fact, they're not even foreseeable. Shit
happens, as the saying goes.
Adûnâi: "By the way, why do you prefer calling him his real name instead of "the
Unabomber"? "
Because it's his ideas that are important, not his relatively ineffectual bombs.
Adûnâi: "Simply put, what I am observing to-day is the death of race-denialists
in the Occident and the triumph of racists in the Orient. The latter are more efficient,
too."
This is the question to be decided in the future, by the result. I agree that the West,
precisely because of its Christian worldview, tends to confuse what it regards as moral
superiority with technological superiority. But then, if the prize is survival itself, morals
can change. Also, there's a time honored Christian tradition of hypocrisy that must be taken
into account. Only the event of the matter will show which form of technological organization
is more efficient.
Kinda sad that people are so often especially motivated by childhood trauma; the
simplicity, irrationality and disproportionate responses that are understandable in the
childish mind are unnaturally preserved throughout adulthood. A little girl gets abused by a
pervert uncle, and years later her supposed reason and free will convinces her that men are
evil, old men especially, traditional families and patriarchal society are the enemy, and she
was "born" a lesbian. So pretty much everybody in her sphere of influence ends up paying for
the act of one degenerate.
Up to this article, I took him to be honest, regardless of how muddy his background was.
Maybe he's testing his audience, but this is laughable.
Of course, if you're opposed to a superficially feminized, #metoo, gotcha culture, you may
sympathize at first.
But he's covering up for a zio-criminal entity that hasn't yet been unraveled. He's
actually trying the line that Epstein was some cavalier 70s Don Juan simply born a bit too
late.
Whores will be whores. Don't care about them, as they squirmed around Weinstein and
Epstein. Pretending Epstein is all about whores however, just turned Israel Shamir into a
whore in his own right. Pat yourself on the back, but we still don't know shit about Epstein,
the intelligence angle that is.
Maybe Israel can get his friend Assange on the ball?
"... Like George Carlin once said "political correctness is fascism disguised as politeness" ..."
"... "Almost nobody has any idea what they are talking about." That's the problem with this internet age giving every moron a voice. ..."
"... Social Justice Warriors = political correctness on steroids. ..."
"... "It starts off as a halfway decent idea and then it goes completely wrong" Sums up all this stupidity in the wake of the BLM protests. What started out as legitimate anger about the murder of an unarmed black man by a police officer has denigrated to people trying to cancel comedy shows from 20 years ago and bitching about "inappropriate language" and just ..."
"... Take any ethical position to its extreme and if it holds together it's good. - Kant. Liberalism taken to an extreme fails. Get a clue. ..."
"... I love how Cleese puts it. Fundamentalism does not just have to do with religion, or the far right. It is taking anything to an extreme. The same goes with political correctness. ..."
"... John Cleese outclasses Bill Maher by an absolutely massive margin ..."
"... Political correctness is another way of stating: " I want to make rules of tolerance that only apply to everyone else in society. But only don't apply to everyone on the same side as the group I'm with" ..."
"... Political correctness and Social Justice isn't about protecting minorities, or protecting the LGTBQ community etc, its about control and censoring through bullying. its about telling you how to think, and what you can say. Our Great Grandparents died to protect our right to think and speak freely, and to tell me how to think and speak, you are literally pissing on the graves of the people who died to protect that right, and THAT offends me. ..."
Cleese's huge laugh at the "religion of peace -- a piece of you here, a piece of you there" was wonderful -- he laughed so
hard -- almost as though he'd never heard that before -- and perhaps he hadn't -- but he sure seemed to enjoy it, as did I!
"Almost nobody has any idea what they are talking about." That's the problem with this internet age giving every moron a voice.
Used to be that you had to have some kind of intelligence or talent to get recognition.
"It starts off as a halfway decent idea and then it goes completely wrong" Sums up all this stupidity in the wake of the
BLM protests. What started out as legitimate anger about the murder of an unarmed black man by a police officer has denigrated
to people trying to cancel comedy shows from 20 years ago and bitching about "inappropriate language" and just
I love these guys, the whole "political correctness" is an absurd illusion. In my country we love to make jokes about western
countries and specifically our neighbors, but you will most certainly get arrested if you make joke about other nationalities,
origin or "that" religion.
For John Cleese Fans.. If you've never seen an old 80,s film of his called "Clockwise" Please check it out. Small budget film
By Handmade Fims which was in part George Harrison's company.. and very very funny FYI
"...Stupidity, I've heard you're against it "!!!!! "Australians are so well balanced, because they've a chip on each shoulder"!!!!!!
3:30 "religion of piece - there's a piece of
you over there, there's a piece of you over there, ..."!!!!
Understand the following like you have understood nothing else before: (Maher and Cleese obviously had not at the time of this
interview.)
'Political Correctness' is now a construct utilised almost exclusively to trivialise and dismiss anything that seeks
to redress injustice, unfairness and the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and privilege.
Whatever the issue it will be dismissed
as being only 'political correctness' and even common decency of courtesy are disparaged as 'political correctness gone mad' .
It has also become at the same time a 'weasel' term used by cowards and bullies to avoid having to openly state that the have
no care for the rights, concerns, feelings and well-being of others.
Look for how and by whom 'political correctness' is currently
used and you will see what Maher, Cleese and posters commenting on this clip hve not and be less likely to be misled and duped.
I love how Cleese puts it. Fundamentalism does not just have to do with religion, or the far right. It is taking anything to
an extreme. The same goes with political correctness.
"Political incorrectness... Could we just bitch about that?"... And here I sense feminist hysteria storm coming Bill Maher's
way. I definately prefer the British style. John Cleese was one of those people I looked up to and thought "I want to be like
him when I grow up".
John Cleese outclasses Bill Maher by an absolutely massive margin and Bill Maher is so full of himself he always thinks he's
the smartest, most important person on the show. Bill Maher is embarassing to watch.
Despite loving Mr. Cleese, I want to point out that when you joke about oppressed group it becomes part of oppression. That's
why joking about Mexicans in USA or Britain it is different than joking about Mexicans in Mexico by Mexicans. Context is everything
Cleese's logic here is irrefutable; and really shines a light on the incredible double standards that are prevalent in contemporary
society. It's rewarding to know; watching this when he speaks about Jesus that there are religious academics, and representatives
that see the wise satirical insight of; Life of Brian. If only we had a movie now that lampooned radical Isalm. Oh wait there
is; its called; Four Lions.
Political correctness is another way of stating: "I not only want my piece of the cake to eat for myself, but I also want the
whole cake to eat for myself too." Political correctness is another way of stating: " I want to make rules of tolerance that only
apply to everyone else in society. But only don't apply to everyone on the same side as the group I'm with"
Cleese is so spot-on about the madness of political correctness. Goebbels would have loved it, except this fascism is of the
left, in the heads of "open-minded" liberals (so-called.)
Political correctness and Social Justice isn't about protecting minorities, or protecting the LGTBQ community etc, its about
control and censoring through bullying. its about telling you how to think, and what you can say. Our Great Grandparents died
to protect our right to think and speak freely, and to tell me how to think and speak, you are literally pissing on the graves
of the people who died to protect that right, and THAT offends me.
So annoying watching bill maher. He's so arrogant and conceited. He's always cutting in awkwardly to say some middle-of-the-road
boring hum-drum to get an obligatory clap from his audience. Can't we just listen to the fantastic john cleese and not the wannabe
political spokes-person?
It seems to me thar racial tensions in particular or worse now than they Were before they shoved this whole political correctness
thing down our gullets. And that statement goes back to before the Minneapolis police killed a man for using a counterfeit $20
bill(being black). Forcing political correctness on people doesn't work. You're not changing peoples ideas you're just suppressing
them. When you suppress a persons ideas those ideas fester. When suppressed ideas fester they build up pressure and eventually
explode. Instead of telling people what they can't say or do, we need to re-educate our people to except those that are different.
Humor is a very good way of getting people to see how ignorant their ideas are.
''Political correctness'' is for people who have achieved nothing, done nothing, and ARE nothing. It is their way of pretending
to have power over REAL people. That's why celebrities and Hollywood actors love being PC so much.
Radicals have never had a sense of humor. They are unbalanced. "In jest, there is truth". --
Roman proverb. Radicals has problems with truth. Therefore, they don't like humor.
"... Monty Python was the pinnacle of contemporary comedy precisely because it drew attention to the absurdity of modern society and it pompous hypocrisy ..."
big female BLM supporter wearing a nappy mask that says "i can't breathe" on it
soccer mom says "well take the stupid mask off"
MartinG , 3 hours ago
How many Wokesters does it take to change a light bulb?
One to complain that the light bulb is white.
One to complain that the light is white.
One to blame boomers for wearing out the old bulb.
One who doesn't know how.
And one Wokester who says there must be change as he changes the bulb.
tardpill , 3 hours ago
the only one that can possibly change the bulb with it out being a racist privilege is not
available because they are too busy burning **** down
DaBard51 , 2 hours ago
You forgot:
--One who complains that there isn't enough diversity in light bulbs.
--One who says "Bulb Lives Matter!"
--One who complains that screwing the bulb is sexist.
--One who can't decide whether the bulb is DC or AC.
When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.
<edit> whoever up-voted, my thanks. Shadow-banned, I am not, now, I see...
Roger Casement , 3 hours ago
They are the joke.
philipat , 2 hours ago
Yes, and that is why humor is so important, especially at the margin. Politicians,
especially Democrat politicians, don't like comedy because it draws attention to the
absurdity of most of what they do.
Monty Python was the pinnacle of contemporary comedy precisely because it drew attention
to the absurdity of modern society and it pompous hypocrisy. It gave me more laughs more
consistently than anything I have come across since. 'God speed John, you stay with what you
believe and ***k the humorless wokesters who need to get a life and lighten up for their own
sake and for that of all the rest of us!
45North1 , 2 hours ago
An Antifa member, a BLM'er and a Proud Boy go into a Bar.....
EvlTheCat , 2 hours ago
"Woke" in itself is a joke and a oxymoron, which if you know the definition makes it
ironic also. Touches all bases John.
@valleyshrew He never says that having enemies makes you an extremist. He said being an extremist gives you
justification to make enemies and to blame them for everything.
"... White Fragility is the kind of book that can be written in two months, read in two days, and forgotten in two hours, but Robin DiAngelo's text is also a deeply pernicious piece of work, utterly contemptuous of the "normie" ..."
"... Whites it aims to convert to a more radical form of racial self-abnegation than they currently demonstrate. In fact, the work is so hostile and ideologically loaded that it can't help but present a kind of dialectic, wherein certain truths are revealed in spite of itself. As such, I have to confess that I learned something from White Fragility , even if it isn't what DiAngelo had in mind. ..."
"... In short, White Fragility is a horrifying call for Whites not simply to be paralyzed by White guilt, but to become active participants in their decline, and willing accomplices in their political and demographic destruction. ..."
"... I think this is a beautiful indictment of the demonstrative and showy nature of White anti-racists who simply love to engage in social theatrics in search of kudos, approval, and incentives without really understanding the deeper destructive meaning of anything they're doing. ..."
"... DiAngelo has contempt for people like this because they place all their energies into grandstanding instead of helping in the transfer of real power and wealth. I have contempt for them because they place all their energies into grandstanding for short-term personal benefits while stabbing their ancestors, contemporaries, and progeny in the back. ..."
"... It's important to bear in mind that we're still in the same totalitarian state that whacked JFK ..."
"... The purpose of removing Confederate symbols is to hide the commanding Zionist involvement in the slave trade business. This is the equivalent of using the Russian Collusion to hide the Zionist influence on the Trump election. ..."
"... Why is Critical Race Theory presented as The Absolute Truth? Not only is it not the truth, it isn't even a theory. ..."
Robin DiAngelo White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism Beacon
Press, 2018.
I first encountered Robin DiAngelo three years ago, during my
investigation of the Jewish origins and intellectual currents of Whiteness Studies.
DiAngelo was then just another relatively minor speaker and academic on the
university/consulting network in Whiteness Studies, and I was undecided then, and remain
undecided, as to whether DiAngelo is wholly, in part, or not at all Jewish. She didn't feature
in my essay at all, and, when I looked over my old notes a few days ago, she appeared only as a
name scribbled in the margins. As it happens, her ancestry is relatively inconsequential in
light of the fact that White Fragility , published in 2018 but reaching bestseller
status in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, is heavily and transparently influenced by
Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and
fortune. I don't make a habit of buying the texts of the opposition, but when certain of them
reach a significant level of academic or popular attention (look for it in your child's school
curriculum), it's probably necessary for someone among us to carry out some form of
intellectual reconnaissance, and to bring back for wider consideration the most essential of
the gathered information. This was
my approach to Jean-Paul Sartre's widely-read and overly-praised Anti-Semite and Jew
, and so, when I heard DiAngelo had managed to make herself a bestselling author, I headed to
my local bookstore, where dozens of copies had been helpfully stacked on a table devoted to
"in-demand" literature on race and racism.
My first action on picking up a copy of White Fragility was to turn to the
bibliography. I knew what I'd see, and it was a gratifying and familiar feeling to see so many
names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the
page like shunned relatives at a family reunion -- Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth
Frankenberg (described in White Fragility as "a premier white scholar in the field of
whiteness studies"), Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas
Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman.
These are DiAngelo's
mentors and intellectual forbears, and I could tell, scanning through this list of names and
works, that White Fragility was sure to boast very many references to "fellow Whites,"
and streams of inducements to abandon White ethnic interests.
These expectations weren't
disappointed. White Fragility is the kind of book that can be written in two months,
read in two days, and forgotten in two hours, but Robin DiAngelo's text is also a deeply
pernicious piece of work, utterly contemptuous of the "normie"
Whites it aims to convert to a
more radical form of racial self-abnegation than they currently demonstrate. In fact, the work
is so hostile and ideologically loaded that it can't help but present a kind of dialectic,
wherein certain truths are revealed in spite of itself. As such, I have to confess that I
learned something from White Fragility , even if it isn't what DiAngelo had in mind.
What is White Fragility?
"White Fragility," as a theory, is confirmation of my belief that inducing guilt in Whites
was never the end goal in itself. It's never simply been about making us feel bad about
ourselves or our ancestors. White Fragility, White guilt, and indeed Whiteness Studies as a
whole, is fundamentally about power. Those of you familiar with the New Testament will recall
the verse from John's third chapter, wherein John the Baptist declares that Christ "must
increase, but I must diminish." Power and influence never simply disappear, but rather
transfer. John (and it is entirely inconsequential whether you regard him as historical or
fictional) was aware that as a popular local mystic or holy man, his mere continued presence
was an obstacle to the local growth in power of Christ, and so he made a conscious decision to
diminish himself. Likewise, we are living in an age where Whites continue to have some social,
political, and economic power, but where large and growing numbers of non-Whites are seeking to
obtain what remains of this power. For them to "increase," it has been declared that we must
diminish. Whiteness Studies is fundamentally about making us willing and enthusiastic
participants in our own decline. When Blacks or Jews demand a reduction of, or end to, White
power or wealth, it means that they want that power or wealth. Despite all sloganeering, there
can be no equality in power among races. Not now, not ever; only ruthless and unceasing
competition.
White guilt, in itself, is certainly an act of psychological diminishment, but the message
of DiAngelo's text is fundamentally that this psychological diminishment has not led to a
desired correlation in material or structural diminishment. Whites merely feeling sorry for
themselves isn't enough for their competitors, if it isn't accompanied by a wholesale transfer
of power, land, and other resources. In this context, "White Fragility" is an indictment and
insult levelled at White progressives merely frozen by fear of racism accusations and White
guilt. In short, White Fragility is a horrifying call for Whites not simply to be
paralyzed by White guilt, but to become active participants in their decline, and willing
accomplices in their political and demographic destruction.
DiAngelo's introduction begins with accusation. America "began with the attempted genocide
of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of
kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants." So far, so familiar. But the book very
quickly moves to an outline of the theory of White Fragility. I actually found this, and some
other chapters on the same theme, extremely interesting, because DiAngelo, and presumably other
Whiteness Studies activists, are keenly aware that Whites are peculiarly concerned with
morality and with appearing to be good people (all of which is very much in keeping with
the
arguments and research of Kevin MacDonald ). For example, DiAngelo writes on the fear White
progressives have of being perceived as racist: "We consider a challenge to our racial
worldview as a challenge to our very identities as good, moral people. Thus, we perceive any
attempt to connect us to the system of racism as an unsettling and unfair moral offence. One of
the greatest social fears for a white person is being told that we have said or done something
racially problematic."
Of course, the groundwork for the connections among White ethnocentrism
= Racism = Morally Bad were laid by Jewish academics over many decades. The problem for Jewish
activists and incentivized Whiteness Studies traitors is that this moral terror has resulted in
what they perceive to be paralysis and inaction.
Actual "racists" aren't really discussed in White Fragility , and where they are,
it's clear that they aren't the target of the title of the book. In fact, DiAngelo points out:
"Of course, some whites explicitly avow racism. We might consider these whites actually more
aware of, and honest about, their biases."
In other words, even if we're moral monsters in DiAngelo's eyes, we aren't "fragile." Again, because of the extremes of the some of the
dialectics here, certain truths emerge. DiAngelo remarks early in the book that "race matters,"
something that many of our readers would agree with, even if it's from a slightly different
angle than the author intends. She also argues that:
All humans have prejudice; we cannot avoid it. People who claim not to be prejudiced are
demonstrating a profound lack of self-awareness. Ironically, they are also demonstrating the
power of socialization -- we have all been taught in schools, through movies, and from family
members, teachers, and clergy that it is important not to be prejudiced. Everyone has
prejudice, and everyone discriminates.
I couldn't agree more: Whites have been uniquely affected by mass propaganda designed to
brainwash them into viewing as morally evil something that is natural and instinctive to all
humans.
The real targets of this book are White progressives who profess anti-racism, and because I
also possess many frustrations in relation to this demographic, I couldn't help but agree with
some of DiAngelo's characterizations. Take, for example, this gem:
I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define
a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less
racist, or in the "choir," or already "gets it." White progressives can be the most difficult
for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our
energy into making sure that others see us having arrived. [emphasis added]
I think this is a beautiful indictment of the demonstrative and showy nature of White
anti-racists who simply love to engage in social theatrics in search of kudos, approval, and
incentives without really understanding the deeper destructive meaning of anything they're
doing.
DiAngelo has contempt for people like this because they place all their energies into
grandstanding instead of helping in the transfer of real power and wealth. I have contempt for
them because they place all their energies into grandstanding for short-term personal benefits
while stabbing their ancestors, contemporaries, and progeny in the back.
The book's first chapter, "The Challenges of Talking to White People About Race," is devoted
to convincing White progressives that they are in fact racist, and that they need to become
better allies in their own racial destruction. The message here is quasi-spiritual; Whites are
told that their quest for racial redemption will be lifelong, lasting until the day they die.
Their existence is an ontological problem, the only solution to which is an endless quest to
compensate for simply existing:
Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because the forces
conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play; our learning will never be
finished.
I really wish more White moral grandstanders would understand that, ultimately, they will
never be given a "pass" by our enemies once they've accrued enough kudos, or groveled enough,
or displayed enough platform sympathy with Blacks, or any other ethnicity that happens to be
Victim of the Month. They will only ever be temporary tools, held in contempt as much for their
weakness as their whiteness.
Another interesting feature of the chapter is its attack on White individualism, presented
here as a myth that prevents Whites from taking collective responsibility for alleged
historical wrongs. For DiAngelo,
Individualism is a story line that creates, communicates, reproduces, and reinforces the
concept that each of us is a unique individual and that our group memberships, such as race,
class, or gender, are irrelevant.
DiAngelo's problem with White individualism is that it's a barrier to White guilt, and also
a barrier to Whites perceiving alleged advantages in employment and social advancement in a
society in which they enjoy a demographic majority. Again, due to the dialectic at play, I
happen to agree that individualism among Whites is a problem in certain contexts. It's just
that in my perspective it's a barrier to the explicit assertion of White ethnic interests and
collective action in pursuit of those interests. In fact, without widespread awareness of an
ethnic threat, it seems almost impossible to convince Whites to see themselves as a group and
to act as one. A further obstacle to White ethnocentrism is decades of social conditioning in
which Jewish propaganda is dominant. Even DiAngelo concedes that "reflecting on our racial
frames is particularly challenging for white people, because we are taught that to have a
racial viewpoint is to be biased." Unfortunately, DiAngelo doesn't ask who did the "teaching"
in this regard, and she certainly doesn't consider the broader implications of what she's
saying.
In the second chapter, "Racism and White Supremacy," DiAngelo trots out the "race is a
social construct" trope, with footnotes for her claims leading invariably to a section of
bibliography that reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list. Black academic Ibram Kendi is
quoted as arguing that "if we truly believe that all humans are equal, then disparity in
condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination." I agree, but I think the problem
isn't systemic discrimination but the belief that all humans are equal. Eliminate that belief
and disparity in condition is neither surprising nor subject matter for conspiratorial
conjecture. But alternative theories and beliefs like mine don't feature in DiAngelo's book,
which has the air of a religious text, and issues utterances with an authority that demands
faith rather than reason. There is an interesting section in the chapter denying that there can
be an anti-White racism, with DiAngelo remarking:
People of color may also hold prejudices and discriminate against white people, but they
lack the social and institutional power that transforms their prejudice and discrimination
into racism; the impact of their prejudice on whites is temporary and contextual.
Let's set aside that horrific last statement, and focus for a moment on the unstated premise
underlying the first. Isn't it more or less the stated goal of "Whiteness studies," White
guilt, the theory of "White Fragility," Black Lives Matter, and the massive power of
multicultural propaganda to lead to the further diminishment of White social and institutional
power? As stated at the outset of this review, this power is destined for the hands of ethnic
interlopers. We know full well which of these ethnic groups will take the lion's share of that
power, because they have their hands on most of it already. The question is therefore: why
should Whites hand what remains of their social and institutional power to hostile groups that
will unquestionably ensure that their prejudice is enacted on Whites in a way that is far from
"temporary and contextual"? What possible incentive could adequately convince Whites to sign up
to such a Devil's pact? Isn't the entirety of White guilt built on a psychotic and
media-induced fantasy -- the idea that if Whites would just give up all remaining power in
their hands the world would enter an age of racial peace and harmony? DiAngelo doesn't even
touch on areas like this, preferring instead to subject the reader to a steady stream of
meaningless gibberish, such as a lengthy rumination on the theories of Ruth Frankenberg who, we
are told, gave birth to such dazzling notions as "whiteness is multidimensional." DiAngelo then
caps the chapter by treating us to the heights of Jamaican philosophy, where one Charles W.
Mills advances a conspiracy theory titled "the racial contract" which involves:
A tacit and sometimes explicit agreement among members of the peoples of Europe to assert,
promote, and maintain the ideal of white supremacy in relation to all other people of the
world. It is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is
today.
And there you have it -- this Jamaican genius has discovered the Protocols of the Elders
of Europa .
Charles W. Mills: A Caribbean Socrates
The same themes are repeated in the third chapter, "Racism After the Civil Rights Movement."
DiAngelo again attacks "fragile" Whites who claim to be color-blind, pointing out that they
merely believe that it's racist to acknowledge race and therefore flee into a denial of
reality. The only real novelty in the chapter, and one I found highly entertaining, was
DiAngelo's list of racist behaviors exhibited by fragile Whites. These include "acting nice"
and "being careful not to use racial terms or labels." But such phrasing is all the rage now,
as in the New York Times podcast series " Nice White
Parents " which explores hypocrisy among progressive Whites expressing all manner of
liberal pieties -- but moving heaven and earth to avoid sending their children to schools with
large numbers of POC.
The next chapter, "How Does Race Shape the Lives of White People?," is probably the
strangest of the book because, if DiAngelo is indeed White (and not someone with some Jewish
ancestry), then it represents a very disturbing and irrational detachment from reality and
common sense. For s start, DiAngelo seems to view even the mundane aspects of White ethnic
homogeneity as pathological. She writes:
As I move through my daily life, my race is unremarkable. I belong when I turn on the TV,
read best-selling novels, and watch blockbuster movies. I belong when I walk past the
magazine racks at the grocery store or drive past billboards. I belong when I see the
overwhelming number of white people on lists of the "Most Beautiful." I belong when I look at
my teachers, counsellors, and classmates. I belong when I learn about the history of my
country throughout the year and when I am shown its heroes and heroines -- George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Amelia Earhart, Susan B. Anthony, John
Glenn, Sally Ride, and Louisa May Alcott
All of this is presented as negative and sinister, to which one can only ask: what is the
alternative? To hand over one's nation and territory to others, so that you can cease to
belong? What then? DiAngelo comments:
It is rare for me to experience a sense of not belonging racially, and these are usually
very temporary, easily avoidable situations. Indeed, throughout my life, I have been warned
that I should avoid situations in which I might be a racial minority. These situations are
often presented as scary, dangerous, or "sketchy."
I can't image why. What I do suggest is that in order to help clarify her theoretical
framework, Robin DiAngelo should, with all reasonable haste, relocate to an area in which she
is most certainly not going to belong racially. Since she views "un-belonging" with great
enthusiasm, while confessing she has no real experience on which to base this view, she should
find the Blackest of Black areas and spend some quality time there -- time that isn't
"temporary, easily avoidable." I think, in the course of such an experiment, she will truly,
honestly, encounter some helpful folks that will be only too glad to show her how fragile she
can be.
By far the most entertaining chapter of the book comes within the last 50 pages. Titled
"White Women's Tears," it's an indictment of that infamous sight -- bawling, wailing, and
normally overweight White women clutching themselves in feverish grief over the death of some
poor Black gangbanger who just happened to get shot while rushing a police officer. DiAngelo is
probably correct in asserting that this is a self-indulgent demonstrative act designed to
heighten status ("I'm moral, good, and empathetic") and get attention from men of all races
("I'm vulnerable right now, and need attention and resources"). Some of the anecdotes in this
regard, from DiAngelo's "Whiteness" seminars are priceless, normally involving some weak-minded
woman breaking down at the revelation she's "racist," and they went some way to compensating me
for the purchase price and hideous ideology of the book. Above all, they confirmed to be that
what we see unfold before us is both tragedy and farce, and that our situation is no less
dangerous for that:
A black man struggling to express a point referred to himself as stupid. My
co-facilitator, a black woman, gently countered that he was not stupid but that society would
have him believe that he was. As she was explaining the power of internalized racism, a white
woman interrupted with, "I think what he was trying to say was " When my co-facilitator
pointed out that the white woman had reinforced the racist idea that she could best speak for
a black man, the woman erupted in tears. The training came to a complete halt as most of the
room rushed to comfort her and angrily accused the black facilitator of unfairness.
Meanwhile, the black man she had spoken for was left alone to watch her receive comfort.
Conclusion
DiAngelo scathingly remarks on incidents like this that "when we are mired in guilt, we are
narcissistic and ineffective." Essentially, the new direction of Whiteness Studies and its
intellectual corollaries will be to wean Whites away from demonstrative habits of virtue
signaling and into active participation in racial decline. We can expect to see in the near
future (and we already to some extent have with the Black Lives Matter riots) a greater
emphasis on Whites becoming active "anti-racists." It will become increasingly difficult for
Whites to appear simply as "not racist." Active, enthusiastic activity on behalf of the ethnic
power-grab will be demanded, and anything less will be portrayed with disdain as "fragility."
DiAngelo concludes her book with the blunt assertion that "a positive white identity is an
impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the
system of white supremacy." White identity is therefore to be destroyed wholesale, and White
ethnic interests crushed alongside it. DiAngelo proclaims with all the vigor of the subversive
or the brainwashed that she will "strive for a less white identity, for my own liberation and
sense of justice."
Liberation and justice. These words were uttered a long time ago in France. The beheadings
started soon after.
It's important to bear in mind that we're still in the same totalitarian state that
whacked JFK and then published shitloads of wistful essays on what that says about "us," by bignosed perv John Updike, by fudge-packing toff Mick Jagger, after all, "it was you and me,"
and everybody in between. The pressure to take the blame for state predation is a constant of
state-imposed American culture. Fuck that shit.
So of course some apple-polishing Jew or wop academic is going to tell us that it's not
cops and prosecutors and prisons fucking jigs over, it's you and me. The proper response to
this is Go fuck yourself. It's not me shooting jigs, strangling them, torturing them, framing
them, and locking them up to work for ten cents a day. It's this state that fucks them over,
not me. All I'm ever gonna do for blacks is destroy and shitcan this kleptocratic police
state, which fucks me over too, just somewhat less.
The purpose of removing Confederate symbols is to hide the commanding Zionist involvement
in the slave trade business. This is the equivalent of using the Russian Collusion to hide the Zionist influence on the
Trump election.
"I don't make a habit of buying the texts of the opposition, but when certain of them
reach a significant level of academic or popular attention (look for it in your child's
school curriculum), it's probably necessary for someone among us to carry out some form of
intellectual reconnaissance, and to bring back for wider consideration the most essential of
the gathered information."
Thank you for doing so. I myself have occasionally struggled with this same issue, i.e.,
the need to finance such people in order to access their material in full for the purpose of
a crafting a more fully informed critique of their ideas.
Robin DiAngelo has obviously rehearsed in her mind and put in book form the black
ass-kissing she'd launch into if she somehow found herself, say, getting on the wrong subway
in NY and having to get off in Harlem where the blacks mind-read her hatred and smell her
fear. It's her version of Monsters From the Id , or about overcoming–not white
European relations with their fellow black Americans–but her psychotic Jewish paranoia
over blacks one day recognizing how they've been played for fools by Jews like her and, with
eyes darting left and right a mile a minute, wheedling her way out of being given the South
African ritual by a gang of blacks with machetes. What a pathetic and paranoid little woman.
But for the Jewish MSM and publishing monopoly she'd have no more public existence than the
imaginary black boogeymen tormenting her psyche. Oy vey, the book's so clever and shmart that
she and her promoters didn't imagine blacks are intelligent enough to see this outrageous
insult of them not as a reflection on their relations with white Europeans, but as just more
condescending manipulation by the Jews.
My first action on picking up a copy of White Fragility was to turn to the bibliography.
I knew what I'd see, and it was a gratifying and familiar feeling to see so many names from
my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like
shunned relatives at a family reunion -- Noel Ignatiev
.. heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the
field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.
These are DiAngelo's mentors and intellectual forbears ..
The abolitionists of the 19th c. were passionate, energetic people whose relentless
agitation was a huge annoyance to political elites including Lincoln. The abolitionists were
nearly exclusively white, Enlightenment progressives, Christian or post-Christian. They bore
costs and took risks to set up and run the underground railroad. They are the pioneers, and
their efforts had a far more significant bearing on the future of USA race relations than the
1960's and later black and Jewish activists.
The author knows this, and omits it, thereby commiting a vile act of revisionism.
I you have a problem giving money to these people – and I certainly do myself and
wish to discourage others from doing so too – you can simply get the book from a
library, either public, or online via Library Genesis (which should cover most popular new
book needs and more besides – certainly I've found all the recently recommended
anti-white propaganda texts there).
I keep telling you people that White Chad Envy drives this effort to discredit America's
founders, especially the ones who owned slaves. It took a high-testosterone badass to enslave
Negroes and make them productive on his farm, and the white men who pulled this off had no
trouble finding white women who wanted to marry them and bear their children. Young single
and widowed white women in the British Isles and mainland European countries would even cross
the Atlantic on their own initiative to find these men to marry, sight unseen, despite the
notion that women in the era before female emancipation faced restrictions on their agency.
And despite the modern nonsense that white women show "empathy" with the "oppressed," when
they side with and select sexually the ones doing the "oppressing."
Those white men put today's soft, fear-ridden, risk-averse, often women-repelling white
American men to shame. Nothing about their record suggests "fragility" in the least.
Do black women cry as much as white women do? I was thinking about this in regards to the
quote about a white woman being comforted for crying, and I realized that I cannot recall
ever hearing black men complain about how much women cry.
Many of the abolitionists wanted to end slavery as a necessary first step in removing
Negroes from the country. They didn't necessarily want free Negroes hanging around after
their emancipation.
@Anonymous
Thanks for the link, I'd have missed it.
Delighted that this termite died in pain:
What killed Ignatiev, an intestinal blockage, is perfect justice and proves that God
does indeed have a sense of humor.
Interesting coincidence that he worked steel, at least in part, the same time I did. Not
in the same place, but my guess is he found blowing hot air at the Ivy League a lot more
profitable.
Connections! Fellow fragiles, we got to work on that. No way a mere white guy could have
pulled that off, not then, not ever.
Why buy a text and – through this voluntary act – sponsor the author and
his/her (almost certainly) jewish agent and publisher?
If you have the urge to read the poison of the enemy (I don't, since everything they write
is so predictable and thus boring, and new depths of depravity and dishonesty can easily be
noticed, if you are half-aware on sites like these), obtain it through other means.
I have read several good summaries/criticisms of White Fragility lately. Even
though current events led me down a path of exploring some pretty racist ideas, it all just
seems like a taboo more than anything. One of the last taboos in our culture the power to
really rile people up (mostly young white women who seem to be terrified of black men but
don't like to admit it). I am old enough to remember when being "gay" was still a taboo,
where people wouldn't just come out and admit they were gay. And then I have witnessed to
complete transformation of that taboo into a socially accepted, celebrated part of life. I am
also old enough to remember when someone having a black boyfriend would have been hilarious
and weird.
With race, there are a lot of intellectual tricks being played on people. For one thing, I
grew up when almost everyone in America was white. Since almost everyone was white, and
advertising was designed to appeal to people in demographically correct ways, I was subjected
to millions and millions of repetitions of white people in Ads buying things, to the point of
naturally coming to see white people as occupying certain positions in the capitalist
framework. Whiteness wasn't the primary aim of that repetitive advertising but the
expectation to see a white person in a certain way emerged naturally because I am white and
the ads were targeted to influence me. So now when I see ads where everyone is
demographically switched around, where, for example, a black woman is a car mechanic and
white guy is a mom, etc etc it's jarring. It's intentionally jarring. It's like they don't
want me to see the product or service being advertised but rather they want me to have an
experience of cognitive dissonance. But then I realize I am not the target of that ad at
all.
Which brings me to my point
Minimize your engagement with media and you will find that almost all of these topics
evaporate into thin air. News shows especially. With America's demographics changing,
everyone in the media and politics is scrambling to create content that is relevant to new
demographics, i.e. not you. So it all seems weird and jarring. If you just turn it off,
because it's not relevant to you anyway, you will find that you actually couldn't care less
if the hiring committee of some college a thousand miles away is trying to recruit a
wheel-chair bound Hispanic transgendered person for diversity and stuff like that.
We are also seeing the last gasp of these super conservative geezers who used to dominate
America as businessmen and local government Elks Club types where they would never hire a
long-haired guy with tattoos to do any kind of job, let alone a black person. These
last-gaspers still have a lot of money and influence in conservative media because they are
basically just sitting at home watching daytime tv or listening to Sirius XM all day.
So, racism is a taboo. Fine. I enjoy that taboo sometimes. Who really cares? Practically
no one outside of media, where people are hyping up this issue to get clicks and capture
attention. In real life almost no one I know really cares about any of this stuff.
The internet has birthed this ghoul and now it has a life in your mind. Just tune out. You
give it power by continuing to feed the frenzy online.
Yes, Richard B, D'Angelo's manipulation technique is closely related to the "Verbal Judo"
method taught to asshole cops: while coercing a citizen, obtrude random verbal chaff implying
options or choice to make the citizen internalize submission. Asshole cops take these methods
home to abuse their battered wives and fucked-up kids.
And yes, exactly, just like our asshole police awfisser, soon our asshole police state is
going to go home and take some stolen percocets and eat a gun. Good. Fuck the USA. Its
predation on blacks (and browns and whites) has got nothing to do with me.
Her point is well taken that "white supremacy" is not simply about white vs black but "it
is also the small number of rich whites over the much larger number of poor and working class
whites. In return for a guarantee that the latter group of whites will suffer the many
calamities of life afflicting working people in a capitalist society less intensely and less
frequently than do black people and people of color, the poor and working class whites will
not challenge the rule of the rich."
"White Fragility," as a theory, is confirmation of my belief that inducing guilt in
Whites was never the end goal in itself. It's never simply been about making us feel bad
about ourselves or our ancestors. White Fragility, White guilt, and indeed Whiteness
Studies as a whole, is fundamentally about power.
This quote is the heart of yet another great essay from Andrew Joyce.
Regarding The PQ – Power Question, not only does Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI) and its
Proxies demand to be,
but they have the power to effectuate those insane demands.
Thereby invalidating their claims about White power.
Worse, since Whites as a race have never once made those same demands, JSI also
invalidates their claims that the exercise of White power has been unjust.
DiAngelo's book isn't a courageous, honest, and intelligent search for the truth.
It's a cowardly, dishonest and unintelligent demand for power.
It's just another deposit of The Slave Revolt In Moralty.
JSI is simply too Hoax Dependent and Scapegoat-Driven to ever be able to exercise the
power they demand, and for the most part have, in a way that demonstrates a responsible
commitment to reality.
In other words, JSI represents the greatest danger, not just to Whites, but to humanity
itself.
That's why they're now declaring self-defense to be an act of terrorism.
For this reason and many others
Treason Against Jewish Supremacy Is Loyalty To Humanity
@advancedatheist
narrowly escaped lynching on Boston Common. For all the noise their leaders made,
Abolitionism was never more than a politically impotent lunatic fringe movement. But its
isolated firebrands provided a convenient imaginary enemy, like today's "terrorists", to
suppress dissent and command obedience in a white southern population that was growing
increasingly restive under the aristocratic rule of the slaveholding elite. It's one of the
great ironies of our history that the radicals so masterfully capitalized on the patriotic
rage that followed the insurgent attack on Old Glory at Sumter to push their agenda through
Congress and into law.
@anon
mention of the grim statistics of Black-on-Black violence. It doesn't fit The Narrative, you
see.
The government exists to truly make everyone equal. Does this man have only one leg? Then
we'll cut the leg off the man who has two. If we can't give a leg to the one-legged man, at
least then both men are equal. Silly, yes. But isn't this, in a nutshell, the ideology of the
current elite? Are some people too stupid to pass various types of qualification tests? Why,
then we'll just lower the bar until anybody, even a snake, can step over it! Or better yet,
just abolish the pretense of objective standards entirely and be done with it.
Andrew Joyce pens another penetrating article. Overrated and privileged snowflakes like
Robin DiAngelo deserve to be downgraded. Odious skunks such as Noel Ignatiev deserve to be
repudiated and disgraced. This article gets us moving in the proper direction. Thank you,
Andrew Joyce!
I learned from countless "I'm OK, You're OK" boomers that there's a wonderful feeling of
liberation and release from acknowledging and accepting your feelings and exorcising the
guilt for being who you are.
And you know, they were right. Countless white folks right now are at the point where they
can (at least privately) say "well, OK, so I am racist" and discover that they are still
perfectly good people. Or even make them realize that being regarded as a "bad person" frees
them to consider a lot of previously forbidden possibilities to reclaim their self-worth and
agency.
Books like this will actually help some people see the choice that is being forced on
them, and choose an alternative to the proffered solution.
After all, we made it through years of Prohibition only to realize that alcohol need not
be either illegal or immoral, if you're not. And drinking is far less natural to humans than
racism.
I would like to explain to Professor West a few things about this dread supremacy:
We have White Supremacy, Professor, because for 2500 years we, whites, have produced the
best minds on the planet, the greatest flourishing of the arts and sciences ever seen, the
most complex and organized societies. We have White Supremacy, whatever exactly it may be,
because we have been the earth's most successful race. No other has come close. Deal with
it.
We put probes on Mars and invented the thousands of technologies needed to do it. We
developed the symphony orchestra, the highest form of musical expression. We invented the
airplane, the computer, the internet, and tennis shoes. Putting it compactly, we invented the
modern world. A degree of privilege, however you may conceive it, goes with the
territory.
Blacks may not have the background to grasp the extent of our achievements. Still, permit
me a brief and very incomplete list of things white people have done or invented:
Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry.
Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical
chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle.
The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque
architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever
written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth
root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The
purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio.
Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening.
Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The
integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The
Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber.
Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that's nerve gas, and
maybe we didn't really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like
clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key
cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.
As a race, Cornel, we are happy for you, for anyone, to enjoy the benefits of our
civilization, but that is exactly what it is–our civilization. It has become a global
civilization because others among the competent–again, Chinese, Japanese, Indians,
Koreans–have found it to be in technical matters superior. It came from us. They, I
note, do not complain of White Supremacy or White Privilege. They are too busy making
computers and money.
Now, Cornel, I have often heard blacks demanding reparations for slavery. All right. I
agree. It is only fair. I will pay a half-million dollars to each of my slaves, and free them
immediately. I am not sure how many I have, but will try to give you an estimate in even
dozens. Further, I believe that all blacks are entitled to a similar amount for every year in
which they were slaves.
However, I think you owe us royalties for the use of our civilization, which can be
regarded as a sort of software. There should be a licensing fee. After all, every time you
use a computer, or a door knob, you are using something invented by us. Every time you
sharpen a pencil, or use one, or read or write, you infringe our copyright, so to speak. We
have spent millennia coming up with things–literacy, soap, counting–and it is
only fair that we receive recompense.
@Anon
of blackest cities in the Western World, so your theory is wrong.
But I agree you are submitting to peer pressure to adopt a certain point of view that you
call "anti-racist". Like how people used to go to Church and meet their their girlfriends,
it's pure lip service to the ideology. People conform outwardly and rebel inwardly. That's
always true of totalitarian systems of thought. The idea that everyone is going to keep
putting up with indulging these boring conversations about black people is absurd. Eventually
people get tired of playing along.
Thank you for reminding me to ignore Anon comments.
Amusing to see that the leftists understand it backwards. The poor whites unionise and try
to wrest better conditions from the rich whereas the blacks, the hispanics and other
immigrants sabotage them by accepting to work for worse conditions. Their refusal to join the
white unions or to create their own racialised unions and cooperating with white unions harms
the working class enormously.
I found highly entertaining, was DiAngelo's list of racist behaviors exhibited by
fragile Whites. These include "acting nice" and "being careful not to use racial terms or
labels."
According to the endarkened academic not using racial terms and acting nice is a symptom
of racism. But acting nasty towards coloured people and using slurs is also a symptom of
racism. So whites have no means of not being racist. What can they do then ? Logically they
should embrace the inner racist and establish a form of apartheid
The propaganda spewed by the endarkened academic is nothing new. 15 years ago some French
feminist journalist stated that men who fuck women of a different race are racist because
they assert their domination over that race through the bodies of the women. A few lines
further she stated that men who fuck white women only are racist because they remain closed
to the richness of experience brought by coloured women. Amen. Embrace the inner racist that
the woke believe lurks in you.
"... It is racist to characterize protests as violent or non-violent. It is racist to minimize black pain by trying to make people think about electoral effects. It is racist to be white and try to talk about the issue of black centered protests. It is racist to force black people to go through the emotional labor of trying to be non violent in these circumstances. It is racist to blame black people for the violence. It is racist to think that black people are being violent ..."
"... We should analyze this like we do rape culture: not only by the completed cancelations, but by the culture of protecting and encouraging the bad actors. ..."
Similarly with the Shor case, there doesn't seem to be very many people here willing to
wrestle with the fact that a bunch of people argued that Shor was racist for tweeting out
research about the efficacy of violent vs. non violent protests in the US, and that who got
blamed for starting violence ends up shaping public opinion.
Why did so many people think that was racist? You won't wrestle with that so I have to and
I'm almost certainly going to get yelled at for strawmanning. But the arguments (probably not
all held by the same people at the same time) I've actually seen are along these lines:
It is racist to characterize protests as violent or non-violent.
It is racist to minimize black pain by trying to make people think about electoral
effects.
It is racist to be white and try to talk about the issue of black centered protests.
It is racist to force black people to go through the emotional labor of trying to be non
violent in these circumstances.
It is racist to blame black people for the violence.
It is racist to think that black people are being violent .
So there appears to be a culture in which these arguments are considered coherent/valid
responses to someone pointing to social science literature on the question of the efficacy of
violence and non violence and on the importance of who gets seen as starting the violence.
And that culture appears to be strong enough that an employer will be worried about racism by
association on that basis.
This has essentially all of the tropes identified by Natalie Wynn. We have the quick
presumption of guilt. We have multiple levels of abstraction to get to 'racism'. We have
essentialism about Shor's whiteness (and depending on the argument about other people's
whiteness), we have pseudo-moralism about the timing of the comments, we have the lack of
forgiveness when he tried to apologize (which on some level is the most amazing, because he
went through the ritual apology after doing no real wrong and still got slammed repeatedly),
there is the transitive property of cancelation (with people suggesting his racism tainted
his employer), and a heavy dose of dualism.
We should analyze this like we do rape culture: not only by the completed
cancelations, but by the culture of protecting and encouraging the bad actors.
First there was the transcript. I wrote about that on 11 July (see here). Now we have the
video. Floyd was complaining of not being able to breath at least five minutes before the
police were forced by Floyd to put him on the ground. The transcript I posted on the 11th shows
clear evidence that George Floyd was complaining of not being able to breath. This video
provides the visual proof. George Floyd was not killed by police. He was suffering respiratory
distress caused by a Fentanyl overdose. His inability to breath had nothing to do with the neck
restraint applied by the Minneapolis police.
Now we know that the entire premise of the Black Lives Matter riots was based on a false
claim of police abuse. Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd. George Floyd, a criminal and
drug addict, killed himself by ingesting a drug that Doctors use to shutdown a patient's
respiratory system.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/YPSwqp5fdIw
As I noted on July 11th, the transcript exonerates the police. This is why the Minnesota
Attorney General tried to keep the public from seeing the video evidence for themselves.
I am re-posting the transcript so that you can compare it with the video. The video starts
with two Minneapolis Police officers approaching Floyd's vehicle from the driver's side. One of
the officers has his pistol drawn and pointed in Floyd's direction. However, per standard
practice, his finger is not, I REPEAT NOT, on the trigger. If the finger is not on the trigger
the gun will not fire itself.
Also worth noting that the police were not physically aggressive with Floyd. They did not
punch him or jerk him around. Floyd, in his drugged state, was not cooperative. It is a shame
that the officers who detained Floyd lacked clairvoyance or the ability to read Floyd's mind or
mentally test the chemical content of his blood. That kind of knowledge might have given them
an early clue that Floyd was a dead man walking because of the toxic brew of illegal drugs he
had shoved into his system. Here's the
link to the full transcript.
The incident starts with a store manager reporting that George Floyd had just given him a
counterfeit bill.
The two officers (Kueng and Thomas Lane) go outside and begin the investigation by trying to
get George Floyd out of his car:
Floyd was not cooperative. He was disoriented and not acting rationally. Floyd was
accompanied by another black man. In contrast to Floyd, the other gentleman followed police
instructions:
George Floyd was not passive nor cooperative despite media claims to the contrary. The video
that fueled outrage across America tells a very misleading story. The words of the transcript
are not lies. In the next relevant bit of conversation, Floyd concedes that he passed a bad
bill to the shop owner who called the police and admits he was not following police
instructions.
On page 12 of the transcript we get the first evidence that Floyd is high on something and
is "foaming" at the mouth. Officer Kueng is very concerned about Floyd's erratic
behavior:
Floyd claims he was "hooping" earlier. According to the Urban Dictionary , "hooping"
refers to smuggling/transporting something that is inserted in one's rectum.
Floyd's erratic behavior escalates as Officer Kueng and Lane try to put him in the police
car:
Pages 15-21 of transcript record the futile effort of the Officers to get Floyd into
the police car and Floyd's drug-induced frenzy and paranoia. On page 22 of the transcript Floyd
starts to claim that he cannot breath. He has not been placed on the ground. In fact, he ASKS
THE POLICE TO PUT HIM ON THE GROUND. Cops are not Docs. They do not have magical powers to
diagnose whether or not someone is actually having a medical emergency or faking it. Up to this
point in their interaction with George Floyd, they had little evidence to trust anything Floyd
said:
The transcript and the video are damning for all arm chair prosecutors who jumped to the
unwarranted and unsupported claim that the police killed George Floyd. The did not. tFloyd's
respiratory crisis was caused by the Fentanyl he had ingested before the police showed up on
the scene. That evidence also is reflected in the autopsy report. Those who have rushed to
judgment in condemning the Minneapolis Police Department will have to do some major mea
culpas.
I don't think Chauvin will be exonerated, but there is no question advocates of the racist
police brutality narrative are ignoring facts.
The conclusion of the private autopsy requested by the family was wrong. They didn't know
the results of the toxicology report. One of the experts hired by the family, who kept making
television appearances (including on Hannity), didn't even look at the body. To the best of
my knowledge, this man only saw the video and ruled it a homicide on that basis alone.
Another expert hired by the family saw the body, but again she didn't see the toxicology
report. The lawyer for the family, Ben Crump, is an ass for calling the toxicology report a
red herring.
The fact is when the store clerks called the cops, they said Floyd appeared drunk. He was
clearly inebriated or intoxicated. The fact he handed off an obviously fake $20 bill suggests
he wasn't all there. There is no denying the toxicology report which does prove he was
intoxicated. And the police were right to apprehend him. This Floyd was inebriated or
intoxicated while sitting behind the wheel of a car, so he clearly represented a danger if he
began to drive.
With all that being said, despite the fact he had trouble breathing beforehand doesn't
exclude that the manner he was being detained had contributed to his death. The second
autopsy (I'm not talking the private one, but the official second autopsy) officially did
rule his death a homicide because the manner he was held down was deemed a contributing
factor in his death.
In my personal opinion, I think there is a case to be made that Chauvin did recognize
Floyd and deliberately kept Floyd on his stomach, with his face pointed downward, so that
Floyd wouldn't recognize Chauvin. Maybe Chauvin was also trying to pass Floyd out or induce
Floyd to vomit something he may have swallowed to hide from the police, who knows, but the
manner Floyd was held down, even if it is considered accepted albeit rare procedure, will not
hold in front of a jury. Procedures aside, there has to be common sense.
There is no question Chauvin's actions were excessive and he should be disciplined for
that. However, unless his actions were the primary cause of death it is not murder. It is all
a moot point though. Everyone on that jury knows if they vote to acquit their life and
livelihood will be at risk as well as those of their close family members. Hopefully there
will be at least one courageous juror with integrity but I doubt it.
So not in this context os it a reference to playing basketball. And do you really think it
likely that this overweight guy with circulatory problems, a long time drug user, and by his
own claim just coming off of a dose of WuFlu was recreating himself playing basketball
earlier on?
If the police officers are acquitted in a state trial, they will be found guilty in a
federal civil rights trial. These four officers are going to spend years in prison, as will
the officer in Atlanta. The politicians, POTUS included, will be happy to ensure this
outcome.
It would be better if the officers were turned over to the mob, shot to death, and then
set afire. The mob can drag their charred remains through the street, chanting slogans, and
then hang their remains from a bridge. There's a great bridge on the outskirts of Fallujah
that served this purpose in the past.
Things are what they are, not what they should be.
According to a poster in another blog comment section, "hooping" can also refer to
ingesting drugs by means of an enema, actually an effective way to absorb them into the body.
Millions of AIDS sufferers (and sufferers from other STDs) can't be wrong! This area is a
weak link in the body's defenses against intruders, whether viral, bacterial, or chemical.
Besides, ingestion via enema avoids problems such as visible track marks (awkward to explain
to LEOs or parole officers), and being found in possession of "works", i.e., syringes, spoons
for "cooking" with a lighter, or hydrating the drugs into an injectable form.
As a long term convict, I am sure George was quite familiar with secreting items in his
rectum, so an enema would be child's play.
fakebot,
"There is no question Chauvin's actions were excessive?" His actions appear to be consistent
with his training and MPD policy, and yet you've figured out that the actions were
excessive?
Every elected official who claimed the police killed Floyd and every media report that
claimed the police killed Floyd, and everyone who republished this claim need to be sued-
slander per se, false accusation of a crime.
I assume there will be no problem claiming damages, and even punitive damages due to
willful intent to defame, by all the wrongly accused police officers.
This lynching of the police officers was media defamation of the Covington Catholic
Kids...... on steroids.
By charging him with murder and not manslaughter, the DA was intentionally putting Chauvin
into a good position to get off. I'm no BLM supporter, but watch the tape and tell me that
Chauvin is not guilty of manslaughter.
fakebot, "homicide" means a person died, and that it did not initially appear to be a
suicide. However OD by drugs could be called a suicide. We also have the cruel phenomenon of
"suicide by cop" where someone sets up a scenario to die at the hands of a police officer, or
a passing train, or motor vehicle.
You are reading way more into this incident than supported by the facts in evidence. Why
is that? Or even supported by the facts in evidence when the toxicology report first came
out. It was not clear from that point forward how in fact Floyd died.
Now that the embers have died down, vicious political lines drawn, the Nation convulsed,
the additional bodies counted, and the damages assessed to the point the Minnesota Gov is now
begging for a federal bailout, it is a strange time to finally officially release this
contemporaneous and potentially exculpatory evidence.
Larry,
I mostly agree. First, the hold that Cauvin used was, as you have noted, is approved by
department policy. It would have been used to keep both Floyd and the cops safe. It might
look terrible to the untrained eye and present as the ultimate archetype in a paranoid ink
blot test, but it is a safe and effective means of controlling someone when used properly. I
demonstrated to some friends recently by having my wife (125 pounds +/-) apply the hold to me
(200 + pounds, mostly muscle). I could not get up or thrash too much. I was a controlled, yet
unharmed. The assumption has been from the beginning that Chauvin was applying his total
weight to Floyd's neck. With one knee on the ground, the amount of pressure applied by the
other knee, to the neck, can be completely regulated and need not be excessive. Anyone can
verify this by simply trying it instead of repeating what they have been told by the media.
If you are worried about hurting a partner, try it on an inanimate object. Everyone is so
into "science", but then unwilling to test a basic hypothesis before virtue signaling
away.
Where I think Chauvin screwed up is in not giving Floyd CPR, etc once he stopped
breathing. However, that is not murder. The excessive charges are a set up for subsequent
riots; probably worse than the first round, when Chauvin is acquitted at trial or on appeal.
Maybe that is intentional.
Terence Gore,
The problem is that people resisting arrest often say things like, "I can't breath". Often
enough that cops see it as crying wolf. Besides, what were the cops supposed to do with
someone who is thrashing and resisting arrest and saying he can't breath? Let him thrash and
hurst himself and/or cops? All they could do was control Floyd for safety while waiting on
the EMTs.
Based on the comments ahead of me, there will be no resolution of this matter that is not
democratic - in other words, a compromise both sides hate.
The 'racism' narrative never did fit; their previous work history together is not spoken
of at any length; their former employer and the background of that establishment is also very
interesting.
Multi-racial myself, this entire BLM things is fueled more by wealth or opportunity
disparity than anything else. It's a game many of us just refuse to play any longer, but
nobody can fix stupid - it has to fix itself.
Understood, I was trying to make the point MSM is not taking a deeper look the is at the
issue.
"Some drugs produce undesirable effects with an oral application. With rectal
administration, a person who typically feels nauseous from taking a certain substance orally
may be able to avoid that feeling. A person may also want to experience the "high" more
quickly in certain situations. For example, a person may seek social competence and emotional
awareness associated with MDMA when at social gatherings, and may want to produce the effects
of it more quickly than usual. Or a person who wants the relaxed and calm feelings associated
with alcohol may want to orally administer it to have the effects of it while not emitting
the smell on his breath.
This is a trend becoming more and more popular with teens as a way to get the desired
effects while hiding (at least for a while) the evidence of abuse. Whatever the reason a
person may rectally abuse substances, there are blatant side effects ranging from mild to
severe."
Floyd was inebriated from his drug ingestion and once apprehended needed to be restrained
due to his impairment. Once on the ground, his suggestion, Chauvin applied a restraint to
Floyd's scapula and repeatedly applied pressure in a throttling manner. Was it the neck and
not the scapula, that's in the eye of the viewer and camera angle. Never believe what you
think you see as there always Is another angle. Oh, yes he did slip it to the neck but for
how long time will tell.
He applied the restraint way to long, he did not allow the body to be turned as suggested and
reacted poorly to the growing crowd. A professional law enforcement trainer of restraint
holds could answer most questions and will in court but with the quick condemnation by law
enforcement agencies answers most questions. Homicide 1st or 2nd degree only in
Minneapolis.
Congratulations to Keith Ellison, former congressman, former vice chair of the DNC, and
current Attorney General of Minnesota. Suppressing this evidence was essential in ensuring
the myth of George Floyd was spread around the world before even a flicker of fact
emerged.
"We found a weed pipe on him, there might be something else with it. Might be like, PCP or
something."
Tomas Lane, Minneapolis PD. That's the "systemicly racist" police department in that city run
by the Democratic Farm Labor party, which, like the Attorney General's office of the State of
Minneapolis, has been in charge for half a century or more.
Congratulations Democrats. You have shown the world that you believe that individual
idenity must be rejected in favor of group identity, guilt for things done in the past is
inheritable, and only one group has lives that matter. History must be replaced with the new
reality, the Democratic party's belief that America was founded on racism, it's institutions,
codes of law, and culture must all be swept asside to be replaced with the ideals of the
"democratic socialist" wing of the party.
Chaz, Chop and CNN couldn't frame a better narrative to run for election on in 2020.
Better get some Covid cover stories going lest people start asking why men and women are
fined or arrested for trying to open barber shops, walk without a face burka in public, or
otherwise excercise freedoms yet looters, arsonists, and destroyers of public monuments walk
free; along with tens of thousands of criminals who were released from prison. Certainly no
one wants to know why FISA abuse has gone unpunished, why DOJ lawyers can make up evidence,
withhold other material from defendants - repeatedly, yet none are arrested or otherwise held
to account. We certainly don't want to know what Joe Biden and his boss were doing those 8
years they were in office; or all the other years Joe spent in the House and Senate.
Fentanyl and other opioids do NOT cause respiratory distress or shortness of breath. They
generally depress all activity of the brain and especially the area that control respiration.
In a large enough dose you first pass out and then stop breathing. That is why most opiate
overdoses are simply found dead. A guy foaming at the mouth, agitated and wanting to lie down
is sick, and should be treated as such. He should not be cuffed with his hands behind his
back (also a stress position which impedes the motion of the chest and hence effective
breathing), made to lie prone (also an impediment to ability to breathe) with a knee on the
back of the neck which will compress the upper airway. This guy may have been a SOB and a
MOFO but did not deserve this for any reason let alone passing a bad $20 bill. It was not
murder in the first, but some blame needs to be allocated.
Out of the way, it's a busy day
I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died
First, let me explain that I am a retired Cardiologist (ABIM Certified in both Internal
Medicine and Cardiology). As such, have on thousands of occasions helped in the ER's when
people come in on drugs....and I have seen the panic in their eyes and the physiologic
changes that occur (severe hypertension, Adrenalin release, heart attacks, strokes).
When I read the available reports from Floyd's autopsy I was struck by the fact this
fellow had ingested a large quantity of dangerous drugs; combinations of stimulants and
opioids (fentanyl...one of the most dangerous drugs on the street...we even have to be
careful with it in the hospital). He wasn't able to react appropriately to the circumstances
and those officers aren't doctors. The officers were trapped. The only decision they could
make was to control the subject and try to prevent him from injuring himself or them...or
someone else. From what I read in the Minneapolis PD manual the use of the neck restraint (as
they used it) was trained and approved.
Factually, this probably didn't cause an injury. I think the defense will probably utilize
this; perhaps they will get a 'slap on the hands'...but they did what they were trained to do
with a large, strong, resisting subject. I am worried that it will result in a ' Rodney King'
response with riots and destruction. I don't see a good 'end' here.
I am reminded of a piece by Art Buchwald, in which, he quoted the response of a governor
of Illinois to a prison riot: " we need a better class of prisoners."
I suppose we need a healthier and more responsible-acting class of miscreants, who could
endure incidents of police brutality and not inconviently dying and besmirching the sterling
reputation of the police - causing riots among the feeble-minded population.
Charlie Wilson, why the intentional misinformation campaign when we all have search
engines at our fingertips?
"........According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, this powerful drug is 100 times
more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. Along with targeting the
opioid receptors in the brain that control pain, the opioid receptors that control breathing
and heart rate are also affected. This can lead an individual to stop breathing all together
if too much Fentanyl is taken.........
EMT was called, he was being symptomatically treated. He did not die because of a bad $20
bill. He died because from the moment he woke up that day he made one fatal decision after
another, all bad. Including buying cigarette with his bad $20 bill, when he claimed on tape
he had "post-covid breathing" problems. He set his own fate in motion.
Might want to wait for the start of the woke NFL season before doing any more Monday
morning quarterbacking.
Methamphetamine most often causes a general feeling of wellness (euphoria) that is most
often called a "rush." Other symptoms are increased heart rate, increased blood pressure, and
large, wide pupils.
If you take a large amount of the drug, you will be at higher risk for more dangerous side
effects, including:
Agitation
Chest pain
Coma or unresponsiveness (in extreme cases)
Heart attack
Irregular or stopped heartbeat
Difficulty breathing
Very high body temperature
Kidney damage and possibly kidney failure
Paranoia
Seizures
Severe stomach pain
Stroke
Long-term use of methamphetamine can lead to significant psychological problems,
including:
Delusional behavior
Extreme paranoia
Major mood swings
Insomnia (severe inability to sleep)
Other symptoms may include:
Missing and rotted teeth (called "meth mouth")
Repeated infections
Severe weight loss
Skin sores (abscesses or boils)
The length of time methamphetamines stay active can be much longer than for cocaine and other
stimulants. Some paranoid delusions can last for 15 hours."
"Common signs of opiate or stimulant overdose are:
foaming at the mouth or a foam cone
loss of consciousness
seizures
difficulty or stopped breathing
Overdose causes foaming at the mouth because organs like the heart and lungs can't function
properly. Slowed heart or lung movements causes fluids to gather in the lungs, which can mix
with carbon dioxide and come out of the mouth like a foam."
"The excessive charges are a set up for subsequent riots; probably worse than the first
round, when Chauvin is acquitted at trial or on appeal. Maybe that is intentional."
I thought this the moment I heard the charges were bumped up from 3rd to 2nd degree
murder. IMHO, this was also unquestionably a prime motive for the Atlanta DA to rush to
charge that officer with felony 1st degree murder. I don't know how a prosecutor could prove
to an impartial jury that this was first degree, pre-meditated murder, given the indisputable
facts of the case.
I firmly believe both of these cases have been deliberately set up to fail in prosecution
in order to effect a truly cataclysmic round of domestic unrest upon the results of the
trials. The need the system to fail in order to prove their contention that it is inherently
racist. These people want power at all costs. They do not care one bit about the citizenry of
their municipalities who undoubtedly will suffer mightily once these trials play out to
acquittal or at best a hung jury.
"... Among Americans without a high school diploma, for example, 27 percent self-censor. Among Americans who completed high school, this goes up to 34 percent. And among those who have attended college for at least a few years, 45 percent do. This suggests that Americans are socialized into learning to keep their mouth shut: the longer you spend in the educational system, the more you learn that it is appropriate to express some views, but not others. ..."
"... The implicit claim is that the good people, or at least the people with good taste and good manners, will abuse the bad people out of power is the social media version of "The King's advisors are corrupt!" The political "analysis" which reduces everything to the personal malice of your enemies and their conspiracies and all we need to do is the same politics that says all we need is good Christian leaders, except the morally trivial difference of who "we" are deemed to be. ..."
"... using the immoral methods you advocate is actively immoral in itself. Like Heinlein in Starship Troopers arguing that the whipping post was actually fairer, you're arguing the social media equivalent of pillory and stocks are fairer! ..."
"... reducing the whole issue of the current reliance on moral scandals about individuals in lieu of any principled politics to nothing more than the personal pique of the privileged (who alleged power is as likely to be imaginary as real, incidentally,) by waving away the problems, this is exactly what you are endorsing. ..."
I am sure that people restricting what they say because of a fear of ostracism is a thing
that happens, but there's no reason to suppose that this is restricted to liberals, or more
common among liberals
@147; @150: There is, apparently, some
recent data on
this. According to a survey conducted in 2019, a full 40% of Americans "don't feel free to
speak their minds." (The corresponding figures were 48% in 2015, and 13% in 1954, at the height
of McCarthyism. There are no figures for 2020.) Other relevant findings from that study: equal
numbers of R and D voters feel unable to speak their minds; but uneasiness about speaking
freely correlates most strongly with higher levels of education:
Among Americans without a high school diploma, for example, 27 percent self-censor.
Among Americans who completed high school, this goes up to 34 percent. And among those who
have attended college for at least a few years, 45 percent do. This suggests that Americans
are socialized into learning to keep their mouth shut: the longer you spend in the
educational system, the more you learn that it is appropriate to express some views, but not
others.
This finding (if valid) would seem to vindicate the functionalist interpretation of
self-censorship laid out by @150: that its purpose is to control the range of expression
permissible within the college-educated, broadly liberal PMC.
The figure in the Persuasion piece suggests that it's based on a longer paper. If
it's
this one , then it's still a preprint. But, still: at least something to go on.
I see this kind of thing multiple times every day. I suppose because these reviewers
haven't yet been shot and killed, this isn't really "cancel culture," not serious, I'm making
it up.
There is some strenuous gaslighting going on in this thread.
Jerry Vinokurov@143 wrote: "I'm sorry, I genuinely do not understand what you mean to say
here."
How curious Well then, to be blunt, defending "dragged on Twitter" is defending a storm of
abuse as useful political speech, which is ridiculous. It's defending the storm of abuse by
gamers of women, for one thing. Pretending it's not because those kind of people only want to
pretend this kind of rotten politics is only a problem when people they perceive as "left" do
it, doesn't change that. The same tactics used by the right too, for example, demonize Hilary
Clinton for thirty years may not be called PC or cancel culture, but that's what it is.
The implicit claim is that the good people, or at least the people with good taste and
good manners, will abuse the bad people out of power is the social media version of "The
King's advisors are corrupt!" The political "analysis" which reduces everything to the
personal malice of your enemies and their conspiracies and all we need to do is the same
politics that says all we need is good Christian leaders, except the morally trivial
difference of who "we" are deemed to be.
Moral reformation by abuse is not going to work. Frankly, the actual irrelevance of this
to ownership of the country is one reason why it is allowed, a way to neuter real opposition.
It prevents solidarity between the lowers, while fostering illusions about select masters.
Wasn't there some guy who actually wrote about the Obama presidency under the title We Were
Eight Years in Power?
And, by the way, if politics were simply just personal morality, then using the
immoral methods you advocate is actively immoral in itself. Like Heinlein in Starship
Troopers arguing that the whipping post was actually fairer, you're arguing the social media
equivalent of pillory and stocks are fairer!
You think for some reason stuff like some guy pulling a Norwegian flag because somebody
complained about a Confederate flag being displayed isn't a problem? Even worse, you really
think pulling Confederate flags is a real solution to anything? You think a judge who ruled
that Ashley Judd could sue Harvey Weinstein for retaliation and defamation (as in
blacklisting her,) but couldn't sue him for employer harassment when she wasn't his employee
should be purged from the judiciary? And that of course a judge should rule that Judd should
be able to sue him for employer abuse when she wasn't employed by him because that will allow
fishing expeditions into every employee's work history? You think the movie An Office and A
Spy should be canceled but that doesn't make you an anti-Dreyfusard?
Probably the pretense is that none of this was intended. But reducing the whole issue
of the current reliance on moral scandals about individuals in lieu of any principled
politics to nothing more than the personal pique of the privileged (who alleged power is as
likely to be imaginary as real, incidentally,) by waving away the problems, this is exactly
what you are endorsing.
"... You're not allowed to criticise it. And therefore, if you offer even a fairly mild criticism, it really does sound strident, because it violates this expectation that religion is out of bounds. ..."
Parental reports (on social media) of friend clusters exhibiting signs of gender dysphoria [1-4]
and increased exposure to social media/internet preceding a child’s announcement of a trans-
gender identity [1-2,9] raise the possibility of social and peer influences. In developmental psy-
chology research, impacts of peers and other social influences on an individual’s development
are sometimes described using the terms peer contagion and social contagion, respectively. The
use of "contagion" in this context is distinct from the term’s use in the study of infectious dis-
ease, and furthermore its use as an established academic concept throughout this article is not
meant in any way to characterize the developmental process, outcome, or behavior as a disease
or disease-like state, or to convey any value judgement. Social contagion [29] is the spread of
affect or behaviors through a population. Peer contagion, in particular, is the process where an
individual and peer mutually influence each other in a way that promotes emotions and behav-
iors that can potentially have negative effects on their development [30]. Peer contagion has
been associated with depressive symptoms, disordered eating, aggression, bullying, and drug
use [30-31]. Internalizing symptoms such as depression can be spread via the mechanisms of
co-rumination, which entails the repetitive discussion of problems, excessive reassurance seek-
ing (ERS), and negative feedback [30, 32-34]. Deviancy training, which was first described for
rule breaking, delinquency, and aggression, is the process whereby attitudes and behaviors asso-
ciated with problem behaviors are promoted with positive reinforcement by peers [35,36].
Peer contagion has been shown to be a factor in several aspects of eating disorders. There
are examples in the eating disorder and anorexia nervosa literature of how both internalizing
symptoms and behaviors have been shared and spread via peer influences [37-41] which may
have relevance to considerations of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria occurring in AY As.
Friendship cliques can set the norms for preoccupation with one’s body, one’s body image,
I posted the following tweet citing the well-known "social contagion" hypothesis forwarded
by Dr Lisa Littman's work on ROGD. This first person account by @SwipeWright of his academic cancelling is worth paying
attention to.
Reputational smears, job market sabotage, lies, etc. Brutal. Follow him for
thoughtful insights and smart analysis of scientific subjects. Unroll available on Thread
Reader
Directly getting people fired for their heterodox views.
Getting other academics to stay silent &/or avoid certain questions/topics out of
fear.
Causing heterodox students to avoid going into academia altogether.
As the following quote suggests that "woke ideology" is a secular religion"
"Yes, yes, I know," Dawkins interrupts. "I know. People say I'm shrill and
strident."
Dawkins has a theory about this, which is very persuasive.
"We've all been
brought up with the view that religion has some kind of special privileged
status. You're not allowed to criticise it. And therefore, if you offer even a
fairly mild criticism, it really does sound strident, because it violates this
expectation that religion is out of bounds."
I see this kind of thing multiple times every day. I suppose because these reviewers
haven't yet been shot and killed, this isn't really "cancel culture," not serious, I'm making
it up.
There is some strenuous gaslighting going on in this thread.
The Natalie Wynn transcript is very good, and I hadn't seen that before. Thank you.
It's worth wrestling with a bit, because it has the advantage of not framing the
question in terms of Free Speech. I think that the free speech framing often pushes people to
draw bright lines that confuse rather than clarify the debate. For example, various
statements that I've seen by Yascha Monk he tries to make a clear distinction between, "being
dragged on twitter" (which is not a free speech concern, in his opinion) and suffering
employment consequences. But that's a difficult distinction to maintain, and Natalie Wynn is,
correctly, concerned about to problems of being harassed on twitter.
I read her essay as being less about, "see how this suppresses speech" and more about,
"look at the way in which twitter encourages/amplifies/leans towards" bad arguments. That
people are engaging in speech but are doing it badly because they are being lazy or careless,
or just not inclined to see the people they're arguing with as persons.
Take these two passages (which I'm quoting in reverse order from which they appear in the
original).
I recently read a book by Sarah Schulman called Conflict is Not Abuse: Overstating
Harm, Community Responsibility and the Duty of Repair. Basically Schulman's argument is
that, in various contexts from romantic relationships to community infighting to
international politics, the overstatement of harm is used as a justification for cruelty
and for escalating conflict.
"Just look at the case of Denise Young Smith. Young Smith spent almost two decades working
her way up in Apple, becoming one of the few black people to ever reach its executive team.
She was named vice president of diversity and inclusion
Then she uttered the sentence that really got her into trouble: "And I've often told
people a story -- there can be 12 white blue-eyed blond men in a room and they are going to
be diverse too because they're going to bring a different life experience and life
perspective to the conversation," she noted.
Within a week, the uproar over her comments forced Young Smith to write an apology. A few
weeks later, her departure from the company was announced. She was replaced by Christie
Smith, a white woman."
Every day, many times a day. As far as I am concerned. Cancel culture is the overall
environment, the habitus, the totality of 2010+ media and communication. We all can get
ostracized and isolated at any time.
Like PC, the term cancel culture is an effort by right-wingers to re-brand their own
practices as something horrible when they are on the receiving end. As such, if cancel
culture were honestly applied what they do, some of us would agree that it is a bad thing.
Notably, everyone who has indignantly invoked their private property rights to delete
comments, shriek about trolls, ban commenters or even refuse comments, has agreed, whether or
not they concede the point, has agreed there is an active harm from it, even when it isn't
rape/death threats to women.
The real problem is not just that things like presumption of guilt, guilt by association,
etc. aren't moral. The real problem is they can't possibly do the job alleged. Causing mental
agony to people, even "bad" people, isn't political reform. Not only is this kind of thing a
diversion from politics, it is totally amenable to misuse, and everybody knows it. Making
excuses for Biden while harping about Trump is hypocritical gossip, partisanship, not
principle. Bill Cosby's accomplices got away scot free and Harvey Weinstein's stooges still
have their cheating Oscars! I suppose one of the biggest triumphs of cancel culture is
suppressing movies like the Gore Vidal biopic and the movie An Officer and a Spy. But what
kinds of victories is joining the anti-Dreyfusards?
To put it another way, cancel culture is the social media equivalent of the
criticism/self-criticism sessions on campuses in the Cultural Revolution. Except today's
version lacks any changes in party/state personnel, lacks any significant redirection of
resources to the people left behind, lacks any hint of fundamental political differences in
the future of the country. This current iteration of this kind of "politics" is even more apt
to disguise score settling or even puritanism. As near as I can tell, there isn't even a
strong case to be made that "puritanism" as such was helpful even to the Puritan revolution,
not like congregations paying their pastors.
And I don't think the pleasure of getting "our" own back on the reactionaries is enough to
pay for giving up any moral condemnation of the injustice of such methods, any more than
building clinics in the countryside in China was helped by criticism/self-criticism
sessions.
For those who favor cancel culture, here's a defense, in the particular case of
Aristotle: http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2020/07/apparently-aristotle-is-in-danger-of.html
There are a couple of funny things to this, notably the fact that Aristotle is already
canceled as far as popular culture goes. For the SF fans here, consider Neal Stephenson's
abuse of "Aristotle" in Anathem. Or the nearly universal assumption in popular discourse that
Aristotle was an enemy of science. (See The Lagoon.)
Also, despite being a professional, our Maoist friend seems to think Aristotle was a major
philosopher in ancient times, when as near as I can tell from reading Peter Adamson is that
Aristotle's preeminence was a product of Arab/Persian/Central Asian culture, and hence not
really a white thing at all. (And Black Athena, while documenting influence from Egypt, is
incomplete, neglecting the cultural influences on the Greek cities of Ionia, which were more
important originally than Athens.)
I may have missed something after a cursory reading of the thread, but neither Chris B.
nor any of the commenters have attempted to place strict definitional boundaries on "cancel
culture" in order to make the debate more manageable. So not surprisingly we get a bunch of
commenters who object to hypothetical extreme examples of the tendency that "cancel culture"
is only a narrow subset of.
Some examples of the general tendency that I and most civilized people vehemently
oppose:
–Damnatio memoriae (ancient Rome) and un-personhood (communist countries).
–Firing for political opinions held outside of the workplace.
–Hiring blacklisting based on political opinion.
–Death threats and other threats of violence against people with objectionable
opinions. (Of course, if the objectionable individual was the first to issue such threats,
then it is fully justified to issue retaliatory threats, action movie-style).
–Legalized segregation or physical exile targeting people with objectionable
opinions.
–Last, definitely not least and most obviously, the actual genocide of groups
based solely on their political opinions or actions (The legalized killing of individuals
based on their actions is another matter).
These are what the critics of cancel culture such as Sebastian H seem to have in mind. But
either they are projecting their own fears or they are dishonestly using straw men. What
we've seen of "cancel culture" in the U.S. so far is:
–Attempts in public education to re-write false history, the Lost Cause most
prominently.
–Pulling down statues and other memorials of people who should not have been "sainted"
in the first place.
–Renaming of places/institutions named after either people who are very far from
sainthood (e.g. Bragg and Hood of CSA Army infamy) or objectionable nicknames.
–Calls for boycotts of commercial products or franchises whose CEOs voice
anti-democratic cultural or political opinions (e.g. ChickFila and homophobia).
–Along the same lines, the refusal to grant media platforms and public speaking
engagements to individuals with such opinions.
–Refusal to allow blog comments from people with a past history of objectionable
opinions (e.g., Chris B. rightly keeping Ralph Musgrave away from this comment thread).**
–Social ostracism that is either absolute (refusal to be physically near an
objectionable person, especially if such a person has made inflammatory public comments) or
more conditional (same refusal, but with the precondition that said person refused to be
respectful or to consider other opinions in previous debate).
Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes
her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The
dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.
(I don't know where a young you-tuber probably not born before the millennium encountered
Shulamith Firestone's old partner in crime, but I am delighted that she did! I know it shows my
age, but I think that young activists today could benefit a lot from reading what my
generation's activists wrote. Also, from getting off my lawn.)
This is a shadow of USSR over the USA. Dead are biting from the grave.
Notable quotes:
"... Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019, fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We find that: ..."
"... those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging in more self-censorship ..."
"... fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and portentous. ..."
"... Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ..."
Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the
percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019,
fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and
cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We
find that:
(1) Levels of self-censorship are related to affective polarization among the mass public,
but not via an "echo chamber" effect because greater polarization is associated with more
self-censorship.
(2) Levels of mass political intolerance bear no relationship to self-censorship, either at
the macro- or micro-levels.
(3) Those who perceive a more repressive government are only slightly more likely to engage
in self-censorship. And
(4) those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging
in more self-censorship .
Together, these findings suggest the conclusion that one's larger macro-environment has
little to do with self-censorship. Instead, micro-environment sentiments -- such as worrying
that expressing unpopular views will isolate and alienate people from their friends, family,
and neighbors -- seem to drive self-censorship.
We conclude with a brief discussion of the significance of our findings for larger democracy
theory and practice. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3647099
There can be little doubt that Americans today are deeply divided on their values, many
issue preferences, and their ideological and partisan attachments (e.g., Druckman and
Levendusky 2019). Indeed, these divisions even extend to the question of whom -- or what kind
of person -- their children should marry (Iyengar et al. 2019)!
A concomitant of these divisions is that political discourse has become coarse, abrasive,
divisive, and intense. When it comes to politics today, it is increasingly likely that even an
innocent but misspoken opinion will cause a kerfuffle to break out.
It therefore should not be surprising to find that a large segment of the American people
engages in self-censorship when it comes of expressing their views.1 In a nationally
representative survey we conducted in 2019 (see Appendix A), we asked a question about
self-censorship that Samuel Stouffer (1955) first asked in 1954, with startling results:
fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than
they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and
portentous.
... ... ...
===
1 Sharvit et al. put forth a useful definition of self-censorship (2018, 331): "
Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from
others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ." Studies of self-censorship have taken many
forms, ranging from philosophical inquiries (e.g., Festenstein 2018) to studies of those
withholding crucial evidence of human rights abuses (e.g., Bar-Tal 2017) to studies of
self-censorship among racial minorities (e.g., Gibson 2012).
I 1000% recommend that Natalie Wynn link. It is an excellent discussion of the queer
facebook/twitter/social media cancel culture that I see all the time. The discussion of the
step to abstraction plus essentialism is especially good and totally applicable to most of the
real cancelations (the step from 'here is research about violent vs. non-violent protests' to
'Shor is racist' is a classic).
I'm going to provide a lot of examples and I'll use the Wynn tropes. Not all of them have
all of the tropes, but I think it is a true cultural issue, so I'm not sure you need all of
them at the same time. One that I won't mention every time is the Transitive Property of
Cancellation. But you should realize that it exists in every case where someone does something
off the job, and the cancelers try to get them fired, because the logic is "your company is
horribly tainted by have X as a worker". There are a few cases using words that are forbidden.
I'm not going to type them outright only because I don't want to get dragged into the
discussion of the appropriateness of using them directly when discussing them, third hand.
However the appropriateness is important to the context (eg "dont call me a N!gg$%" or black
artists who deliberately use it to be provacative)
Shor. I won't recite the fact but the link (along with some of the names that Quiggin
wanted) is a good discussion of it. It exhibits problematic Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction,
Essentialism
Emmanuel Cafferty: power company worker fired because he allegedly gave the OK symbol which
is allegedly a white power symbol. This very obviously Hispanic man in San Diego says he has no
idea that the OK symbol is a white power symbol and that he was just cracking his knuckles. BTW
the OK symbol thing is it's own area of insanity, where WP groups intentionally troll us to
make us look like overreacting ninnies. It requires so much context to explain to the
non-hyper-woke that it would be way easier to just never take the bait–because if you can
strongly suggest someone is racist without it, just do so. If you can't it is definitely not
worth it. Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction, Essentialism, Dualism
Dominique Moran fired from Chipotle because she insisted on getting payment from a group of
black men who specifically had had their cards declined only 2 days before, and who she had
been warned that those specific men had "dine and dashed". She became an internet exemplar of
racism so much so that her mother found out about it across the country. It wasn't until later
that other internet sleuths demonstrated that Chipotle had been set up for an internet
anti-racist mob. (Note that the company itself never figured that out on their own).
Presumption of Guilt, Essentialism,
Marlon Anderson was a [black] security guard at a Wisconsin high school. He was repeatedly
taunted as being a N!gg$% by students. He told the students that they absolutely could not call
him a N!gg$%. The students accused him of using the word N!gg$%, and he was fired for using
racial slurs. The only good news is that this firing is so ridiculous that it has generated
some serious pushback. (I could not however find out what happened). Presumption of Guilt,
Abstraction, Pseudo-Moralism, No Forgiveness
Sarah Silverman fired from her movie because she appeared in blackface in her show from more
than a decade before . The piece clearly indicates that white people take blackface too
casually and that they are wrong to do so. Abstraction, Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, No
Forgiveness, Dualism.
Israel Morales. Jewish restaurant attacked for being Nazi sympathizers because they didn't
overreact to a patron wearing a shirt with the work "Luftwaffe" on it. The owner didn't believe
it was as clear as the accuser said and tried to stop a confrontation in the restaurant. The
most annoying part is the final paragraph "For its part, Kachka's owners says they fear the
rumors could lead racists and neo-Nazis to assume the restaurant is a place that welcomes their
views. "Our fear is that this misinformation could cause discriminatory groups to think Kachka
is a safe haven, which it most certainly is not," Israel Morales wrote in a statement to Eater.
"We would like to reiterate that we never kicked anyone out for speaking up, we had no idea
what the symbol on the shirt meant, and if we had known, we would not have served him."
Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction, Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, Dualism, Transitive Property
(serving someone in a restaurant must mean you're a Nazi sympathizer).
Ahmad Daraldik accused of anti-Semitism for his comment "stupid jew thinks he is cool" which
he posted in response to a photo which is now said to be staged of an Israeli soldier stepping
on a child. Daraldik was TWELVE and living in the Palestinian territories at the time. This one
is still very much in process as it was just reported in July of 2020. I presume he will not be
actually removed from FSU. But it exhibits many of the cancel culture tropes. Abstraction,
Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, No Forgiveness, Dualism.
Neal Caren. UNC associate professor of sociology. Accused of creating an unsafe environment
for students of color for asking a white student to role-play a black person in order to try to
better understand racial issues. This was reported in early 2020 so it is too soon to tell
where the investigation will go. Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction, Essentialism,
Pseudo-Intellectualism, Dualism.
Gary Garrels. Senior curator of painting and sculpture at the SF Museum of Modern Art.
Museum employees sent a petition saying "Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we
ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed
his position curating the content of the museum?" This apparently was in response to his
statements that he wanted to increase diversity and "Don't worry, we will definitely still
continue to collect white artists".
This may require a new trope of 'gross exaggeration', but I guess that is a Presumption of
Guilt issue, Abstraction, Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, Dualism.
Jonathan Friedland. Removed from Netflix for saying in a meeting that certain words were not
OK to broadcast in comedy and specifically saying that the word N!gg$% was one of them (he said
it aloud in the meeting).
This one might not be directly cancel culture in that there was no internet furor, but it
exhibits many of the tropes so I included it. Essentialism, Dualism, No Forgiveness. It also
took place on the job, so I understand that it is more of an edge case.
Gordon Klein. Currently suspended from teaching at UCLA for the following response to an ask
that exams be delayed for black students to allow participation in local BLM rallies (which
continued every day for more than a month). He contributed a rather snarky response which I
will copy here in full so that no one accuses me of hiding it. But not a firing/suspension
offense.
Thanks for your suggestion in your email below that I give black students special
treatment, given the tragedy in Minnesota. Do you know the names of the classmates that are
black? How can I identify them since we've been having online classes only? Are there any
students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half black-half Asian? What do you suggest I
do with respect to them? A full concession or just half? Also, do you have any idea if any
students are from Minneapolis? I assume that they probably are especially devastated as well.
I am thinking that a white student from there might be possibly even more devastated by this,
especially because some might think that they're racist even if they are not. My TA is from
Minneapolis, so if you don't know, I can probably ask her. Can you guide me on how you think
I should achieve a "no-harm" outcome since our sole course grade is from a final exam only?
One last thing strikes me: Remember that MLK famously said that people should not be
evaluated based on the "color of their skin." Do you think that your request would run afoul
of MLK's admonition?
Thanks, G. Klein
He also noted elsewhere that "previously he had received a directive from his supervisor in
the undergraduate Accounting program that instructors should only adjust final exam policies
and protocols based on standard university practices regarding grading[:] {"If students ask for
accommodations such as assignment delays or exam cancellations, I strongly encourage you to
follow the normal procedures (accommodations from the CAE office, death/illness in the family,
religious observance, etc.)."
Gibson's Bakery. Black Oberlin student detained for shoplifting, Oberlin school hierarchy
involved in an attempt to portray the Bakery as racist. The good news is that school's behavior
was terrible enough to cause them to lose a lawsuit over it. The bad news is that it was that
terrible.
Kathleen Lowrey. Forced out of her job in the University of Alberta as undergraduate
programs chair for what she believes are her views on gender. Shockingly the school won't even
tell her who accused her or exactly of what.
Niel Golightly. Boeing communication officer, resigned after pressure centering around a 33
year old article he wrote objecting to women in combat. He said that the dialogue around that
article 33 years ago changed his mind on the issue. This one is interesting because it is in
one of the few kinds of positions that I might believe off the job behavior could be relevant.
But I tend to think that 33 year old articles (of fairly common positions for the time) might
not be enough. Essentialism, No Forgiveness, Dualism.
Iranian-Canadian atheist (raised Muslim) fired for being anti-Islamic in his personal
facebook page rant against honor killings. "In response to these killings, Corey wrote 'F***
Islam. F*** honour killing. And f*** you if you believe in any of these barbaric stone age
ideologies.'" The response after ordering him to take down the post (he complied) "Despite
Corey's compliance, Wray responded "Your anti-Islamic social media post is in direct
contradiction with Mulgrave School's and Canadian values. It is racist and highly offensive. As
a result, I am immediately terminating any further relationship with you. You will no longer be
allowed to [do business with our school] and you should not enter the school building under any
circumstances.""
This report has been anonymized, so I understand if you want to take it as less
demonstrative.
Brian Leach was fired for sharing on Facebook a Billy Connolly sketch which colleagues
complained was anti-Islamic.
It was from Connolly's "Religion is Over" stage act, and if you listen to it is just as hard
on Christians as it is on Islam. It is essentially an atheistic rant. (The link has the
clip)
This discussion is on the bizarre article run by the Washington Post which got a woman of no
public interest fired for wearing blackface to try to make fun of Megan Kelly's stupid comments
about blackface. It has Abstraction, Essentialism, No Forgiveness, Transitive Property (via 3rd
parties! this was apparently newsworthy because the person who threw the party that the
costumed person showed up at also works at a newspaper!) and dualism.
I forgot to include the Vox accusations. They have a bunch of the tropes.
Emily VanDerWerff accuses Matt Yglesias of making her feel less safe at work as a trans
person for signing the Harper's letter which she asserts contains "many dog whistles toward
anti-trans positions".
Her definition of anti trans dog whistles is included at the link. It has huge Presumption
of Guilt and Abstraction problems. She claims to not want any consequences for Yglesias, but
if that is the case she shouldn't have used "feel less safe at work" which is less of a dog
whistle and more of an alarm bell for Human Resources to immediately open an investigation
into the (for cause) firing of someone.
Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes
her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The
dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.
(I don't know where a young you-tuber probably not born before the millennium encountered
Shulamith Firestone's old partner in crime, but I am delighted that she did! I know it shows
my age, but I think that young activists today could benefit a lot from reading what my
generation's activists wrote. Also, from getting off my lawn.)
From @130 oldster's Natalie Wynn link (good find!), I now have a description of "cancel
culture" that satisfies me. YMMV.
I lifted these straight from Natalie's headings – they're mostly self-explanatory. The
whole transcript is well worth reading; the back half has a nightmarish
fractal-hall-of-mirrors quality that's a good illustration of what it describes.
Trope 1: Presumption of Guilt
Trope 2: Abstraction
Trope 3: Essentialism
Trope 4: Pseudo-Moralism or Pseudo-Intellectualism
Trope 5: No Forgiveness
Trope 6: The Transitive Property of Cancellation
Trope 7: Dualism
For people who want data, here is the longest list of real or alleged cancel culture
incidents that I have seen. 156 cases. Have fun analyzing.
I think the list has a mostly rightwing bias, so I didn't see Finkelstein or Salaita
listed ( though maybe I missed it.)
For myself, I would have to look into them before judging, but of the handful that I know
something about, some I agree are genuine cases of people being unfairly cancelled, and
others I might possibly cancel myself. There are also gray areas.
I found the list via a piece by Cathy Young, but am too lazy to go back and link her
piece.
Group can be organized by a sociopath to harm an individual. Especially typical in female grpups.
Notable quotes:
"... Instead, trashing has reached epidemic proportions. Perhaps taking it out of the closet will clear the air. ..."
"... The means vary. Trashing can be done privately or in a group situation; to one's face or behind one's back; through ostracism or open denunciation. The trasher may give you false reports of what (horrible things) others think of you; tell your friends false stories of what you think of them; interpret whatever you say or do in the most negative light; project unrealistic expectations on you so that when you fail to meet them, you become a "legitimate" target for anger; deny your perceptions of reality; or pretend you don't exist at all. Trashing may even be thinly veiled by the newest group techniques of criticism/self-criticism, mediation, and therapy. Whatever methods are used, trashing involves a violation of one's integrity, a declaration of one's worthlessness, and an impugning of one's motives In effect, what is attacked is not one's actions, or one's ideas, but one's self. ..."
"... This attack is accomplished by making you feel that your very existence is inimical to the Movement and that nothing can change this short of ceasing to exist. These feelings are reinforced when you are isolated from your friends as they become convinced that their association with-you is similarly inimical to the Movement and to themselves. Any support of you will taint them. Eventually all your colleagues join in a chorus of condemnation which cannot be silenced, and you are reduced to a mere parody of your previous self. ..."
"... This was communicated so subtly that I never could get anyone to talk about it. There were no big confrontations, just many little slights ..."
"... Each by itself was insignificant; but added one to another they were like a thousand cuts with a whip. Step by step I was ostracized: if a collective article was written, my attempts to contribute were ignored; if I wrote an article, no one would read it; when I spoke in meetings, everyone would listen politely, and then take up the discussion as though I hadn't said anything; meeting dates were changed without my being told; when it was my turn to coordinate a work project, no one would help; when I didn't receive mailings, and discovered that my name was not on the mailing list, I was told I had just looked in the wrong place. My group once decided on joint fund-raising efforts to send people to a conference until I said I wanted to go, and then it was decided that everyone was on her own (in fairness, one member did call me afterward to contribute $5 to my fare, provided that I not tell anyone. She was trashed a few years later). ..."
"... Three months later word drifted back that I had been denounced by the Chicago Women's Liberation Union, founded after I dropped out of the Movement, for allowing myself to be quoted in a recent news article without their permission. That was all. ..."
"... For the first time in my life, I found myself believing all the horrible things people said about me. When I was treated like shit, I interpreted it to mean that I was shit. My reaction unnerved me as much as my experience. Having survived so much unscathed, why should I now succumb? The answer took me years to arrive at. It is a personally painful one because it admits of a vulnerability I thought I had escaped. I had survived my youth because I had never given anyone or any group the right to judge me. That right I had reserved to myself. But the Movement seduced me by its sweet promise of sisterhood. It claimed to provide a haven from the ravages of a sexist society; a place where one would be understood. it was my very need for feminism and feminists that made me vulnerable. I gave the movement the right to judge me because I trusted it. And when it judged me worthless, I accepted that judgment. ..."
This article was written for Ms . magazine and published in the April 1976 issue, pp. 49-51, 92-98.
It evoked more letters from readers
than any article previously published in Ms ., all but a few relating their own experiences of being trashed. Quite a few of these
were published in a subsequent issue of Ms .
It's been a long time since I was trashed. I was one of the first in the country, perhaps the first in Chicago, to have my character,
my commitment, and my very self attacked in such a way by Movement women that it left me torn in little pieces and unable to function.
It took me years to recover, and even today the wounds have not entirely healed. Thus I hang around the fringes of the Movement,
feeding off it because I need it, but too fearful to plunge once more into its midst. I don't even know what I am afraid of. I keep
telling myself there's no reason why it should happen again -- if I am cautious -- yet in the back of my head there is a pervasive,
irrational certainty that says if I stick my neck out, it will once again be a lightning rod for hostility.
For years I have written this spiel in my head, usually as a speech for a variety of imaginary Movement audiences. But I have never
thought to express myself on it publicly because I have been a firm believer in not washing the Movement's dirty linen in public.
I am beginning to change my mind.
First of all, so much dirty linen is being publicly exposed that I doubt that what I have to reveal will add much to the pile.
To those women who have been active in the Movement, it is not even a revelation. Second, I have been watching for years with increasing
dismay as the Movement consciously destroys anyone within it who stands out in any way. I had long hoped that this self-destructive
tendency would wither away with time and experience. Thus I sympathized with, supported, but did not speak out about, the many women
whose talents have been lost to the Movement because their attempts to use them had been met with hostility. Conversations with friends
in Boston, Los Angeles, and Berkeley who have been trashed as recently as 1975 have convinced me that the Movement has not learned
from its unexamined experience Instead, trashing has reached epidemic proportions. Perhaps taking it out of the closet will clear
the air.
What is "trashing," this colloquial term that expresses so much, yet explains so little? It is not disagreement; it is not conflict;
it is not opposition. These are perfectly ordinary phenomena which, when engaged in mutually, honestly, and not excessively, are
necessary to keep an organism or organization healthy and active. Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination
which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of
honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or resolve
differences. It is done to disparage and destroy.
The means vary. Trashing can be done privately or in a group situation; to one's face or behind one's back; through ostracism
or open denunciation. The trasher may give you false reports of what (horrible things) others think of you; tell your friends false
stories of what you think of them; interpret whatever you say or do in the most negative light; project unrealistic expectations
on you so that when you fail to meet them, you become a "legitimate" target for anger; deny your perceptions of reality; or pretend
you don't exist at all. Trashing may even be thinly veiled by the newest group techniques of criticism/self-criticism, mediation,
and therapy. Whatever methods are used, trashing involves a violation of one's integrity, a declaration of one's worthlessness, and
an impugning of one's motives In effect, what is attacked is not one's actions, or one's ideas,
but one's self.
This attack is accomplished by making you feel that your very existence is inimical to the Movement and that nothing can change
this short of ceasing to exist. These feelings are reinforced when you are isolated from your friends as they become convinced that
their association with-you is similarly inimical to the Movement and to themselves. Any support of you will taint them. Eventually
all your colleagues join in a chorus of condemnation which cannot be silenced, and you are reduced to a mere parody of your previous
self.
It took three trashings to convince me to drop out. Finally, at the end of 1969, I felt psychologically mangled to the point where
I knew I couldn't go on. Until then I interpreted my experiences as due to personality conflicts or political disagreements which
I could rectify with time and effort. But the harder I tried, the worse things got, until I was finally forced to face the incomprehensible
reality that the problem was not what I did, but what I was.
This was communicated so subtly that I never could get anyone to talk about it. There were no big confrontations, just many little
slights.
Each by itself was insignificant; but added one to another they were like a thousand cuts with a whip. Step by step I was
ostracized: if a collective article was written, my attempts to contribute were ignored; if I wrote an article, no one would read
it; when I spoke in meetings, everyone would listen politely, and then take up the discussion as though I hadn't said anything; meeting
dates were changed without my being told; when it was my turn to coordinate a work project, no one would help; when I didn't receive
mailings, and discovered that my name was not on the mailing list, I was told I had just looked in the wrong place. My group once
decided on joint fund-raising efforts to send people to a conference until I said I wanted to go, and then it was decided that everyone
was on her own (in fairness, one member did call me afterward to contribute $5 to my fare, provided that I not tell anyone. She was
trashed a few years later).
My response to this was bewilderment. I felt as though I were wandering blindfolded in a field I full of sharp objects and deep
holes while being reassured that I could see perfectly and was in a smooth, grassy pasture. It was is if I had unwittingly entered
a new society, one operating by rules of which I wasn't aware, and couldn't know. When I tried to get my group(s) to discuss what
I thought was happening to me, they either denied my perception of reality by saying nothing was out of the ordinary, or dismissed
the incidents as trivial (which individually they were). One woman, in private phone conversations, did admit that I was being poorly
treated. But she never supported me publicly, and admitted quite frankly that it was because she feared to lose the group's approval.
She too was trashed in another group.
Month after month the message was pounded in: get out, the Movement was saying: Get Out, Get Out! One day I found myself confessing
to my roommate that I didn't think I existed; that I was a figment of my own imagination. That's when I knew it was time to leave.
My departure was very quiet. I told two people, and stopped going to the Women's Center. The response convinced me that I had read
the message correctly. No one called, no one sent me any mailings, no reaction came back through the grapevine.
Half my life had
been voided, and no one was aware of it but me. Three months later word drifted back that I had been denounced by the Chicago Women's
Liberation Union, founded after I dropped out of the Movement, for allowing myself to be quoted in a recent news article without
their permission. That was all.
The worst of it was that I really didn't know why I was so deeply affected. I had survived growing up in a very conservative,
conformist, sexist suburb where my right to my own identity was constantly under assault. The need to defend my right to be myself
made me tougher, not tattered. My thickening skin was further annealed by my experiences in other political organizations and movements,
where I learned the use of rhetoric and argument as weapons in political struggle, and how to spot personality conflicts masquerading
as political ones. Such conflicts were usually articulated impersonally, as attacks on one's ideas, and while they may not have been
productive, they were not as destructive as those that I later saw in the feminist movement. One can rethink one's ideas as a result
of their being attacked. It's much harder to rethink one's personality. Character assassination was occasionally used, but it was
not considered legitimate, and thus was limited in both extent and effectiveness. As people's actions counted more than their personalities,
such attacks would not so readily result in isolation. When they were employed, they only rarely got under one's skin.
But the feminist movement got under mine. For the first time in my life, I found myself believing all the horrible things people
said about me. When I was treated like shit, I interpreted it to mean that I was shit. My reaction unnerved me as much as my experience.
Having survived so much unscathed, why should I now succumb? The answer took me years to arrive at. It is a personally painful one
because it admits of a vulnerability I thought I had escaped. I had survived my youth because I had never given anyone or any group
the right to judge me. That right I had reserved to myself. But the Movement seduced me by its sweet promise of sisterhood. It claimed
to provide a haven from the ravages of a sexist society; a place where one would be understood. it was my very need for feminism
and feminists that made me vulnerable. I gave the movement the right to judge me because I trusted it. And when it judged me worthless,
I accepted that judgment.
For at least six months I lived in a kind of numb despair, completely internalizing my failure as a personal one. In June, 1970,
I found myself in New York coincidentally with several feminists from four different cities. We gathered one night for a general
discussion on the state of the Movement, and instead found ourselves discussing what had happened to us. We had two things in common;
all of us had Movement-wide reputations, and all had been trashed. Anselma Dell'Olio read us a speech on "Divisiveness and Self-Destruction
in the Women's Movement" she had recently given at the Congress To Unite Women (sic) as a result of her own trashing.
"I learned ... years ago that women had always been divided against one another, self-destructive and filled with impotent rage.
I thought the Movement would change all that. I never dreamed that I would see the day when this rage, masquerading as a pseudo-egalitarian
radicalism [would be used within the Movement to strike down sisters singled out
"I am referring ... to the personal attacks, both overt and insidious, to which women in the Movement who had painfully managed
any degree of achievement have been subjected. These attacks take different forms. The most common and pervasive is character
assassination: the attempt to undermine and destroy belief in the integrity of the individual under attack. Another form is the
'purge.' The ultimate tactic is to isolate her. . . .
"And who do they attack? Generally two categories. . . Achievement or accomplishment of any kind would seem to be the worst
crime: ... do anything . . . that every other woman secretly or otherwise feels she could do just as well -- and ... you're in
for it. If then ... you are assertive, have what is generally described as a 'forceful personality/ if ... you do not fit the
conventional stereotype of a 'feminine' woman, ... it's all over.
"If you are in the first category (an achiever), You are immediately labeled a thrill-seeking opportunist, a ruthless mercenary,
out to make her fame and fortune over the dead bodies of selfless sisters who have buried their abilities and sacrificed their
ambitions for the greater glory of Feminism. Productivity seems to be the major crime -- but if you have the misfortune of being
outspoken and articulate, you are also accused of being power-mad, elitist, fascist, and finally the worst epithet of all: a male-identifier.
Aaaarrrrggg!"
As I listened to her, a great feeling of relief washed over me. It was my experience she was describing. If I was crazy, I wasn't
the only one. Our talk continued late into the evening. When we left, we sardonically dubbed ourselves the "feminist refugees" and
agreed to meet sometime again. We never did. Instead we each slipped back into our own isolation, and dealt with the problem only
on a personal level. The result was that most of the women at that meeting dropped out as I had done. Two ended up in the hospital
with nervous breakdowns. Although all remained dedicated feminists, none have really contributed their talents to the Movement as
they might have. Though we never met again, our numbers grew as the disease of self-destructiveness slowly engulfed the Movement.
Over the years I have talked with many women who have been trashed. Like a cancer, the attacks spread from those who had reputations
to those who were merely strong; from those who were active to those who merely had ideas; from those who stood out as individuals
to those who failed to conform rapidly enough to the twists and turns of the changing line. With each new story, my conviction grew
that trashing was not an individual problem brought on by individual actions; nor was it a result of political conflicts between
those of differing ideas, It was a social disease.
The disease has been ignored so long because it is frequently masked under the rhetoric of sisterhood. In my own case, the ethic
of sisterhood prevented a recognition of my ostracism. The new values of the Movement said that every woman was a sister, every woman
was acceptable. I clearly was not. Yet no one could admit that I was not acceptable without admitting that they were not being sisters.
It was easier to deny the reality of my unacceptability. With other trashings, sisterhood has been used as the knife rather than
the cover-up. A vague standard of sisterly behavior is set up by anonymous judges who then condemn those who do not meet their standards.
As long as the standard is vague and utopian, it can never be met. But it can be shifted with circumstances to exclude those not
desired as sisters. Thus Ti-Grace Atkinson's memorable adage that "sisterhood is powerful: it kills sisters" is reaffirmed again
and again.
Trashing is not only destructive to the individuals involved, but serves as a very powerful tool of social control. The qualities
and styles which are attacked become examples other women learn not to follow -- lest the same fate befall them. This is not a characteristic
peculiar to the Women's Movement, or even to women. The use of social pressures to induce conformity and intolerance for individuality
is endemic to American society. The relevant question is not why the Movement exerts such strong pressures to conform to a narrow
standard, but what standard does it pressure women to conform to.
This standard is clothed in the rhetoric of revolution and feminism. But underneath are some very traditional ideas about women's
proper roles. I have observed that two different types of women are trashed. The first is the one described by Anselma Dell'Olio
-- the achiever and/or the assertive woman, the one to whom the epithet "male-identified" is commonly applied. This kind of woman
has always been put down by our society with epithets ranging from "unladylike" to "castrating bitch." The primary reason there have
been so few "great women ______" is not merely that greatness has been undeveloped or unrecognized, but that women exhibiting potential
for achievement are punished by both women and men. The "fear of success" is quite rational when one knows that the consequence of
achievement is hostility and not praise.
Not only has the Movement failed to overcome this traditional socialization, but some women have taken it to new extremes. To
do something significant, to be recognized, to achieve, is to imply that one is "making it off other women's oppression" or that
one thinks oneself better than other women. Though few women may think this, too many remain silent while the others unsheathe their
claws. The quest for "leaderlessness" that the Movement so prizes has more frequently become an attempt to tear down those women
who show leadership qualities, than to develop such qualities in those who don't. Many women who have tried to share their skills
have been trashed for asserting that they know something others don't. The Movement's worship of egalitarianism is so strong that
it has become confused with sameness. Women who remind us that we are not all the same are trashed because their differentness is
interpreted as meaning we are not all equal.
Consequently the Movement makes the wrong demands from the achievers within it. It asks for guilt and atonement rather than acknowledgment
and responsibility. Women who have benefitted personally from the Movement's existence do owe it more than gratitude. But that debt
is not called in by trashing. Trashing only discourages other women from trying to break free of their traditional shackles.
The other kind of woman commonly trashed is one I would never have suspected. The values of the Movement favor women who are very
supportive and self-effacing; those who are constantly attending to others' personal problems; the women who play the mother role
very well. Yet a surprising number of such women have been trashed. Ironically their very ability to play this role is resented and
creates an image of power which their associates find threatening. Some older women who consciously reject the mother role are expected
to play it because they "look the part" -- and are trashed when they refuse. Other women who willingly play it find they engender
expectations which they eventually cannot meet, No one can be "everything to everybody," so when these women find themselves having
to say no in order to conserve a little of their own time and energy for themselves or to tend to the political business of a group,
they are perceived as rejecting and treated with anger. Real mothers of course can afford some anger from their children because
they maintain a high degree of physical and financial control over them. Even women in the "helping" professions occupying surrogate
mother roles have resources with which to control their clients' anger. But when one is a "mother" to one's peers, this is not a
possibility. If the demands become unrealistic, one either retreats, or is trashed.
The trashing of both these groups has common roots in traditional roles. Among women there are two roles perceived as permissible:
the "helper" and the "helped." Most women are trained to act out one or the other at different times. Despite consciousness-raising
and an intense scrutiny of our own socialization, many of us have not liberated ourselves from playing these roles, nor from our
expectations that others will do so. Those who deviate from these roles -- the achievers -- are punished for doing so, as are those
who fail to meet the group's expectations.
Although only a few women actually engage in trashing, the blame for allowing it to continue rests with us all. Once under attack,
there is little a woman can do to defend herself because she is by definition always wrong. But there is a great deal that those
who are watching can do to prevent her from being isolated and ultimately destroyed. Trashing only works well when its victims are
alone, because the essence of trashing is to isolate a person and attribute a group's problems to her. Support from others cracks
this facade and deprives the trashers of their audience. It turns a rout into a struggle. Many attacks have been forestalled by the
refusal of associates to let themselves be intimidated into silence out of fear that they would be next. Other attackers have been
forced to clarify their complaints to the point where they can be rationally dealt with.
There is, of course, a fine line between trashing and political struggle, between character assassination and legitimate objections
to undesirable behavior. Discerning the difference takes effort. Here are some pointers to follow. Trashing involves heavy use of
the verb "to be" and only a light use of the verb "to do." It is what one is and not what one does that is objected to, and these
objections cannot be easily phrased in terms of specific undesirable behaviors. Trashers also tend to use nouns and adjectives of
a vague and general sort to express their objections to a particular person. These terms carry a negative connotation, but don't
really tell you what's wrong. That is left to your imagination. Those being trashed can do nothing right. Because they are bad, their
motives are bad, and hence their actions are always bad. There is no making up for past mistakes, because these are perceived as
symptoms and not mistakes.
The acid test, however, comes when one tries to defend a person under attack, especially when she's not there, If such a defense
is taken seriously, and some concern expressed for hearing all sides and gathering all evidence, trashing is probably not occurring.
But if your defense is dismissed with an oft-hand "How can you defend her?"; if you become tainted with suspicion by attempting such
a defense; if she is in fact indefensible, you should take a closer look at those making the accusations. There is more going on
than simple disagreement.
As trashing has become more prevalent, I have become more puzzled by the question of why. What is it about the Women's Movement
that supports and even encourages self-destruction? How can we on the one hand talk about encouraging women to develop their own
individual potential and on the other smash those among us who do just that? Why do we damn our sexist society for the damage it
does to women, and then damn those women who do not appear as severely damaged by it? Why has consciousness-raising not raised our
consciousness about trashing?
The obvious answer is to root it in our oppression as women, and the group self-hate which results from our being raised to believe
that women are not worth very much. Yet such an answer is far too facile; it obscures the fact that trashing does not occur randomly.
Not all women or women's organizations trash, at least not to the same extent. It is much more prevalent among those who call themselves
radical than among those who don't; among those who stress personal changes than among those who stress institutional ones; among
those who can see no victories short of revolution than among those who can be satisfied with smaller successes; and among those
in groups with vague goals than those in groups with concrete ones.
I doubt that there is any single explanation to trashing; it is more likely due to varying combinations of circumstances which
are not always apparent even to those experiencing them. But from the stories I've heard, and the groups I've watched, what has impressed
me most is how traditional it is. There is nothing new about discouraging women from stepping out of place by the use of psychological
manipulation. This is one of the things that have kept women down for years; it is one thing that feminism was supposed to liberate
us from. Yet, instead of an alternative culture with alternative values, we have created alternative means of enforcing the traditional
culture and values. Only the name has changed; the results are the same.
While the tactics are traditional, the virulence is not. I have never seen women get as angry at other women as they do in the
Movement. In part this is because our expectations of other feminists and the Movement in general are very high, and thus difficult
to meet. We have not yet learned to be realistic in our demands on our sisters or ourselves. It is also because other feminists are
available as targets for rage.
Rage is a logical result of oppression. It demands an outlet. Because most women are surrounded by men whom they have learned
it is not wise to attack, their rage is often turned inward. The Movement is teaching women to stop this process, but in many instances
it has not provided alternative targets. While the men are distant, and the "system" too big and vague, one's "sisters" are close
at hand. Attacking other feminists is easier and the results can be more quickly seen than by attacking amorphous social institutions.
People are hurt; they leave. One can feel the sense of power that comes from having "done something." Trying to change an entire
society is a very slow, frustrating process in which gains are incremental, rewards diffuse, and setbacks frequent. It is not a coincidence
that trashing occurs most often and most viciously by those feminists who see the least value in small, impersonal changes and thus
often find themselves unable to act against specific institutions.
The Movement's emphasis on "the personal is political" has made it easier for trashing to flourish. We began by deriving some
of our political ideas from our analysis of our personal lives. This legitimated for many the idea that the Movement could tell us
what kind of people we ought to be, and by extension what kind of personalities we ought to have. As no boundaries were drawn to
define the limits of such demands, it was difficult to preclude abuses. Many groups have sought to remold the lives and minds of
their members, and some have trashed those who resisted. Trashing is also a way of acting out the competitiveness that pervades our
society, but in a manner that reflects the feelings of incompetence that trashers exhibit. Instead of trying to prove one is better
than anyone else, one proves someone else is worse. This can provide the same sense of superiority that traditional competition does,
but without the risks involved. At best the object of one's ire is put to public shame, at worst one's own position is safe within
the shrouds of righteous indignation, Frankly, if we are going to have competition in the Movement, I prefer the old-fashioned kind.
Such competitiveness has its costs, but there are also some collective benefits from the achievements the competitors make while
trying to outdo each other. With trashing there are no beneficiaries. Ultimately everyone loses.
To support women charged with subverting the Movement or undermining their group takes courage, as it requires us to stick our
necks out. But the collective cost of allowing trashing to go on as long and as extensively as we have is enormous. We have already
lost some of the most creative minds and dedicated activists in the Movement. More importantly, we have discouraged many feminists
from stepping out, out of fear that they, too, would be trashed. We have not provided a supportive environment for everyone to develop
their individual potential, or in which to gather strength for the battles with the sexist institutions we must meet each day. A
Movement that once burst with energy, enthusiasm, and creativity has become bogged down in basic survival -- survival from each other.
Isn't it time we stopped looking for enemies within and began to attack the real enemy without? The author would like to thank Linda,
Maxine, and Beverly for their helpful suggestions in the revision of this paper.
This is a mopping-up operation that is a product of media-activated mass psychosis that
derives from the already existing witch hunts and purges that have going on for decades.
Moldbug is a Zionist ultra, but he explains it well:
It's actually not hard to explain the Brown Scare. Like all witch hunts, it's built on a
conspiracy theory. The Red Scare was based on a conspiracy theory too, but at least it was
a real conspiracy with real witches -- two of whom were my father's parents. (The nicest
people on earth, as people. I like to think of them not as worshipping Stalin, but
worshipping what they thought Stalin was.) Moreover, the Red Scare was a largely demotic or
peasant phenomenon to which America's governing intellectual classes were, for obvious
reasons, immune. Because power works and culture is downstream from politics -- real
politics, at least -- the Red Scare soon faded into a joke.
As a mainstream conspiracy theory, fully in the institutional saddle, the Brown Scare is
far greater and more terrifying. Unfortunately no central statistics are kept, but I
wouldn't be surprised if every day in America, more racists, fascists and sexists are
detected, purged and destroyed, than all the screenwriters who had to prosper under
pseudonyms in the '50s. Indeed it's not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands
of Americans, perhaps even a million, are employed in one arm or another of this
ideological apparatus. Cleaning it up will require a genuine cultural revolution -- or a
cultural reaction, anyway. Hey, Americans, I'm ready whenever you are.
The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins'
day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level
is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch
hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and
destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary
(Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).
Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn't waste
their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour
milk. They're getting burned right and left, for Christ's sake! Priorities! No, they'd turn
the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who
speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight
with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won't see a lot of witch-hunting and we
know there's a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and
lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the
weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.
"People can have their voices amplified or silenced by their wealth, connections or
prestige but also by other speech which aims to deny them the right to participate on equal
terms with others."
It's unclear if this refers to those at the receiving end of speech the author wants to
prevent or the speaker deserving of canceling.
"As Jeremy Waldron has argued in his book The Harm in Hate Speech, racist speech aims not
just at hurting the feelings of its victims or expressing a view but at reconstituting the
public arena of democratic debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a
proper part of it."
It is very dubious that most slurs "aim" to "reconstitute the public arena of democratic
debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a proper part of it." Do you
have any support for this theory?
"It says that those people are not a part of "us" and that their opinions and arguments
have no place as we decide where our country should go."
It's not clear how a racial slur "says" any of this. Perhaps the author is reading
subtext?
"Racist speech by some also legitimizes and emboldens racist speech and opinion by others,
telling bigots that they are not alone, that others think as they do, and strengthens an
ideal of exclusive community based on ethnic or racial lines."
On this point it's worth quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr: "Why would you entrust authority
with enlarged powers of regulating the speech of unpopular minorities unless you were
confident that unpopular minorities would be racists, not blacks?"
"Anti-racist speech, has the opposite effect, it affirms a view that those targeted by the
racists, be they black, or Asian, or Muslim, are full members of the democratic political
community in good standing with as good a right to a say as anyone.
"It also reinforces a social norm about what may not be said, telling those who are
tempted to stigmatize migrants or minorities that they will pay a price for doing so."
It also creates a precedent for excluding views by shaming based on current sentiment.
Only someone oblivious to history wouldn't see the danger in that precedent.
"The role that speech plays in defining who is and isn't included in our vision of
democratic community can have powerful real-world consequence."
Who to include as part of your community is an important issue that should be discussed
openly by all of society. What you're trying to do is to elevate advance your position
without having to defend it.
"One way to understand the ease with which the victims of the Windrush scandal could lose
their jobs, their homes, their liberty or be deported to far-away countries, is that in the
public imaginary that is partly constituted by speech, many people did not see them as proper
members with equal standing to others."
Were we to do away with everything that had a downside we would have very little good.
Therefore arguing that something has potential downsides is not sufficient to establish that
it's not good. Can you argue that free expression and debate by citizenry on the most
important issues facing a democratic nation is not good, besides by arguing that there might
be some cost?
"Racist speech is just one example that makes clear how the practice of open discussion
isn't simply a matter of unfettered conversation among people who are already present but
also involves choices about who gets to speak and involves sensitivity to the way that speech
by some has the effect either of depriving others of a voice or of making it impossible for
others to hear what they say. A society which is full of highly sexualized messages about
women is also a society in which it is harder for women to get a hearing about sexual
violence and income inequality. A society where trans people are the objects of constant
ridicule, or are represented as dangerous, is one in which it is also more difficult for them
to argue for their rights and have their interests taken seriously."
This implies that the intolerant are the powerful group capable of suppressing minorities
with their speech alone. This is disproven by the very fact that anti-racist etc speech is so
successful. The success of antiracist codes of social conduct is because the group exercising
them is the powerful group. This very fact implies their obsolesce.
"Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as an
affront. Ironically, while being quick to take offence themselves they demand that those less
powerful than they are should toughen up and not be such "snowflakes"."
This is an uninformed or dishonest characterization of the pushback against cancel
culture. The pushback is due to intolerant enforcement of ideological conformity and
homogeneity through threat to job and reputation. And no this is not only ideological
conformity in that you can't say overtly racist things; it's ideological conformity in that
you can't criticize BLM or cite scientific literature on biological differences between the
sexes without risk.
"But if we take seriously the idea that speech can silence speech or make it unhearable,
then a concern with whether the heckling of cancel culture makes it harder to say some things
also has to take account of the fact that saying those very things can make it harder for
other voices to be heard."
This piece hasn't given any reason to make us take seriously the idea that speech against
one group can silence another, other then through threat to livelihood or reputation. It's
not clear though how for example referencing scientific but currently unpopular claims,
criticizing a social movement, having a narrower view on who should be considered a citizen
or even using a slur silences people.
An important problem is the conflation of public opprobrium actual sanctions like being
fired. This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will. In most countries,
unfair dismissal laws would protect people being sacked because of their political views,
unless they related directly to job performance. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/04/free-speech-unfair-dismissal-and-unions/
But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the issue is raised
suggests that losing your job for breaching left orthodoxy not a major problem in the US, or
at least that other possible examples are much less sympathetic (racists fired from Fox, for
example).
Mostly, AFAICT, being cancelled means having to read rude things said about you by lots of
unimportant people on Twitter, as opposed to engaging in caustic, but civilised, debate with
your peers in the pages of little magazines.
The question is who decides? Most readers here would agree that "[a] society that refuses
to tolerate speech like David Starkey's recent racist remarks about "damn blacks" and the
slave trade is better for it", but of the world's ~8 bln people, I strongly suspect that most
would believe that a society would be better off for refusing to tolerate speech about
abortions and homosexuality. So do we decide democratically? Through the ethics of
enlightened elites? An ever ongoing fight between the majority and the elite? Some other
method? Perhaps we fracture into mini-societies, each with their own standards of "better
off", which do not talk to one another?
From my perspective, there is thought and thought-like speech (anything without direct
call to action) , which ought to be maximally tolerated for both ethical and practical
reasons. Ethical because it dispenses with the requirement for absolute and inviolable
knowledge (and disempowers people who would otherwise need to select and enforce "allowed"
views. Practical because it encourages transparency (shutting racists up will not stop them
from thinking racist thoughts), intellectual development (new ideas can emerge to challenge
the existing wisdom) and rigor (having to often hear opposing viewpoints hones your
understanding of your own). Not to say that such tolerance has no costs whatsoever (e.g.
making it easier for racists to be racist in the short term, that you mention), but that the
benefits of such tolerance outweigh the costs.
What cannot be limitlessly tolerated are actions and action-like speech. To use my own
nationality as an example, I would have to fight back were a person to decide to try to kill
all Russians. For action-like speech, I would also be against an unlimited freedom for a
person to stand on the corner shouting "pick up a gun and go find a Russian to kill". But
change the phrasing slightly to "all Russians are evil, sub-human scum, I wish none of them
lived" and I would be hurt but okay with that, until and unless the speaker or their listener
decided to try to act on the sentiment. Indeed, it would give me a heads up about which
person (or people) to avoid. In a less extreme example, "shout that stupid Russian dow, how
dare he try to even voice an opinion!" is action-like speech (therefore needs limits), while
"I don't see the need to listen to Russians" is thought-like (and therefore better to be
tolerated). The problem with modern cancel culture is that it often responds to thought-like
speech with action-like speech.
Obviously, no one owes it to anyone else to listen to them. If you hear something you do
not like, you should be free to close the door on that person and never again invite them
into your company. But from my perspective it is an intellectually small and fragile mind
that looks to exercise this freedom at a mass scale or anything other than a last resort.
People who say stupid, hateful or offensive things are not examples to be emulated. This is
exactly the reason not to join a crowd saying rude or offensive things back at them. Surely,
we can form and promote communities of respect and diversity without needing to destroy
communities that are exclusionary and hateful? If we are right about what makes communities
better off, we will simply outcompete the latter, which will wither of their own accord.
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established form of the political
struggle. And in this case the reasons behind the particular attack of the "cancel mob" is far
from charitable.
Cancel culture my assJustice for Brad HamiltonRoy Edroso Jul 14 38 30
Mendenhall loses endorsement deal over bin Laden tweets
[Steelers running back] Rashard Mendenhall's candid tweets about Osama bin Laden's death
and the 9/11 terror attacks cost him an endorsement deal.
NFL.com senior analyst Vic Carucci says Rashard Mendenhall has become an example of the
risks that social media can present to outspoken pro athletes.
Athletic apparel manufacturer Champion announced Thursday that it had dropped the
Pittsburgh Steelers running back after he questioned the celebrations of bid Laden's death
and expressed his uncertainty over official accounts of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New
York, suburban Washington and Pennsylvania.
Things haven't gotten any better. I've already written about
Springfield, Mass. police detective Florissa Fuentes, who got fired this year for
reposting her niece's pro-Black Lives Matter Instagram photo. Fuentes is less like Donohue,
the Chicks, and Mendenhall, though, and more like most of the people who get fired for speech
in this country, in that she is not rich, and getting fired was for her a massive blow.
The controversy began after [Lisa] Durden's appearance [on Tucker Carlson], during which
she defended the Black Lives Matter movement's decision to host a Memorial Day celebration
in New York City to which only black people were invited. On the show, Durden's comments
included, "You white people are angry because you couldn't use your white privilege card to
get invited to the Black Lives Matter's all-black Memorial Day Celebration," and "We want
to celebrate today. We don't want anybody going against us today."
Durden was then an adjunct professor at Essex County College, but not for long because
sure enough, they fired her for what she said on the show. (Bet Carlson, a racist piece
of shit , was delighted!) The college president defended her decision, saying she'd
received "feedback from students, faculty and prospective students and their families
expressing frustration, concern and even fear that the views expressed by a college employee
(with influence over students) would negatively impact their experience on the campus..."
Sounds pretty snowflakey to me. I went looking in the works of the signatories of the
famous
Harper's letter against cancel culture for some sign that any of them had acknowledged
Durden's case. Shockingly, such free speech warriors as Rod Dreher and Bret Stephens never
dropped a word on it.
Dreher does come up in other free-speech-vs-employment cases, though -- for example, from
2017, Chronicle of Higher
Education :
Tommy Curry, an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University at College
Station, about five years ago participated in a YouTube interview in which he discussed
race and violence. Those remarks resurfaced in May in a column titled "When Is It OK to
Kill Whites?" by Rod Dreher in The American Conservative.
Mr. Curry said of that piece that he wasn't advocating for violence and that his remarks
had been taken out of context. He told The Chronicle that online threats had arrived in
force shortly after that. Some were racial in nature.
At the same time the president of the university, Michael K. Young, issued a statement
in which he appeared to rebuke the remarks made by Mr. Curry...
In his column on
Curry , Dreher said, "I wonder what it is like to be a white student studying under Dr.
Curry in his classroom?" Imagine worrying for the safety of white people at Texas
Fucking A&M!
Curry got to keep his job, but only after he "issued a new statement apologizing for how
his remarks had been received," the Chronicle reported:
"For those of you who considered my comments disparaging to certain types of scholarly
work or in any way impinging upon the centrality of academic freedom at this university,"
[Curry] wrote, "I regret any contributions that I may have made to misunderstandings in
this case, including to those whose work is contextualized by understanding the historical
perspectives of events that have often been ignored."
Bottom line: Most of us who work for a living are at-will employees -- basically, the boss
can fire us if they don't like the way we look at them or if they don't like what they
discover we feel about the events of the day. There are some protections -- for example, if
you and your work buddies are talking about work stuff and the boss gets mad, then that may
be considered " concerted
activity " and protected -- but as
Lisa Guerin wrote at the nolo.com legal advice site, "political views aren't covered by
[Civil Rights] laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider
political views and affiliations in making job decisions."
Basically we employees have no free speech rights at all. But people like Stephens and
Dreher and Megan McArdle who cry
over how "the mob" is coming after them don't care about us. For window dressing, they'll
glom onto rare cases where a non-rich, non-credentialed guy gets in trouble for allegedly
racist behavior that he didn't really do -- Emmanuel Cafferty, it's your time
to shine ! -- but their real concern isn't Cafferty's "free speech" or that of any other
peon, it's their own miserable careers.
Because they know people are starting to talk back to them. It's not like back in the day
when Peggy Noonan and George F. Will mounted their high horses and vomited their wisdom onto
the rabble and maybe some balled-up Letters to the Editor might feebly come back at them but
that was it. Now commoners can go viral! People making fun of Bari Weiss might reach as many
people as Bari Weiss herself! The cancel culture criers may have wingnut welfare sinecures,
cushy pundit gigs, and the respect of all the Right People, but they can't help but notice
that when they glide out onto their balconies and emit their received opinions a lot of
people -- mostly younger, and thoroughly hip that these worthies are apologists for the
austerity debt servitude to which they've been condemned for life -- are not just coughing
"bullshit" into their fists, but shouting it out loud.
This, the cancel culture criers cry, is the mob! It threatens civilization!
Yet they cannot force us to pay attention or buy their shitty opinions. The sound and
smell of mockery disturbs their al fresco luncheons and
weddings at the Arboretum . So they rush to their writing desks and prepare
sternly-worded letters. Their colleagues will read and approve! Also, their editors and
relatives! And maybe also some poor dumb kids who know so little of the world that they'll
actually mistake these overpaid prats for victims and feel sorry for them.
Well, you've already heard what I think about it elsewhere: Protect workers' free speech
rights for real, I say -- let them be as woke, as racist, or as obstreperous they wish off
the clock and the boss can't squawk. The cancel culture criers won't go for that deal; in
fact such a thing has never entered their minds -- free-speech is to protect their delicate
sensibilities, not the livelihoods of people who work with their hands!
And in the new tradition of the working class asking for more rather than less of what
they want, I'll go further: I give not one flaming fuck if these assholes suffocate under a
barrage of rotten tomatoes, and I think Brad inFast Times at Ridgemont
Highgot a raw deal from All-American
Burger and should be reinstated with full back pay: That customer deserved to have
100% of his ass kicked!
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established, albeit somewhat
dirty, form of the political struggle. Often the reasons behind the particular attack of
the "cancel mob" is far from charitable. Orwell's 1984 describes an extreme form of the
same.
there is a difference between Prudent speech and Free speech.
When punishment for voicing dissenting opinion includes physical assault it doesn't much
matter how rare the actual instances of physical violence are
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, it is not (yet) possible to determine the exact racism quotient of each individual, so exemplary cancellations are the means of influencing individuals to modify their behaviour. I appreciate that "racism quotient" and "exemplary cancellation" make me sound like one of those right-wing Orwell cosplayers, but I can't think of a better way of putting it. ..."
Cancel culture, I suggest, matters most when our ability to access diverse opinion is
curtailed as a result of speech policing, either by algorithms or individuals, especially in
the run-up to an election. Self-censorship in universities is equally important. When Chomsky
signed the Harper's letter, he reported he receive a great many letters of support from
academics terrified of being cancelled.
We're coming out of a certain kind of (neo-)liberal consensus in which politics was viewed
as a mostly technocratic business of setting laws in the abstract. That perspective was
sufficient to get some things right: many blatantly discriminatory laws have been repealed
across the Western world over the last 70 years. But it turns out that racism and sexism
don't require explicitly racist or sexist laws on the books: they can subvert neutral-seeming
laws to their purposes, and can bias the behaviour of individuals and networks of individuals
to the extent that widespread discrimination can continue...
The other strand focuses on the moral reform of white people. It proceeds from the
assumption that the law has only a limited role in moral conduct, and that the evidence of
the last 50 years is that removing explicitly racist legislation, and even legislating
anti-racism (e.g. affirmative action) isn't enough to secure good outcomes. If your
individual acts have the practical outcome of furthering or defending racist interests, then
you are part of the problem. The demands here are much harder to define. Rather than focusing
all attention on a specific reform that can be enacted in a single moment by an executive or
legislature, attention is cast broadly across all actions occurring at all times by all
people. Of course, it is not (yet) possible to determine the exact racism quotient of
each individual, so exemplary cancellations are the means of influencing individuals to
modify their behaviour. I appreciate that "racism quotient" and "exemplary cancellation" make
me sound like one of those right-wing Orwell cosplayers, but I can't think of a better way of
putting it.
All of this intersects with the modern reality of social media: things that "normal"
people might be able to say in a bar or a cafe discussion with friends or colleagues are now
part of the permanent public record, searchable and viewable by millions. Social media
provides excellent tools both for taking things out of context and re-contextualising them.
Secondly, "brands" or organisations are now direct participants, and can be subject to public
pressure in much more visible ways than previously.
I'm a big fan of biological metaphors; they keep one humble about the inevitability of
unintended consequences. The metaphor gets strained when it moves from external viral spread
to internal immune response, though; in the former, we're assuming a team of informed medical
professionals, seeing things from the "outside" with the authority implied by specialized and
objective knowledge. I'm not sure who these people correspond to in the world we inhabit,
where even the real doctors have trouble getting traction.
The internal immune response feels like a closer match, as surface protein markers are
proxies for identity, microbes display "false flags" to avoid detection, and auto-immune and
inflammatory responses often do more damage than the threats they're reacting to.
On both levels of metaphor, it seems clear that the structure of social media is explicitly
designed to create and exploit "virality"; we need to rethink what this means for us.
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/29/social-distancing-social-media-facebook-misinformation
" No one seems to reflect here that silencing people because of their politics is
historically and usually the preserve of those with the power to silence – that is,
conservatives. Be careful what you wish for."
And here we have the cancel culture "problem" in a nutshell. The complaint isn't that
Musgrave lost a job or is literally forbidden to speak or even lacks reasonable ways to be
heard. The complaint is that blog found him distasteful and doesn't want him commenting
there. This isn't a right to speak issue, it's a demand to be heard issue.
Far worse things are done to BLM protesters. Being denied a blog posting? Try being denied
the right to even assemble, and shot with tear gas and rubber bullets. That didn't stop me
from protesting. Being denied a blog post and hearing some harsh criticism is nothing.
I broadly agree with the points about free speech in the post, and Waldron's arguments,
but I don't think it's right to equate the debate about "cancel culture" with these
issues.
John's understanding of it is even more dismissive (and imo off-target).
being cancelled means having to read rude things said about you by lots of unimportant
people on Twitter, as opposed to engaging in caustic, but civilised, debate with your peers
in the pages of little magazines
It seems to me cancel culture is both an ethos and a tactic. The ethos involves a zero
tolerance approach to certain ethical transgressions (eg overt expressions of racism) and an
absolute devaluation of people who commit them. The tactic is based around achieving cultural
change by exerting collective pressure as consumers on managers of corporations (or
corporation-like entities, like universities) to terminate transgressors, as a way of
incentivising other emplpoyees to fall into line. It seems to me to be heavily shaped by and
dependent on American neoliberalism as the ethos is both punitive and consumerist and the
tactic is dependent on at-will employment and managers' deference to customer sentiment, and
while most of its current "successes" have been broadly of the Left there's no reason to
assume that will be the case in future. I think it does represent a weakening of liberal
norms of freedom of discussion and I think Chomsky's right to be concerned.
There's nothing new about speech codes. Puritans and others refused to employ the Book of
Common prayer demanded by the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Scolds and speech police can be
found among agnostics, people of faith, and across the political spectrum. Nor is the common
sense exercise of good judgement regarding when, or if, to suggest to a friend he, she, or
they might like to lose a little weight, or to refrain from pointing out the questionable
personal grooming habits of a colleague, client, superior, or family member.
Do I need to declare my beliefs and opinions on every topic freely in every forum. In my
own case, no. And there's a big difference between being shunned and being imprisoned, or
executed, for mocking the wrong text or monarch.
As I courtesy, I might well avoid broaching topics I'm aware may distress another. But
that's a far cry from what's happening in modern old media. Bari Weiss evidently had her
privileges to write and edit others freely severely curtailed. And, yes, I'm aware that she
had cancellation issues of her own. But forcing James Bennett to resign, who put Ta-Nehisi
Coates on the cover of the Atlantic, for permitting a US senator to publish an op-ed in the
NYT?
We need a diverse set of values and beliefs, argues Henry, J. S. Mill, and others. The
head of Google is just now trying to explain why "Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze,
Townhall, The Daily Wire, PragerU, LifeNews, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, The Resurgent,
Breitbart, the Media Research Center, and CNSNews" somehow disappeared from the Google search
engine.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/29/google-ceo-dodges-question-on-blacklisting-of-conservative-websites/
Cancel culture, I suggest, matters most when our ability to access diverse opinion is
curtailed as a result of speech policing, either by algorithms or individuals, especially in
the run-up to an election. Self-censorship in universities is equally important. When Chomsky
signed the Harper's letter, he reported he receive a great many letters of support from
academics terrified of being cancelled.
When punishment for voicing dissenting opinion includes physical assault it doesn't much
matter how rare the actual instances of physical violence are. I spoke with an American
colleague employed this week who stated that any dating which is going on among staff and
adults of one kind or another on campus is done in secrecy, if at all. Do Democrats feel that
they're better off having thrown Al Franken under the bus?
Adhering to speech codes and surrendering to a tiny, highly vocal mob seems a very bad
idea to me, and I suspect, many, many others. We don't quite know what to do with the
screaming adolescents of varying ages, but we wish they'd stop yelling.
The good news is that we live in societies, for the most part, which permit the upset to
act out freely. I wonder whether the folks currently trying to burn down the US federal
courthouse in Portland believe their rights to privacy must be respected? The
double-standards on display roil what should be reasonable debate. It should be possible to
disagree civilly with anyone.
Trying to get someone fired, or shunned, for any reason, is about the saddest waste of
energy and time I can imagine – I mean, talk about a poverty of imagination. It's
happened to me here on occasion. When the pitchforks come out, I know my opponents 'got
nothing.' That's small solace, however, when watching those I'd prefer to respect do their
best to stifle debate.
Relative to other nations, we enjoy liberties others can only dream of. These liberties
are worth protecting. I'm not sure we're doing such a good job.
With all due respect, you – like the great majority of people – fail to
understand the dynamics involved. 'Cultural Marxism' isn't political Marxism. It is a method
– a tool if you wish – used by the oligarchs who wield true power to 'divide and
rule' (not least by deflecting attention from the yawning gulf that lies between their own
excesses and monstrous wealth on the one hand, and the increasing indigence of the great mass
of people on the other). It is called 'Cultural Marxism' purely because it uses Marx's
technique of dividing society into a small clique of 'oppressors' and 'the masses' who are
'oppressed'. Marx, of course, had the capitalists in mind when he wrote of the oppressors,
and the proletariat naturally were the oppressed.
Today, the last thing the oligarchs desire is a unified and organised proletariat with
'agency': that would constitute a serious threat to their existence. Instead, they divide the
sacred role of 'the oppressed' into a multitude of more or less fissiparous groups, whom we
are all aware of, but of which those comprising 'BAME' are perhaps the most useful. Others
include feminists (more or less all young women in today's world), homos, those suffering
from sexual dysphoria (that's 'trannies' in today's 'Newspeak') and the disabled.
These groups will never discover any common ground between themselves, and thus will fight
among themselves for the scraps thrown from the oligarchs' table. No danger there, and that's
just how they planned it. As for the 'oppressors', there are no prizes for guessing that they
are White, heterosexual (i.e. normal) males.
So much for your fear of actual Marxism. As for 'the government', it is important to
understand that no government in today's West is invested with any meaningful power. Not only
are they not 'sovereign' but they are little more than puppets, dancing to their masters'
dismal tunes.
Who are these oligarchs – these Masters of the Universe? That's a story for another
day. But you won't go far wrong if you place the word 'oligarchs' in triple parentheses
The "Kulak Operation" and the targeting of national minorities were the
main components of the Great Terror. Together these two actions accounted for nine-tenths of
the death sentences and three-fourths of Gulag prison camp sentences. Of the operations
against national minorities, the Polish Operation of the NKVD
was the largest one, second only to the "Kulak Operation" in terms of number of victims.
According to historian Timothy Snyder , ethnic Poles constituted
the largest group of victims in the Great Terror, comprising less than 0.5% of the country's
population but comprising 12.5% of those executed. [9]
In the Western world, Robert Conquest 's 1968 book The Great Terror
popularized the phrase. Conquest's title itself was an allusion to the period from the French Revolution known as the
Reign of Terror
(French: la Terreur , 'the Terror'; from June to July 1794: la Grande Terreur ,
'the Great Terror'). [10] While
Norman Naimark
deemed Stalin's 1930s Polish policy " genocidal ," he did not consider the entire Great
Purge genocidal because it also targeted political opponents. [11]
An important problem is the conflation of public opprobrium actual sanctions like being
fired. This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will
No. The cancel culture is just a new incarnation of the old idea of religious and
pseudo-religious (aka Marxist or Maoist) "purges". A new flavor of inquisition so to speak.
The key idea here is the elimination of opposition for a particular Messianic movement, and
securing all the positions that can influence public opinion. As well as protection of own
(often dominant) position in the structure of political power (this was the idea behind Mao
"cultural revolution")
You probably can benefit from studying the mechanic of Stalin purges. Mechanisms are the
pretty similar ("History repeats ", etc) .
If opposition to the new brand of Messianism is suppressed under the smoke screen of
political correctness, the question arise how this is different from Stalinist ideas of
"Intensification of the class struggle under socialism" and Mao Red Guards excesses (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensification_of_the_class_struggle_under_socialism
)
You can probably start with "Policing Stalin's Socialism: Repression and Social Order in the
Soviet Union, 1924-1953 (Yale-Hoover Series on Authoritarian Regimes)"
A new book which waits for its author can be similarly titled "Policing US neoliberalism :
Repression and Social Order in the USA 1980-2020") ;-)
Here is one thought-provoking comment from the Web:
GeeBee, August 1, 2020 at 7:42 am GMT
The government will eventually be Marxist
With all due respect, you – like the great majority of people – fail to
understand the dynamics involved. 'Cultural Marxism' isn't political Marxism. It is a method
– a tool if you wish – used by the oligarchs who wield true power to 'divide and
rule' (not least by deflecting attention from the yawning gulf that lies between their own
excesses and monstrous wealth on the one hand, and the increasing indigence of the great mass
of people on the other).
It is called 'Cultural Marxism' purely because it uses Marx's technique of dividing
society into a small clique of 'oppressors' and 'the masses' who are 'oppressed'. Marx, of
course, had the capitalists in mind when he wrote of the oppressors, and the proletariat
naturally were the oppressed.
Today, the last thing the oligarchs desire is a unified and organised proletariat with
'agency': that would constitute a serious threat to their existence. Instead, they divide the
sacred role of 'the oppressed' into a multitude of more or less fissiparous groups, whom we
are all aware of, but of which those comprising 'BAME' are perhaps the most useful. Others
include feminists (more or less all young women in today's world), homos, those suffering
from sexual dysphoria (that's 'trannies' in today's 'Newspeak') and the disabled.
These groups will never discover any common ground between themselves, and thus will fight
among themselves for the scraps thrown from the oligarchs' table. No danger there, and that's
just how they planned it. As for the 'oppressors', there are no prizes for guessing that they
are White, heterosexual (i.e. normal) males.
So much for your fear of actual Marxism. As for 'the government', it is important to
understand that no government in today's West is invested with any meaningful power.
Not only are they not 'sovereign' but they are little more than puppets, dancing to their
masters' dismal tunes.
Who are these oligarchs – these Masters of the Universe? That's a story for another
day. But you won't go far wrong if you place the word 'oligarchs' in triple parentheses
"Cancel culture" has recently been in the news as a threat to free speech and open debate,
most notably with the publication the other week of that open letter in Harpers. Cancelling is
essentially a kind of crowdsourced attempt to boycott and ostracise individuals for their words
or actions, sometimes including calls for them they be fired from their jobs or denied
contracts and opportunities by media organisations.
In the democratic space of social media this can sometimes tip over into unpleasant mobbing
and sometimes bullying. But is "cancelling" people always wrong? Is the practice always an
attack on the norms of free speech and open debate? Might cancelling some people be necessary
to ensure others get the voice and platform to which they are entitled?
One objection to "cancellation" is that it chills open debate and makes people
self-censor.
casmilus 07.30.20 at 7:19 am (no link)
Discrediting and marginalisation already occurred – just look at how David Irving's
status changed over the decades (notoriously, the early book about Dresden is cited in
"Slaughterhouse 5"). So we've simply accelerated the process in the digital age.
My contrarian take is that "the campus Left" actually had more power in the
70s/80s. In a world with no internet and limited independent publishing and distribution,
public meetings were the route to disseminate new ideas, so no-platforming and picketing
could have an effect. Look at "The History Man" (the 1981 BBC TV adaptation) for a portrayal
of what it was like; all that "soft power" is forgotten because of course Thatcher and Reagan
won the grown-up elections. Also note that that was a world where the university as an
institution had much less to fear from individual students who might feel discriminated
against. In comparison, no one can actually suppress ideas nowadays and even banning books
from the libraries leaves them available in the virtual library of websites.
The reality also is that "cancelled" authors acquire new readerships and can move into
different circles. Ex-lefties have been doing that since the 1930s: Freida Utley, Eugebe
Lyons, James Burnham and of course Whittaker Chambers fell-out and immediately fell-in to
bigger audiences.
chrisare 07.30.20 at 9:20 am (no link)
I found this piece unconvincing.
"People can have their voices amplified or silenced by their wealth, connections or
prestige but also by other speech which aims to deny them the right to participate on equal
terms with others."
It's unclear if this refers to those at the receiving end of speech the author wants to
prevent or the speaker deserving of canceling.
"As Jeremy Waldron has argued in his book The Harm in Hate Speech, racist speech aims not
just at hurting the feelings of its victims or expressing a view but at reconstituting the
public arena of democratic debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a
proper part of it."
It is very dubious that most slurs "aim" to "reconstitute the public arena of democratic
debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a proper part of it." Do you
have any support for this theory?
"It says that those people are not a part of "us" and that their opinions and arguments
have no place as we decide where our country should go."
It's not clear how a racial slur "says" any of this. Perhaps the author is reading
subtext?
"Racist speech by some also legitimizes and emboldens racist speech and opinion by others,
telling bigots that they are not alone, that others think as they do, and strengthens an
ideal of exclusive community based on ethnic or racial lines."
On this point it's worth quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr: "Why would you entrust authority
with enlarged powers of regulating the speech of unpopular minorities unless you were
confident that unpopular minorities would be racists, not blacks?"
"Anti-racist speech, has the opposite effect, it affirms a view that those targeted by the
racists, be they black, or Asian, or Muslim, are full members of the democratic political
community in good standing with as good a right to a say as anyone.
"It also reinforces a social norm about what may not be said, telling those who are
tempted to stigmatize migrants or minorities that they will pay a price for doing so."
It also creates a precedent for excluding views by shaming based on current sentiment.
Only someone oblivious to history wouldn't see the danger in that precedent.
"The role that speech plays in defining who is and isn't included in our vision of
democratic community can have powerful real-world consequence."
Who to include as part of your community is an important issue that should be discussed
openly by all of society. What you're trying to do is to elevate advance your position
without having to defend it.
"One way to understand the ease with which the victims of the Windrush scandal could lose
their jobs, their homes, their liberty or be deported to far-away countries, is that in the
public imaginary that is partly constituted by speech, many people did not see them as proper
members with equal standing to others."
Were we to do away with everything that had a downside we would have very little good.
Therefore arguing that something has potential downsides is not sufficient to establish that
it's not good. Can you argue that free expression and debate by citizenry on the most
important issues facing a democratic nation is not good, besides by arguing that there might
be some cost?
"Racist speech is just one example that makes clear how the practice of open discussion
isn't simply a matter of unfettered conversation among people who are already present but
also involves choices about who gets to speak and involves sensitivity to the way that speech
by some has the effect either of depriving others of a voice or of making it impossible for
others to hear what they say. A society which is full of highly sexualized messages about
women is also a society in which it is harder for women to get a hearing about sexual
violence and income inequality. A society where trans people are the objects of constant
ridicule, or are represented as dangerous, is one in which it is also more difficult for them
to argue for their rights and have their interests taken seriously."
This implies that the intolerant are the powerful group capable of suppressing minorities
with their speech alone. This is disproven by the very fact that anti-racist etc speech is so
successful. The success of antiracist codes of social conduct is because the group exercising
them is the powerful group. This very fact implies their obsolesce.
"Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as an
affront. Ironically, while being quick to take offence themselves they demand that those less
powerful than they are should toughen up and not be such "snowflakes"."
This is an uninformed or dishonest characterization of the pushback against cancel
culture. The pushback is due to intolerant enforcement of ideological conformity and
homogeneity through threat to job and reputation. And no this is not only ideological
conformity in that you can't say overtly racist things; it's ideological conformity in that
you can't criticize BLM or cite scientific literature on biological differences between the
sexes without risk.
"But if we take seriously the idea that speech can silence speech or make it unhearable,
then a concern with whether the heckling of cancel culture makes it harder to say some things
also has to take account of the fact that saying those very things can make it harder for
other voices to be heard."
This piece hasn't given any reason to make us take seriously the idea that speech against
one group can silence another, other then through threat to livelihood or reputation. It's
not clear though how for example referencing scientific but currently unpopular claims,
criticizing a social movement, having a narrower view on who should be considered a citizen
or even using a slur silences people.
An important problem is the conflation of public opprobrium actual sanctions like being
fired. This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will. In most countries,
unfair dismissal laws would protect people being sacked because of their political views,
unless they related directly to job performance. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/04/free-speech-unfair-dismissal-and-unions/
But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the issue is raised
suggests that losing your job for breaching left orthodoxy not a major problem in the US, or
at least that other possible examples are much less sympathetic (racists fired from Fox, for
example).
Mostly, AFAICT, being cancelled means having to read rude things said about you by lots of
unimportant people on Twitter, as opposed to engaging in caustic, but civilised, debate with
your peers in the pages of little magazines.
PS likbez@46 reminded me of a line from the movie Reds. Warren Beatty's John Reed spoke of
people who "though Karl Marx wrote a good antitrust law." This was not a favorable comment.
The confusion of socialism and what might be called populism is quite, quite old. Jack
London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War that the
normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the middle class
paradise of equal competition. It wasn't conspiracies.
likbez 07.29.20 at 3:30 pm
@steven t johnson 07.29.20 at 3:14 pm (51)
Jack London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War
that the normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the
middle class paradise of equal competition.
I think the size of the USA military budget by itself means the doom for the middle class,
even without referring to famous Jack London book (The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's
biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four.).
Wall Street and MIC (especially intelligence agencies ; Allen Dulles was a Wall Street
lawyer) are joined at the hip. And they both fully control MSM. As Jack London aptly said:
"The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist
class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it
serves it." ― Jack London, The Iron Heel
Financial capitalism is bloodthirstily by definition as it needs new markets. It fuels wars.
In a sense, Bolton is the symbol of financial capitalism foreign policy.
It is important to understand that finance capitalism creates positive feedback loop in the
economy increasing instability of the system. So bubbles are immanent feature of finance
capitalism, not some exception or the result of excessive greed.
"... Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, "democracy" NGOs and other groups since the 1980's. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order. ..."
"... Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance. ..."
"... The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of George Soros's major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and curiously , Ben & Jerry's Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000. ..."
"... That front since 2009 received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations and again, Ben & Jerry's ($50,000). ..."
"... And Garza's SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712 "organizers" in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among others. ..."
"... Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi headed the FRSO's Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a "staff" of two it got money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry's ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group . ..."
"... The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described their role: "The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America." ..."
"... Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to "democrats and progressives." As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign of Joe Biden. ..."
"... What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. ..."
"... The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest. ..."
Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led
regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, "democracy" NGOs
and other groups since the 1980's. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish
communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with
heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied
those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous
organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous
moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to
not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US
Constitutional order.
If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman
pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd , and look at what has taken place
across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were
well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.
The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained
violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent
protests -- Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed
uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars,
burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and
other social media to coordinate "hit-and-run" swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.
What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of
primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is
unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that
toppled Milosevic in 2000.
Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow
In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university
students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various
offshoots was created in the 1980's by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow
specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get
their money from Congress and from USAID.
In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in
Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović,
using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of
the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events,
the Washington Post wrote, "US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in
virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of
opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US
taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint
used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across
Serbia."
Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid
of 'intelligence helmet' video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their
environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell
phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation.
Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that
mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the
youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the
scenes.
The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange
Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution.
Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all
cases the NED was involved
with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.
After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training
center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally
present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also
Soros money was reported.
Antifa and BLM
The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since
May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we
understand the CIA's Color Revolution playbook.
The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and
state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even
to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the
heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.
In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken
over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of
organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations.
In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are
all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic
Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black
Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.
To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has
been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous
organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa "cells"
join up with BLM chapters.
FRSO: Follow the Money
BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to
protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white
Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi
were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road
Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States
formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.
On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, "The time is now to
join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization If you have been
out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you've been thinking about the
difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this
country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and
oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The
unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism
is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road
Socialist Organization is
working for ."
In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now
being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of
amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the
self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not
so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of
well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.
Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front
groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of
Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward
Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.
The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very
established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of
George Soros's major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote
Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and
curiously , Ben
& Jerry's Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.
Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where
Obama former "green jobs czar" Van Jones, a self-described "communist" and "rowdy black
nationalist," now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City
Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009
received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations
and again, Ben & Jerry's ($50,000).
And Garza's SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712
"organizers" in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller
Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among
others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a "multi-racial
organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and
policy to catalyze social change." It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012
and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and
other major
foundations .
Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi
headed the FRSO's Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a "staff" of two it got
money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations
for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry's ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group .
The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against
capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project,
which describes itself as "a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization." Its
board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a
former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project
in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford
($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5
million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).
Major Money and ActBlue
By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump,
Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford
Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund
(BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for
Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already
given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement . This was serious foundation money.
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the
Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described
their role: "The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to
organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and
immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national
conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America."
The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in
2016 called for "defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for
illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a
universal basic income, and
free college for blacks ."
Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the
donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to
"democrats and progressives." As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign
of Joe Biden.
That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple,
Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue
under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a
Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so
confident of support from black voters.
What is clear from only this account of the crucial
role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is
a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America.
The
role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial
companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper
and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would
suggest.
***
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in
politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics,
exclusively for the online magazine "New
Eastern Outlook" where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Home / Articles / Culture
/ How LGBT Nonprofits And Their Billionaire Patrons Are Reshaping The World CULTUREHow LGBT
Nonprofits And Their Billionaire Patrons Are Reshaping The World
Transgender ideology is being pushed on us by corporate interests through their
philanthropic arms. (By
Ink Drop/Shutterstock)
In an August 2018
New Yorker article, Elizabeth Kolbert asks, "Are today's donor classes solving problems or
creating new ones?" Kolbert describes a form of charity that aims to not just help people but
to improve them. This "improvement" aligns with the giver's particular vision of what
constitutes improvement, of course. And the people who need to be improved are treated as
children -- for whom the donor, naturally, gets to decide what is best.
Kolbert describes how this form of giving becomes exploitation. We might add: not just
exploitation, but elite-driven, highly self-interested social engineering. We see these
characteristics on brilliant display in the philanthropy behind the modern LGBT movement.
The gay-rights movements and organizations that emerged during America's sexual revolution
in the 1960s bear little resemblance to the behemoth LGBT NGO juggernauts operating today. What
started out as grassroots support for the legal and social acceptance of same-sex relations has
turned into an effort at full-blown social transformation, with the addition of a fetish of
adult men, known as transsexualism, to the LGB human-rights rainbow banner. Along with the
rebranding of transsexualism as transgenderism, this movement has also successfully normalized
disorders of sexual development, otherwise known as intersex conditions. We have come a long
way from Stonewall.
Perhaps the most insidious idea to be advanced under the LGBT banner today is the amorphous
concept of "gender identity." Gender identity refers to the way people see themselves with
respect to socially constructed sex-role stereotypes. But is not just a descriptive
term; it is also prescriptive -- one has the right, according to advocates, to force
others to recognize one's chosen identity. And one has the right to change one's body medically
so that it better maps on to one's gender identity. Given that the pharmaceutical lobby is the
largest in Congress, and given that some of the most important philanthropists behind the
modern LGBT movement have close ties to Big Pharma, this medical component is important to
note.
"Gender identity" and "transgender" ideology emerged on the Western cultural landscape not
more than a decade ago, but they have spread across the globe with the speed and ferocity of
the SARS COVID pandemic -- and they have created nearly as much havoc. Yet the massive
concomitant changes we have already seen in language, law, medical and crime statistics,
women's safety
zones , sports
, accomplishments and
educational
opportunities , the medicalization of healthy children's bodies ,
and K–12
curricula have not been driven by grassroots enthusiasm. Quite the contrary. They have been
driven by the philanthropic funding provided by billionaires who are themselves invested in
this radical ideology's greatest beneficiaries: Big Pharma. Many of the most important
philanthropists behind the transgender and gender-identity movements stand to make huge profits
from body dissociation and the commoditization of human sex into medical identities.
Take
Martine Rothblatt , a self-described transsexual and transhumanist who was the first
individual to create a legal document supporting the idea that feelings of dissociation from
our sexed bodies is normal. This legal document, later to become the International Gender Bill of
Rights , legally normalizes body dissociation. Rothblatt later went on to become the top
earning CEO in the biopharmaceutical industry, using his money and influence to promote the
ideology and normalization of transgenderism. He believes that sexual dimorphism is morally
equivalent to South African apartheid and must be dismantled.
00:09 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video
J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019
Cancel Autoplay is paused
Jennifer Pritzker, along with his family, one of the wealthiest in the United States, has
poured huge sums of money into American institutions in order to advance the concept of body
dissociation under the euphemism of "gender identity." The Pritzker family has
made vast investments in the medical industrial complex.
In 2000, another billionaire, Jon Stryker, heir to a multi-billion-dollar medical
corporation, created another mammoth LGBT NGO, the Arcus Foundation. Stryker created such a
global goliath of philanthropic funding with the stocks from his medical corporation that he
had to create another organization to keep track of it all. In 2006 Arcus funded the creation
of MAP
, or Movement Advancement Project, to track the complex system of advocacy and funding that had
already developed as a way of insinuating gender identity and transgender ideology into the
culture.
Translation: A medical corporation with a vested interest in encouraging people to identify
as transgender is directly funneling money and assets to its philanthropic foundation so that
the foundation will do that encouraging on its behalf, thereby bringing more money and more
clients (for life) to that corporation.
Arcus has funneled millions into other philanthropy organizations, such as
Tides ,
Proteus and
Borealis . There is no way to track whether these organizations are using Arcus money for
the purpose of normalizing transgenderism, but one might surmise that the cause so dear to
Arcus's heart is not entirely ignored.
In 2015, together with the Novo Foundation, a philanthropic NGO run by Peter Buffet (son of
Warren, who helped launch the project with a
$90 million gift), Arcus
earmarked $20 million for transgender causes specifically. In 2018 Arcus funded the
Council For Global Equality , a
coalition of 30 U.S. groups advocating for inclusion of LGBT issues in foreign affairs and
development policies.
Whew. This is no small operation! And every Arcus grant is contingent upon the recipient's
affirmation of "diversity and inclusion policies" -- policies that, of course, very much
include the affirmation of gender-identity ideology and transgenderism.
Many more philanthropic actors are working to prop up the transgender and gender-identity
movements, including Tim Gill and his Gill Foundation and George Soros and his Open Society
Foundation. Like Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker, and Jon Stryker, Gill, who is heavily
invested in artificial intelligence, and Soros, who has broad investments in Big Pharma, stand
to benefit financially from the demand for altered bodies and brains that they hope is the
fruit of their philanthropic activity.
It is striking that this conflict of interest has been so little discussed. Even the
American
Psychological Association (APA), the leading scientific and professional organization
representing psychology in the United States, with more than 118,000 members, is funded by
Arcus philanthropy. In 2005 the APA created INET, to help member psychological organizations
improve the well-being of sexual orientation and "gender diverse people." Prior to the addition
of gender identity and the arrival of Arcus money, the APA INET was solely focused on
LGB issues. In 2008 the
APA created the Task Force On
Gender Identity and Gender Variance , and in 2015 it developed guidelines to assist
psychologists in the provision of culturally competent, developmentally appropriate, and
trans-affirmative psychological practice with "transgender" and "gender non-conforming" people.
Psychologists were "encouraged" to modify their understanding of gender, broadening the range
of variation viewed as healthy and normative.
Can democracy withstand such philanthropy-driven "encouragement"? Can there be genuine
democracy when, via the taxpayer-subsidized fig leaf of philanthropy, billionaires can so
quickly and easily dismantle the reality of biological sex by suborning charities, politicians,
researchers, and professional associations? We are in the midst of finding out.
Jennifer Bilek is an investigative journalist, artist, and concerned citizen. She has
been following the money behind the transgender agenda for six years. She blogs atthe 11th Hour.
The Sex Reassignment Surgery market is worth USD $316.1 Million worldwide each year.
Stryker makes most of their money in cardiovascular, spines, orthotics etc. Arcus has donated
a lot of money to support a small market they are not a major play in.
But if we dig a little deeper, we find out that Stryker is *GASP* gay. Perhaps he gives
money to the LGBT community because it is his community?
My first thought was how much profit are we talking about. If the total world market is as
you say, then the profits are diminimus. The article then falls apart from a profit motive.
And we get back to the age old arguement based on personal animus.
My understanding of intersex anomalies is that it is in fact biologically based. Not
psychology based. But there are a lot of articles which challenge that understanding. So we
should still be open to finding out the underlying etimology. Because there is no question
that enough children are asserting that they are transgenders that those affected need
scientifically based answers.
And it is important to continue the search for the science involved. However to condem
everyone is not helpful. And it exacerbates the the divide between the us.
One other point. Other ancient cultures had members who would today be considered part of
the LGBTQ community. Native americans had a special term for someone who identified as a
different sex from their genitalia. A few of these cultures honored these individuals placing
them in high regard.
This is not a new phenomenon. And this community exists. Best we try to show some sympathy
and understanding. If there is wide spread abuse then parents and their children, should have
available all the fact based information and help that is possible.
Is the author contending that these foundations are spreading disinformation? If so that
should be the target of her investigation. It is clear from this and other articles that she
has disgust for the LGBTQ community. And thus is not an honest broker. This article appears
to be an answer in search for a question.
"Because there is no question that enough children are asserting that they are
transgenders that those affected need scientifically based answers."
Children asserting that they are transgenders before they have even experienced puberty
only means they have been influenced by others. Keep in mind that sexual urges are not even
experienced until puberty. So how would they even know? Steering a child towards
transgenderism is child abuse.
Let me get personal. My father who is now 102 is as right wing as one can get. And all his
life. When his nephew transgendered to a women he was surprisingly empathetic. In talking to
him he told me the account of a family in his small town when he was young.
The family had two boys, twins. They both at a very young age exhibited great interest in
dressing up with their sister's clothes. And other displays that were feminine in nature.
The father was directed by his minister , the school principal, and local neighbors to
correct this terrible set of circumstances. The boys were of course bullied. Being unable
himself to make strides, one night he put a bullet in the boys' heads , the sister's head,
the mother's head and finally his head. This was something that stayed with my father for 80
years or more.
So when he saw his nephew dressed as a girl he was very kind to her. And both the twins
and his nephew began to exhibit the traits at a very young age.
I likewise in my profession I represented many men who transitioned to women. One question
came up. Why do men have nipples?The answer is interesting.
So personally I have seen very young children with this issue. I do agree that parents
should seek guidance from reliable experts. It is for sure you are not one of those
experts.
I would never be disrespectful to any gay or transgender. But there are many pre-puberty
boys that play with dolls who are normal and are not gay. They will know one way or the other
once they go through puberty. I believe people are either born gay or there is something that
occurs physiologically after birth that causes them to be gay. People who want to transition
to the other sex are gay or bi-sexual. People who are not gay or bi-sexual would not want to
transition to the other sex. To heterosexuals, the very thought sexual relations with someone
of their sex is repulsive. Its the very definition of heterosexual. The very thought of
transitioning to the other sex and then having sex relations with those of their current sex
would also be repulsive.
People who try to steer children to transition to the other sex are child abusers. Let the
children grow up and decide for themselves.
Ohhh stop. Entirely false. Those who manage to navigate their psycho-emotional issues to a
normal status just don't get the press. Like any intrapersonal struggle -- it's hard work and
then after that it is hard work.
The real issue here is that the state has no business interfering in the rearing of
children. Parents decide the nature of child rearing. And that includes the peculiar notion
of children who think they are cat when in fact they are dogs.
Look what one chooses for a life as an adult is their choice. But until then -- as long as
mom and dad are footing the bill --- minus some abuse and i reject the caterwauling that
therapy to challenge some aberrant behavior is abusive -- ten parents manage their families
as they desire said family to be.
Then no doubt you can document many hundreds of stories of children and teens who were
entirely comfortable in their birth gender and yet were forced by their parents to
transition.
if under ideological influences that do not emulate the child's 'best interests'
if ethically unsound for the medical team to participate in
if there are financial conflicts of interest
SO, be sharp about all this. AC - if they want to harp on this issue - needs to research
and publish a guide to
understanding coercion (including developmental issues of childhood that inform how they
can be SO EASILY coerced); understanding 'best interests' (for the child) of importance to
social services, court proceedings, etc; understanding health professional codes of ethics
and hospital/health system codes; understanding how to assess possible COI.
AC should GET SERIOUS about this - in these specific ways - or stop harping and harping
and harping on it!
Jeepers honey poo poo! Get serious and stop being stupid.
That's not true. There are many heterosexual men who are aroused by thinking of themselves
as *pubescent" girls. There are entire genres of porn and Subreddits devoted to it. They want
women (and girls) to validate them as women. We see evidence of this every day. In fact, a
group of gender critical feminists keep track of this at "itsafetish" on said.it
. They had several thousand examples on the Reddit group, but that was banned because talking
about autogynephilia in an attempt to defend little girls from you-know-who's tampon advice
in the bathroom was considered "hate speech." Apparently, taking your photo in the women's
bathroom and talking to 12-year-old girls about tampon use is just fine, but reporting it is
bigoted.
The question I have is, why is the mind or will supreme here? Why is the body deemed to be
of so little importance that it can be sliced up and chemically altered? Aside from a very
small number of people whose bodies are truly ambiguous, why is the body held to be of less
value than the mind? We all know that the human mind can get pretty messed up, for a variety
of reasons.
Well, when the go through puberty, whatever they were thinking before will becomes
irrelevant. If they turn out to be gay, they may want to transition to the opposite sex. If
they are not gay, they will not want to do that unless they become brainwashed.
Blanchard's work is far from universally accepted, and in any case you might not want to
make him a hero figure for the anti-trans movement. He is on record as supporting
reassignment surgery as a treatment option, and publicly funding it.
Yeah.
When I was seven, I wanted to be Godzilla.
I LOVED Godzilla.
I used to make little buildings out of cardboard boxes, and smash 'em up while trying to
imitate the Godzilla roar.
But I think I'd be kinda pissed if someone had surgically attached Godzilla spines to my back
and grafted a tail to my coccyx and sharpened my teeth.
Childhood imagination never justifies surgical mutilation.
Transgender is an adjective, not a noun. Gender dysphoria is not contagious and not
subject to the influence of others. Moreover, sexual attractions are irrelevant to the issue
of gender.
Gender identity is formed by about age two. When gender and natal sex are incongruent
children will insist that they are their gender. It affects about 2% of all children. It will
resolve in 75% of that 2%. Only the most acute cases will ever transition (those who are in
severe distress).
Other than aggressive pediatric cancers, there is no condition that is more life
threatening for a child than acute gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria is most definitely subject to the influence of others. That's what Lisa
Littman's work on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is about. Hundreds of transactivists sent her
rape and death threats to try to silence her.
More "life threatening for a child?" Go to Transgender Trend, which debunks the weak,
highly flawed study that made this claim. I see children being made infertile for the rest of
their lives and being mutilated a la Jazz Jennings so a bunch of adult heterosexual males
with autogynephilia can get their paraphilia affirmed.
This is the most dangerous movement in my lifetime.
Littman's study resulted in the publisher, PLOS-ONE, issuing a formal correction, an
apology and a revised article (which they felt would be more effective than a retraction).
All of the links are here:
https://croak.us/301phQy
The reason this was done is because Littman did not study any transgender kids. Her
subjects were anonymous parents culled from equally anti-trans websites.
Furthermore, the quality of life of transitioned youth with non-transitioned youth have
been studied at great length. The leading researcher is Kristina Olson at U/Washington. In
2018 she won the NIH's Waterman Prize and received a substantial MacArthur "genius"
grant.
It's the same sort of junk science trotted out a few years ago which purported to "prove"
that same sex marriage was bad for kids and which was also used to make six day creationism
look like a scientific controversy.
If you suspect any child abuse report it! Simple! It is not a political issue if possible
abuse is in front of you. If you think a licensed medical provider or hospital is practicing
abuse file complaints with the licensing board of the provider and against the hospital's
accreditation. Stop whining about it: make complaints if you believe what you say you
believe.
Intersex conditions are - generally - genetically impelled: genetic information translated
through physiological building of the person's anatomy. Everyone has different anatomy. E.g a
doctor told me that 'i have unusual ear canals'. You might have a very different nose (in
appearance, and in actual anatomy. And as any man - or many women - knows all penises look
different: long, short, fat, thin, veiny, smooth, hairy up the shaft, or not, etc. And
similar labia features, clitoris features, breast features are different, etc.
All women are 'this way' and all men are 'this way' is bogus BS. No two penises are alike
(unless you are identical twins, and then maybe not, too). Etc.
Similarly, genetic information is translated in many different ways into the building of
the anatomy and intersex persons are anomalies that fit in the clinical category 'intersex'.
There are, obviously, psychological, social, emotional sequelae of having 'un-unusual'
anatomy: fear, loathing, shock, disgust, etc. But any doctor, or any parent, who makes their
child feel or experience fear, loathing, shock and disgust for their bodies is not decent
parent! And any priest, pastor, preacher, imam, etc who makes any person feel fear, loathing,
shock, disgust, with their body is no one who should have such a spiritually important role
in the community. Similarly no one should be made to feel or experience fear, loathing,
shock, disgust, etc if they express that they may be gay or lesbian or bisexual. Of course a
parent - or priest, pastor, preacher, imam, etc - can - AND SHOULD say what the family or
faith community values and beliefs are about that. But then let the child decide that they
believe.
What about a child who is intersex who is pressured to decide about something (typically a
surgical procedure to 'clarify' anatomy)? What about a child who may or may not be gay or
lesbian or transgender but are 'told' that they are by adults who may or may not be well
informed or who may or may not be overly influenced by some ideology? There could be 'child
abuse': if you believe that a parent, of religious leader, or doctor, or hospital is coercing
a child to make a choice that they don't want to make, or are developmentally poorly able to
make - too young, emotionally disturbed, adversely influenced by others, etc - make
complaints, file complaints with social services, with the doctor's licensing board, against
the hospital's accreditations.
For the record, gender confirmation surgery is difficult to obtain in the US. To qualify
an individual requires two behavior health referrals; one from a regular therapist and
another from a therapist not previously seen by the surgical candidate.
The individual must have at least one year of Real Life Experience, living as their
gender. Both the hospital and the surgeon must approve the procedure as well. I am reliably
informed that some hospitals require an interview before a decision board.
Then, of course, the cost is prohibitive for most transgender people who might otherwise
qualify unless they work for a large company that includes gender-affirmation in their health
insurance.
There are only a couple of states that make funds available through Medicaid.
The market value of these surgeries is irrelevant.
"It is striking that this conflict of interest has been so little discussed. Even the
American Psychological Association (APA), the leading scientific and professional
organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 118,000 members, is
funded by Arcus philanthropy."
Coming in a lose second, millions of wealthy whites sitting siting in therapists offices
search for meaning and solution for the psychological and intellectual struggle that plague
us all ------ it ever amazes how the right to avoid being beaten up by police, equal access
to housing, employment, financial system, etc. ha taken a back set to the people.
973 APA Conference a day that should live in infamy.
America needs an examination and reformation of tax-exempt organizations across the board.
Too often these groups are simply attempting to force their views on the unwilling. While
individuals are losing their rights to all manner of activities once taken for granted in any
free society, these billionaire-funded boondoggles exist to coerce, brainwash and usurp the
power of individuals, including parenting and forcing individuals to pay for that which
violates their creed.
If these people want to "help" society so much, why the lynch pin of tax exemption? Huh?
True charity does not stop to consider the tax advantages, but chalk that up to my cynicism
towards these power mad, narcissistic perverts parading as humans. Pay up or shut up.
"America needs an examination and reformation of tax-exempt organizations across the
board. Too often these groups are simply attempting to force their views on the
unwilling."
Churches being foremost among them. I wouldn't be opposed to removing or reducing their
tax exemptions.
I'm more interested in the angle that big money is behind this than the angle that somehow
there's a profit motive behind it. If they were trying to push trans to make money, that
would be cynical but understandable. I don't think that's it, though.
Stryker at least is a son and grandson of enormous privilege with no achievements of his
own and who is intrinsically disordered sexually, He needs to do something, in his mind, that
counts as a achievement. Unfortunately, he chose poorly.
God have mercy on him. I couldn't have handled that kind of money and pressure to live up
either.
"Like Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker, and Jon Stryker, Gill, who is heavily invested
in artificial intelligence, and Soros, who has broad investments in Big Pharma, stand to
benefit financially from the demand for altered bodies and brains that they hope is the fruit
of their philanthropic activity."
Yeah. All of the big money people are scrambling and scheming to get in on the medical
market for a condition which affects 0.6% of the population.
It affects a much larger percentage of the population now, and once you start mutilating
and drugging teenagers, you've got patients for life.
Lisa Littman, MD, found that the rate of "transition" was 70 TIMES HIGHER than chance
among girls whose friend groups had members who were identifying as transgender. This is
accounting for changes that would occur because it's now acceptable--she controlled for that
variable and found a rate that high.
And these girls start on drugs that may cause permanent infertility and get on wait lists
to have their breasts removed. You should read the stories of "detransitioners" from 4th Wave
Now. These poor young adults have so much regret, and then of course they're shunned and
harassed by the transgender cult--and silenced.
If this is not an argument for wealth distribution, I do not know what is. Here are people
with too much money and the right to spend it as they wish. Welcome to the Libertarian
paradise.
afer reading this article, I am not at all sure it matters at all. Seems the writer has a
thing about the'big bad' lgtb+ whatever community. The same arguments could be applied to
sports teams or churches, so who cares?
You don't care about men who get moved to women's prisons and then assault them? Go to
"Women are Human" for the latest tally of men abusing women in shelters, prisons, and yes,
bathrooms--HUNDREDS of stories in local media that the mainstream won't pick up because
they're afraid of being mobbed by transactivists.
Guess what? The parts AREN'T removed? Did you not know that? Holy crap.
These days you can have a beard and penis and be a heterosexual guy, and you can put on
some makeup (or not) and dress (or not) and call yourself a "trans woman." And make rape and
death threats to any woman (they don't care about the men) who challenges you. There are
THOUSANDS of examples of this. Do you really think women just go around making this up?
Somebody put together a compendium of just a day or so of rape threats against JK Rowling.
Sure, these are just nice gay men who want to present as women and want to be left
alone.....NO. That's the point. These are heterosexual predatory men who have hijacked the
language of civil rights, grossly insulting the sacrifice of millions of Americans who
actually fought and died for real civil rights, to enable their paraphilia. Full stop.
See above. Also go to "Women are Human," "Feminist Current," and "Transgender Trend," the
latter of which enlists scientists and clinicians in debunking many false claims of the
transactivist movement.
A few years ago on Rod Dreher's blog someone made this same point (that FTM is now
predominant) and I expressed skepticism. The person replied with links showing that they were
correct. My apologies that I don't have these to give you now.
Blanchard's argument was that transsexualism among men is based on the target of their
sexual attraction. Transsexualism among females was rare until the advent of Rapid Onset
Gender Dysphoria (see Dr. Lisa Littman's work, out of Brown University). Now it's rampant,
due to social contagion. Fortunately, there's been an upsurge in "detransitioning" because
teen girls have been staying at home and aren't as susceptible to the social contagion at
schools.
"... This book is like a bad date where the other person is accusing you of all of your failures, and when you try to make up, to do better, to understand more, to be fully engaged as an ally, you are continually pushed away. ..."
"... 99% of the problem is created by 1% of whites who other whites don't see. ..."
"... The same would be true for misogyny. 99% of rapes are caused by 1% of perps, and the 99% of innocent men don't see it because the perps aren't harassing them. ..."
"... This book is riddled with historical inaccuracies, such as black women being denied the vote until 1964, poor arguments, and a lack of any decent citations. This book did inspire me though. If something this bad can be published, anyone can write a book. ..."
"... According to this author, those that are identified as white (not necessarily those who identify AS white) are guilty of racism and must be prepared to be tongue-lashed by her. It is curious that somehow denigrating a person by their skin color is not racist when done by a person of the same appearance. It is a popular book for those that need more of a reason to feel bad about themselves. ..."
"... If you're seeking insight on how to understand and fight against escalating exploitation and oppression by the US ruling class, look elsewhere. This book is a polemic, a work of guilt-tripping ideology, given to sweeping and unsubstantiated statements about "white supremacy" and "racism". If this book were to use the religious language of the Puritans, "whiteness" would be the "original sin". ..."
"... DiAngelo, like Tim Wise, Cheryl Matias and others, is a professional race-baiting huckster. She makes a living traveling the country telling white people how awful they are, how morally superior she is, and how if white people pay ridiculously expensive fees to attend her lectures, they too can be a "good" white person like her. ..."
I am very reluctant to give
a negative review, especially when the author is trying to be helpful. In places the author has correctly diagnosed a number of
genuine problems.
Merely being non-racist isn't good enough, because you end up as a bystander when a bully is beating up on a victim; both covering
your eyes and ears and refusing to acknowledge what the victim (of racism) is telling you is happening to them.
If you haven't been a victim you cannot fully understand being a victim. If you haven't experienced the pervasiveness and constancy
of negative bias both coming from other groups and even influencing your own view of yourself – then you will never completely
comprehend. So in one respect a white person cannot truly say, "I get it."
Neither can you ever do enough to win a gold star and say you've done "enough" as long as racism exists.
It's like the Talmudic maxim: "you will never finish perfecting the world, but you are never free to stop trying."
If the book stopped there, it would be fine. Perhaps even excellent.
But I give this book one star because it makes the problem worse.
This book is like a bad date where the other person is accusing you of all of your failures, and when you try to make up, to
do better, to understand more, to be fully engaged as an ally, you are continually pushed away.
And then you are told to "breathe" and calm down. Surely you are getting upset and proving the thesis!
Except that's not what's happening.
Yes, whites don't see racism because they aren't a target of it. If you aren't a racist, then you don't hang around racists.
And if you aren't black then you don't have it hurled in your face. 99% of the problem is created by 1% of whites who other whites
don't see.
The same would be true for misogyny. 99% of rapes are caused by 1% of perps, and the 99% of innocent men don't see it because
the perps aren't harassing them.
So men need to listen without being defensive. Whites need to listen without being defensive. It's wrong to say, "But I'm not
doing it" as if that will make it go away.
But it's also wrong to say that the non-harassing men or the non-harassing whites are guilty BECAUSE of their innocence.
No, they aren't being bad. They are being clueless. And instead of being accused they need to be engaged.
Especially when they WANT to listen and be helpful.
In short, if someone wants to be your friend – let them.
This book doesn't invite engagement and doesn't let the non-involved to become involved in affirmatively fighting racism. It
turns a lot of would be allies away.
Ultimately, it's self defeating.
We need more people aware of racism. We need more people fighting racism. We need the majority engaged in helping the minority,
rather than being turned away.
I'd give this book five stars if it were half as long. But it's the flawed existentialism that makes this book a hindrance
to people who should be friends, and would be friends, if they were allowed to be. >
This book is riddled with historical inaccuracies, such as black women being denied the vote until 1964, poor arguments,
and a lack of any decent citations. This book did inspire me though. If something this bad can be published, anyone can write
a book.
According to this author, those that are identified as white (not necessarily those who identify AS white)
are guilty of racism and must be prepared to be tongue-lashed by her. It is curious that somehow denigrating a person by their
skin color is not racist when done by a person of the same appearance. It is a popular book for those that need more of a reason
to feel bad about themselves.
Ironically, the subject is timely and through reading other sources of information on institutionalized racism, I have noticed
many examples of this. The articles were well written and effective in that I was not made to feel that anything I did or said
was automatically suspect and therefore invalid. A state of paralysis is not one from which change can occur.
If you're seeking insight on how to understand and fight against escalating exploitation and oppression
by the US ruling class, look elsewhere. This book is a polemic, a work of guilt-tripping ideology, given to sweeping and unsubstantiated
statements about "white supremacy" and "racism". If this book were to use the religious language of the Puritans, "whiteness"
would be the "original sin".
As a Unitarian-Universalist I am appalled by such ideology because I am dedicated to our first principle -"the inherent worth
and dignity of every person", regardless of social status or category. This includes not just "people of color" but the legions
of "whites" who have suffered terribly despite the supposed safety net of "whiteness". Unfortunately, ruling class whites are
often condescending toward working class whites, and this book is no exception. When they are not ignored or treated rudely (DiAngelo)
they may be called names like "deplorables" (Hillary Clinton) or even then unbelievably insulting "white trash" (the title of
a book by Nancy Isenberg). And just think of all the derogatory names that are used for the homeless, who again are mostly white.
Here's an example of DiAngelo's rude disrespect: An Italian American explained "that once Italians were once considered black
and discriminated against, so didn't I think white people experience racism too?" (p. 12). Instead of acknowledging and honoring
the truth he spoke from his own lived experience, she changes the topic, accusing him of "refusing to examine his own whiteness
today". This is typical of the mental gymnastics that DiAngelo employs to evade the truths she hears that are "inconvenient" for
her ideology of "whiteness". In an earlier era Irish Americans could have said the same thing, and this has always been a felt-in-the-gut
truth for poor whites.
Although DiAngelo has an academic background, she unapologetically violates the canons of good scholarship, See, for example,
the third essay of Todd Eklof in "The Gadfly Papers", or the work of Johnathan Church, such as his article in Areo magazine on
how "white-fragility-theory-mistakes-correlation-for-causation". Instead she conveys an attitude of self-assured superiority,
a provocateur who declares herself to be proud of her "identity politics", dismissing criticism from "whites" as a product of
their "white supremacy" or "racism" and labeling it "white fragility". Brain-washed by such ideology, she is oblivious to how
insulting terms the like "white supremacy" fuel the cultural wars, hence political gridlock, hence giving a free reign to predatory
capitalism and escalating inequality.
DiAngelo never acknowledges how her ideology "whiteness" serves two unsavory political purposes. The most obvious one is to
divert attention from the color-blind nature of today's predatory capitalism – how vulnerable whites are targeted far more than
blacks simply because the whites have so much more to lose. The second becomes obvious once we reflect on the time-tested strategy
of ruling classes to stay in power by "divide and conquer" tactics aimed at the populace. In the US, "racism" itself was born
as such a construct in the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, serving to divide white and black workers and turning the latter
into dehumanized slaves. Today the cultural wars comprise a similar divide and conquer strategy, but this time dividing the white
ruling class from its working class to create political gridlock. Here I use the term "ruling class" in its broadest sense, as
roughly the top 10% to 20% of the population in income or wealth who have a college education, while using the rough definition
of "working class" as those without a college degree, or about 2/3 of the population. As we learned in 2016, the political consequences
can be dire indeed when progressives abandon their fundamental principles and the working class to embrace the self-serving strategies
of the ruling class. >
DiAngelo, like Tim Wise, Cheryl Matias and others, is a professional race-baiting huckster. She makes a living traveling the country
telling white people how awful they are, how morally superior she is, and how if white people pay ridiculously expensive fees
to attend her lectures, they too can be a "good" white person like her.
Why is it so hard to talk about race? Because any discussion where you are cast immediately as the villain likely isn't going
to be a very productive conversation.
What is white fragility? White fragility is standing up for yourself against unsubstantiated charges of racism. If a black
or brown person makes an ignorant statement regarding you, your family, your life's experiences or whatever, and you defend yourself
as any normal person would....well, that's white fragility. What you should be doing is to just take it. Admit you are born evil
as a member of a race of pale face demons and accept the charges that are being leveled against you. That's being woke!
You see, anti-racism activism used to be directed towards people who were......you know, racist? However, that changed over
the last couple decades as more virulent strains of post-modernism and cultural Marxism infected the movement. Now, the idea of
all white people being racist is championed and supported within the annals of academia. You don't have to nurse a hatred of black
or brown people to be racist. All you have to be is white. You have a plethora of extremely vague terms regarding supposed "systems"
and "structures" that are poorly defined and not nearly as well illustrated as intended. Indeed, the definition of racism was
surreptitiously changed to a "correct" redefinition of a whites-only enterprise of power plus privilege while other ideologies
such as feminism curiously maintained their original dictionary description.
Critical race theorists have insisted that white privilege, whiteness studies, etc. are not meant to foster a sense of a guilt
and shame amongst white people. It's blatantly clear when you peel back the layers that that is precisely the end goal. They tell
you that you - the individual white person - are part of the problem. You have to admit your original sin, and then you'll come
into the light. They don't do a very good job hiding their true intentions.
And what's up with so-called "allyship"? Allies are supposed to be members of a mutual pact, not a one-sided arrangement of
praise and apologies.
On the subject of fragility, I find it very amusing and ironic when you consider that if DiAngelo or Wise were to speak at
a college campus or university, they won't have to worry about a horde of angry white students disrupting their lectures, storming
the lecture halls, pulling fire alarms, drowning out the speakers with chants, etc. Fragility is rife on campus life these days.
Safe spaces, protests over racist incidents that turn out to be hoaxes perpetrated by the "victims", and so on. Who are the real
fragile ones here?
At the end of the day, DiAngelo's end goal won't be realized. Sure, coastal white liberals who are down with the cause might
think that people like her are creating change, but it's simply not working. Far too many white people whose lives aren't full
of ease and privilege will not take kindly to such dumb bigotry wrapped up in fancy academic terms. Critical race theory, like
so many related "isms" in the social justice lexicon, is simply building up its own funeral pyre. >
1.0 out of 5 stars
mostly worthless Reviewed in the United States on October 21, 2018 Awful. The author deludes herself, thinking her white and
black readers have no idea how to relate, live on different planets, and, that DiAngelo is required to be their guide. She acts
like African-Americans speak a different language. She doesn't understand the concept of individuality very well, either, gneralizing
about everyone. "African-Americans are sensitive about their hair." IF this book represents "progress," we're in bad shape. 839
people found this helpful
Helpful
7 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Nonsense Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2018 This book is for guilty feeling white folks and blacks who need
to gravitate to oppression. There is no white fragility. What leads people out of the left is commercial trash like this. There
is no fear in white or anyone else about anything. There is no open forum and there is no out let for an open discussion anyway.
The generalization is what allows whites to leave the left. There should be a book about racial healing and not foster disorder
by identity politics. >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Counterproductive to overcoming racism Reviewed in the United States on March 4, 2019 The author of this book inadvertently
does a great job of showing the inherent racism, absence of logic and fact, insanity, self-righteousness, arrogance, and hypocrisy
of the viewpoint she is trying to sell.
First, I will give praise where it is due. I found the author's call to hear people out when they talk about how it feels to
be a minority in our country helpful and necessary. I also think her advice to really examine each of our own hearts when we are
confronted with another person offering criticism where our personal behavior toward people of color is insensitive, or revealing
of a feeling of superiority was very good.
The rest of the book, however, was bewildering. The author opens with an attack on all white people. She redefines racism as
something only white people can do. Whites are racist, not because of their thoughts or actions, but because of their very existence.
She says whites ordered their civilization primarily to place themselves in positions of power for the purpose of keeping people
of color down all over the globe. The author hates the two core beliefs that western civilization is built on – individualism
(the inherent value of the individual), and meritocracy (the idea that people should succeed based on talent and effort). She
says we will never be free of racism as she defined it, until we abolish these two core beliefs.
Naturally, not everyone is going to agree with a blanket application of guilt to all whites, or the author's view of history
(which is scantly substantiated), or view of western civilization (which many would view as having offered at least some good
things to the world). But if you disagree with any of this, you are said to be displaying your "white fragility."
The author lists many arguments that people have posed to her to demonstrate that they aren't racist, but are not acceptable
in her view. One of these is "I'm not racist because I'm married to a person of color." Unfortunately, the author says, that even
if you chose a person of color to be your life partner and have brought forth children of color into the world with them, you
are still a racist. As a white mother in a blended family, I would argue that many people view interracial marriage as one of
the best evidences of an integrated society that has got over its racism. The accusation that by my existence, I oppress my husband
and children is completely bizarre and hurtful. This is perhaps the most self-righteous, dictatorial, contradictory, blind, and
illogical thing in this book.
The author also talks a lot about how whites treat blacks like children who can't think for themselves. She references portrayal
of black characters in movies and TV as evidence. There is some justification for this, especially decades ago, but sensitivity
on this issue has improved a whole lot. Given her disdain for whites treating blacks like they can't think for themselves, I was
shocked when she chose to criticize Martin Luther King's famous quote: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character." She said that the vision
of that great black leader is actually not the correct view. She explains that it only reinforces the core beliefs of western
society of individualism and meritocracy, which it turn keeps blacks down, and whites in power. It is absolutely arrogant and
hypocritical for this white author to say that Martin Luther King, who gave his life fighting for his vision, didn't really mean
what he said.
There are many other things in this book that are problematic, but those were the worst for me. I can only hope that most people
who read this book will see the hatred, racism, and self-righteousness that echo through every page. From the author's account
of her mission to share the message of collective white guilt and hatred of western society with others, it's not being well received.
And that's very, very encouraging. 516 people found this helpful
Helpful
9 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Shallow, repetitive and condescending Reviewed in the United States on November 2, 2019
Verified Purchase DiAngelo spends much of this book re-defining both racist and white supremacist in broader non-standard
ways, then arguing that we live in a thoroughly racist and white supremacist world based on her definitions. She defines White
Fragility as anything short of enthusiastic agreement with all of her arguments, as if her understanding of things is objectively
true. She makes many assertions repeatedly, but she doesn't back them up with detailed supporting arguments. Question her, remain
silent, or leave the conversation and you're exhibiting your white fragility It's a neat rhetorical trick. Check out How to Be
an Anti-Racist by Ibrham Kendi for a much more thoughtful treatment of race issues. >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Perfect for the avarage whiny college liberal Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2019
Verified Purchase Probably has some important message, but I couldn't bear reading more than 70 pages, which, to be fair,
is more than half the book, but that's all I needed for my college class. Maybe more people would be interested in reading it
if the author used another title, and realized that insulting the people she was trying to help probably isn't the best course
of action. 283 people found this helpful
Helpful
2 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Nauseating Reviewed in the United States on May 28, 2019 If you love looking at everything in the world through the lens of
race and racism, if you find race and racism endlessly fascinating, then you'll love this book. If you're one of the many who've
realized that there are more healthy ways of looking at life and more constructive ways to talk about how to get along, you'll
likely find this one of the most nauseating books ever written.
Robin DiAngelo is drunk on her own power as a "diversity trainer," and she won't rest until every last white person has admitted
their guilt and submitted to her authority. If you resist, if you show signs that you think her whole obsession is unseemly or
downright disgusting, it will only confirm that she is right about you and that your only hope is to admit your own hopelessness
and follow her down, down, down. For there is no uplift in this religion she and her fellow fanatics have created, there is only
an ever-growing awareness of guilt, and how our "white fragility" in the face of this guilt is our deepest sin.
Just take a look at some quotes from the book's first pages:
"(W)hiteness is at once the means of dominance, the end to which dominance points, and the point of dominance, too, which,
in its purest form, in its greatest fantasy, never ends" (ix).
Is this true? Well, you'll just have to take her word for it, she's the expert, unless your "white fragility" still won't let
you.
"(A)ny gains we have made so far have come through identity politics" (xiii).
Really? Tell that to Martin Luther King Jr, who spoke the language of common humanity and united decent people across the country
to demand equal rights for black people in America, well before the language of "identity politics" (which is purely group-based)
came into vogue.
Ironically, as an example of how great "identity politics" has been, she writes, "a key issue in the 2016 presidential election
was the white working class" (xiv), without noting that the left's promotion of "identity politics" is what caused these "white
working class" Americans, most of whom voted for Obama, twice, to finally start identifying with their own "white identity" and
vote for Trump.
She speaks of "white identity" and "the white voice" as if these are factual things that unite all "white" people, but, to
promote herself and the dire need of her book, says her own white voice is "one of the many voices needed to solve the overall
puzzle" (xv), because "racism is deeply complex and nuanced, and given this, we can never consider our learning to be complete
or finished" (xv) -- lucky for those like her who make a career out of promoting these toxic ideas, eh?
If you can still stomach it, I'll leave you with a few more choice nuggets from the Introduction, but I recommend you imagine
her reading them at you accompanied by a laugh track, which can actually make it kind of fun:
Ours is "a society in which racial categories have profound meaning" (xvi); North America is "deeply separate and unequal by
race" (1); "Socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority, that we [white people] either are unaware of or can never
admit to ourselves, we become highly fragile in conversations about race," resulting in "behaviors such as argumentation, silence,
and withdrawal from the stress-inducing situation" (2); "If, however, I understand racism as a system into which I was socialized,
I can receive feedback on my problematic racial patterns as a helpful way to support my learning and growth .Such moments can
be experienced as something valuable, even if temporarily painful, only after we accept that racism is unavoidable and that it
is impossible to completely escape having developed problematic racial assumptions and behaviors" (5); "I believe that white progressives
cause the most daily damage to people of color" because "our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain
to us how we do so" (5); "This book does not attempt to provide the solution to racism .My goal is to make visible how one aspect
of white sensibility continues to hold racism in place: white fragility" (5).
I think she takes the easy way out by telling stories of white people pounding their fist or getting upset when talking about
racism. I don't know if that happened but you can't take one individuals reaction and make it seem like it is how white people
react if the mention of racism comes up.
I can understand that she needs to sell books. I was just hoping for something different. 210 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
Pseudo intellectual book that is obviously flawed.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Pseudo intellectual book that is obviously flawed. Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020
Verified Purchase It only takes a few pages in this book to recognize that Ms. DiAngelo does not really understand what she
is talking about. I took detailed notes as I read about her logical fallacies, misunderstandings, etc. and every page is littered
with notes. This book is shockingly poorly reasoned and it is terrifying that enough Americans think this is a good book to move
it to the NYT best seller list. I wish I hadn't purchased the book as I hate to give credibility to the authors incompetence.
The author starts by demonstrating that she has no idea what the concept of "individualism" is. She argues that individualism
means thinking that racial groups and other groups do not matter. However, individualism is quite the opposite. Individualism
arose due to discrimination against people based on their religion, race, etc. and was the idea that we should not discriminate
against people based on their group category. Ms. Diangelo shockingly completely misunderstands this. Thus, every time she talks
about "individualism" I cannot help but facepalm because she sounds so foolish.
She also does not understand the fallacy of equivocation. She often throws out the word "racism" or "racist." However, the
power of the word "racism" comes from the definition where we define it as someone who dislikes another race. We rightfully judge
someone who dislikes another race to be evil. Ms. Diangelo seems to want to pull the power from this definition and then redefine
racism to be merely existing as a white person in our society. But, this does not work. In fact, her equivocation is in fact racist
(aka evil). She is trying to imply that merely existing as a white person means you are racist and thereby demean white people.
I could go page by page explaining her logical missteps, but that would take a whole book. Instead, I would suggest if you
do decide to read this book, turn on your critical thinking skills and really analyze what she is saying. You will be shocked
by how poorly reasoned this book is. 188 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
The worst book on race relations ever written. Reviewed in the United States on December 2, 2018 When I read about how Blacks
oppress their own people and it benefits Whites, my stomach turned. Excuse me, as a White woman it is not to my benefit, to societies
benefit, and I'm not responsibility for the decisions of others. The book would have people believe Blacks are oppressed and it
is the fault of Whites. We have many successful Blacks in this country. A Black man was POTUS and the entire family is successful,
they are not alone. This book is inflammatory towards race relations. 308 people found this helpful
Helpful
3 comments Report abuse >
It's repetitive and redundant, repetitive and redundant
1.0 out of 5 stars
It's repetitive and redundant, repetitive and redundant Reviewed in the United States on October 14, 2019
Verified Purchase I'm going to forge on and try to finish this book. I'm in the second chapter and it is very repetitive and
redundant. Like another reviewer said, she paints a picture of damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's hard for me to keep
going because of her repetitiveness. 219 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Is there even a conversation? Reviewed in the United States on April 24, 2020
Verified Purchase This book comes off as being enlightened, and I will admit that it draws attention to important matters
regarding race. My issue is that the author comes off as incredibly arrogant and the book sounds very self-congratulatory. For
example, she states "Because I am seen as somewhat more racially aware from other whites...." this comes off as both arrogant
and presumptuous. Even though she acknowledges her whiteness, it seems somewhat ironic that a white woman is writing an authoritative
text on race- talk about the white savior! I am interested in race studies, and I have encountered many texts that address the
issue of race and racism, which is an undeniably difficult topic, but those sources did not come off as arrogant and pedantic
as this. 183 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Oh look, more division Reviewed in the United States on March 24, 2019 Probably shouldn't insult those you wish to share common
ground. Racism is wrong. Period. But the idea of insulting whites as "fragile" I get that's a spicy title to raise eyebrows but
in 2019, in a country where people of any race or ethnicity or sex can do basically anything in this country, why push this narrative
further?! We need to all unite. My dad did when he married a Hispanic immigrant and made me. Is my dad fragile? He's white. Is
he racist by default? The preconceived stereotypes here are egregious and inforgiveable. More click bait social media sensical,
identity political, trash. 261 people found this helpful
Helpful
4 comments Report abuse >
How come she is a consultant and trainer on racial issues???
1.0 out of 5 stars
How come she is a consultant and trainer on racial issues??? Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020
Verified Purchase As an Asian immigrant who grew up in Europe and who have recently relocated to the USA, I find the racial
division of "white" and "people of color" ridiculous and discriminatory. This kind of division invalidates people's personal experiences.
I find it WRONG to be put in the same category as African Americans, Asian Americans or Latin Americans who were born and raised
in the US!
Mrs. Robin DiAngelo and her points of view only consolidate this wrong categorization. At the beginning of the book, she states
that "white" people get their "white supremacist" ideas from mainstream media. And then, in the end, she advises them to seek
out information on the racial topic "from books, websites, films, and other available sources."
Moreover, she continuously proved herself as an ignorant, racist person. How come she is a consultant and trainer on racial issues???
173 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
Cult indoctrination for those unwilling think forbidden thoughts
1.0 out of 5 stars
Cult indoctrination for those unwilling think forbidden thoughts Reviewed in the United States on November 28, 2018 The racial
gap narrative takes a new low. The ever evolving progressive conspiracy theory to explain the black v. white attainment gap changes
again. It's no longer lack of access, it's no longer basic prejudice, instead it is now a cultural milieu that you can't ever
escape. Beg for forgiveness and flog yourself at the new church without salvation. A nation that benefits it's founding stocks'
values, the idea behind most all nation states, is now castigated. Well, who is this nation supposed to serve? The traditional
gate keepers don't hold weight anymore, the forbidden secrets why the world is the way it is are out there and these silly narratives
aren't going to last much longer. 274 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
The topic is one that we must be willing to explore, to engage in conversation about and to strive to be better, but what does
better mean? Diangelo argues that we as human beings all have prejudices, which is unavoidable. Also, that their effect on how
we consume and process information is also unavoidable. So then is better simply about outward behavior and our ability to actually
change how we think limited?
There are important points in this book that should be contemplated and drive understanding and awareness. Most notably, if
you grew up as part of the group that was in power (race, gender, religion, etc.) then you were conditioned to think of your group
as the norm and every other group as the exception. It is just like when you think everyone else has an accent, but you do not.
Likewise, those messages were reinforced in literature, art, movies, television and advertising. If you grew up not a member of
the group in power, those messages were relentless that you were not the norm or not the ideal. Think about what that does to
your psyche on either side of the equation.
The definition used in this book are that prejudice is at the individual level in the mind of a single person, which may or
may not be accompanied by an outward act driven by that prejudiced mindset called discrimination. Racism is when those prejudiced
thoughts, decisions and acts are committed overtly or tacitly by the racial group holding the power and form a systemic set of
challenges to anyone not in that group. This is all fine and a very logical definition set to explore the topic.
The shortcoming in the analysis of Diangelo is that she fails to articulate that by her own premise that everyone has inescapable
prejudiced thoughts by virtue of being a human being, that any racial group who happens to be in a position of power is therefore
inescapably going to be racist. She says that any group other than whites cannot be racist because they do not have the power.
However, in doing so she disregards the work of Pierre Bourdieu's, which she leverages in chapter 7 as he asserts that "field",
the social context including who has power and who does not, is not a universal homogenous force, but rather has macro and micro
fields in which different groups have the power in different settings. Therefore, by her own definitions, there would be macro
and micro fields of racism benefitting whichever race is in power in that field setting.
By failing to hold true to her own premises, she relegates racism to a white problem rather than to human problem. In doing
so her writing style is often accusatory, argumentative, pandering and self-fulfilling in that if you want to explore her assumptions,
premises and context, then you are labeled a racist. This is very much in the style of the cable news network echo chamber where
a real dialogue cannot exist because you are shouted down at the slightest sign of anything less than 100% agreement. Further,
rather than exploring deeper into these topics, Diangelo stretches about 20 pages of content into 154 pages through exponential
repetition of the same few points and lists of examples of racism, results of racism and assumptions underlying racism, which
are also bloated with repetitive remarks.
The issue isn't white fragility, it is human fragility in that we as humans are predisposed to attribute success to our own
efforts and failures to outside forces and likewise the failures of others to their efforts, yet their successes to outside forces.
Anything that challenges this way of thinking strikes at human fragility regardless of your race. 163 people found this helpful
Helpful
2 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not worth reading Reviewed in the United States on August 12, 2019
Verified Purchase This book was poorly reasoned, without any references or factual backup for what are essentially her personal
opinions. 188 people found this helpful
A growing number of Americans feel that the political
climate is preventing them from sharing their views, according to a new
survey
by the Cato Institute.
The institute surveyed 2,000 Americans and found that 62 percent are reluctant to share their views due to the political climate.
In 2017, 58 percent of people surveyed expressed the same opinion.
Republicans are much more likely to be afraid to share their opinions than Democrats and independents, the survey found. More
than 3 in 4 Republicans -- 77 percent -- said they are afraid to share their views compared to 52 percent of the Democrats and 59
percent of the independents.
The reluctance to share one's views appears to grow as respondents shift right on the political spectrum, the survey found.
Compared to 2017, the reluctance to share one's views increased across the political spectrum. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives
were all 7 percent more likely to be afraid to express their opinions.
The increase in reluctance was more pronounced among strong liberals, rising 12 points to 42 percent, compared to 2017. Reluctance
to share their views among strong conservatives notched up 1 point to 77 percent.
"This suggests that it's not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse,"
Emily Ekins, research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute, wrote about the survey.
"Instead these results are more consistent with a 'walking on eggshells' thesis that people increasingly fear a wide range
of political views could offend others or negatively impact themselves."
The self censorship cut across demographic groups as well, with roughly 2 in 3 Latino Americans and white Americans and nearly
half of African Americans holding views they are afraid to share. More men (65 percent) than women (59 percent) said the political
climate prevents them from speaking their mind.
The Cato Institute also polled respondents on whether they would support firing someone if they had donated to President Donald
Trump or presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
The cancel culture manifested stronger among staunch
liberals than staunch conservatives. Half of all the people who identified as staunch liberals said they would support firing Trump
donors, compared to 36 percent of staunch conservatives who would support firing someone who donated to Biden.
Nearly a third of Americans said they are afraid that their political views may cost them their jobs or career opportunities.
In line with the results on cancel culture, the fear was slightly stronger among conservatives (34 percent) than liberals (31 percent).
The Washington Post has settled a $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Covington
Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann for an undisclosed amount, after the teen claimed
the left-leaning news outlet 'led the hate campaign' against him following a racially charged
January, 2019 incident at the March for Life Rally at the Lincoln Memorial.
Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video
clip from the incident, in which the teenager, seen wearing a MAGA hat, appeared to be mocking
a Native American man beating a drum (a known political grifter who
lied about the incident , and
stole valor ).
The following day, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely
nothing wrong - as the Native American, Nathan Phillips, aggressively approached Sandmann and
beat a drum in his face.
In a tweet on his 18th birthday, Sandmann wrote "On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation
lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit."
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sandmann is also suing ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill and NBC Universal.
The kid needs to add NPR to his hit list. Their reporting of it made me permanently
stop listening to that channel (in a vain attempt to hear both sides of the narrative,
you know give the MSM a chance to be honest etc). Good on him for suing and winning
because that's the only way we'll be able to get rid of the drivel that calls itself news
these days.
ay_arrow
VideoEng_NC , 9 minutes ago
Every one of these news sources is screwed, it's going to be euphoric knowing each
judgment means their accounting dept has to cut a fat check. Nick, don't forget the
individuals on the list like Sen Warren & Ellen. Redistribute their wealth to your
account young man, tell em' it's for a cause they should be supporting.
y_arrow
Mzhen , 22 minutes ago
A Washington Post reporter was retweeting the viral video clip by 8:00 a.m. the next
morning. The first Washington Post story was being published online that day (Saturday)
at the same time a group of about 60 Indians was descending on the Bascilica of the
National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception with the intention of disrupting the mass
and reading their list of "demands," which included college educations being denied to
Nick and his classmates.
The Post really played up the anti-Catholic angle in ensuing stories. So if there was
email coordination between the Indian march organizers and the Post , they couldn't
afford to have it come out in discovery.
play_arrow
nsurf9 , 30 minutes ago
His lawyers should have required WaPo publish an apology and name those on its staff
that were responsible for their intentional libel - in bold, headline font - right on its
figging FRONT PAGE - FOR A SOLID MONTH !
I am not Black, and I have never been a professional sports fan. I did enjoy high school
sports when I was in high school. It wasn't tainted by money, just home-town pride. I can still
feel the pride I felt when my home-town team took a state baskeball chanpionship my senior yar.
We had no star players. We had a group of boys who were good friends of us and of their
teammates. We could honelstly say we won that chanpionship becaue of TEAMWORK. No player was
paid or recruited. They were just good friends of each other. No one tried to be the star
player.
As for the taking the knee to the national anthem, I'm going to blame that on school
districs all across the country. I was teaching when it became the norm for public schools
either to stop asking students to stand and say the "Pledge of Allegiance" or to allow those
who did not want to stand and say it to remain seated.
I can't tell you how much that angered me. I always stood and said it and stared at each one
who did not stand and say it--looking at each one of them one at a time.
I am the proud grandchild of Germans from Russia immigrants. They were called "Dirty
Russians" and were often paid less than the law required for their stoop work thinning beets in
the fields becaue they could not read English to learn how much they were supposed to be paid.
They had escaped the Bolsheviks who stole their farms for the failed communist experiements in
factory farming and communal farming. They endured the prejudice with dignity and with a
determination that they would work hard so their children and grandchildren could enjoy the
freedoms of the USA. I have the photos of my grandparents on my mom's and my dad's side as they
obtained their citizenshp.
I know my ethnic group or racial heritage did not come out of slavery, but neither did my
families' ethnic groups have many thousands of white young men fighting and dying to abolish
slavery and thus allow expslaves and their descendants to obtain citizenship.
I know that the Blacks did have to fight hard to grasp those freedoms. But I also know that
many caucasian people fought alongside them to do that.
Why aren't the Blacks in the cities like Chicago and Milwauki and New York, for example,
working hard to get rid of the leadership in those cities that do nothing really to improve
conditions for the Black minorities in those cities. And why aren't their Black leaders giving
them examples or setting up good systems for them to do that rather than just encouraging them
as they riot and complain?
I do know it's not a simple thing to acieve, but I have seen little progress since the
powerful "I have a Dream" speech except, perhaps, in reagard to many Black families who have
taken the leap to leave the cities and move to smaller towns and cities and beccome part of the
middle class.
I worked once in Indianapolis as a humane educator for the city's Humane Society. The state
had mandated that every child in public schools in that state had to have one lesson in humane
education each year. We were always at some public school giving one of oour prepared programs.
What surprised me were the many Black children in the majority Black schools who would scream
with fright when I brought our mascot bassett hound to a program. He was the least frightening
example of a dangerous dog one could find. I learned from the teachers it was because the Black
parents kept alive in their children the stories of Black runaway slaves being shased down by
whites with tracking dogs.
This was in the mid-seventies and in Indianapolis. I don't know what that experience says in
regard to today's topic. But maybe it's part of the lesson that at some time, people of all
colors need to leave the past in the past.
Off topic: LJ, I watched Pulp Fiction when it came out in our local theater surrouned by
some evil looking bikers. I had been the designated mother to take three teenaged boys to that
movie who were not quite old enough to be let in without an adult. Those boys did not want to
be embarrassed by having a mommie there, so the sent me back to a row further back in the
theater. Some late coming bikers came in and sat all around me. It was quite an experience.
They were taking it very seriously, not seeing the dark "humor" I was seeing.
Corporations that provide generous donations and free propaganda to keep all the social
justice warriors in business have one goal in mind---keeping the supply of cheap foreign labor
freely available to them whether those foreign workers are in China or are here in the USA
legally or illegally.
2.0 out of 5 stars
A
most dangerous book
Reviewed in the United States on March 9, 2019
Verified Purchase
I'm on a school board and recently two fifth grade African-American students caused an
uproar in their classroom when they claimed that, because they were black, they could not be racist. Only the white kids could
be, and in fact were, racist. Suffice to say that the other students (White, Brown, and Asian) in the class were a bit
confrontational to these statements from these two students. Fast forward to their parents demanding a meeting with board
members, the Executive Director of the schools, the principal, the teacher, etc. This book was the source of their information.
As outlandish as such a claim could be, sure enough, page 20 spells this out. "When a racial group's collective prejudice is
backed by the power of legal authority and institutional control, it is transformed into racism." I am a Latinx and never have
seen such a dangerous statement of propaganda to Western society. For this, I cannot recommend this book because it gives a get
out of jail free card concerning racism for all non-whites in Western societies.
Secondly, it pretends to be a scholarly document but is in fact, a short treatise, full of jargon, and out right plain gibberish.
Essentially, this book is pseudo social science. I'll provide a single sentence, as an example, from page 22; "Racism differs
from individual racial prejudice and racial discrimination in the historical accumulation and ongoing use of institutional power
and authority to support the prejudice and to systematically enforce discriminatory behaviors with far-reaching effects."
I believe this white female author means well, but the book is truly full of dangerous ideas. Please do not purchase this book
and, more importantly, please do not read such awful propaganda.
One of the premises of the book is that minorities can't be racist; only whites.
>
2.0 out of 5 stars
Semi-Marxist
drivel
Reviewed in the United States on April 30, 2019
Verified Purchase
This author is consumed with Marxist doctrine and packages it in a racist cloak. Best
example I can give is the assertion that there two fundamental racist flaws in Western civilization, those being the principles
of individualism and meritocracy. One is supposed to treasure group-think and total equality of reward, regardless of achievement
or innovation. I bought this to discover the source of left-leanings of my Millenial grandson and his girlfriend. I feel sorry
that they could swallow such an egregious false logic diatribe. I've suggested they spend a year in Syria, Venezuela, or Turkey
to find out about the real world. Sadly, they won't, but will continue to regurgitate this vomitous stuff.
>
A
Landmark Book. Yes, a shipwreck can be an important landmark.
2.0 out of 5 stars
A
Landmark Book. Yes, a shipwreck can be an important landmark.
Reviewed in the United States on January 23, 2019
If you want to understand the zeitgeist behind the assertions that you, as a white person,
are single handedly responsible for correcting all of the race related ills in America, you should read this book. If you're not
into extreme self flagellation, you may need to prepare yourself, first.
The book is a collection of anecdotes concerning the authors experience teaching others of her kind how to sit down and shut up
and take responsitbity for all of the race-based transgressions committed by society past, present, and future; regardless of how
little relation, control, or personal responsibility you as an individual may have had related to those transgressions. Racism,
in the authors view, has nothing to do with individual intentions and actions. It's baked into the system, and you are a key part
of that.
To advance her thesis without clutter, the author neatly defines racism as something only a white person can exhibit. And
something white people engage in as a matter of their very existence - regardless of their actions or intentions. If you are
white and breathing, you are racist. In case I'm not making myself clear: All white peoples are by-definition racist, and only
white people are capable of racism. An African American cannot, by the authors definition, be racist - no matter what they do or
say. Even if they engage in the exact same behavior as a racist white person. This makes it much easier to to clearly assign
blame, and the book is thankfully short, as a result.
There are factual errors, as one would expect from a book based primarily on recollection and secondhand sources not carefully
vetted. One that comes to mind is around p92 where the author asserts that affirmative action programs are misunderstood by the
general public, that no one has ever been hired preferentially even though they were not qualified, and that these programs only
applied to government positions. Having mentored new hires who were brought on 1-2 levels above me in a technical private sector
job until they were capable of doing what I had yet to be promoted to do, I know her facts to be in error on that score. Maybe
that doesn't happen now, but it did happen in the past. No doubt, there are other errors in areas for which I don't have ground
truth and total recall. The reader should do their homework if they don't want to internalize innacurate data as axiomatic.
I give this book two stars because I think it is important. This book is important because, as a NYT Bestseller, it clearly
illustrates the rabbit-hole we as a society are speeding down into full throttle. If you want to better understand how we ended
up with the government we currently have, and what the inevitable crash will be like at the end of this bizarre exercise in
deconstructing a successful society, it should be a useful read.
>
This book is written as if by an abusive, gaslighting partner - you are just wrong, she knows you better than you know yourself,
and you're a liar if you disagree with her. You are automatically delusional and lecherous and subtly hateful simply because of
the color of your skin. At best, you are unenlightened. Either way, because you have a specific skin color, she argues, again and
again, you are (morally) inferior in this country. And that is literally the definition of racism.
She redefines the term early on, but her definition is way too convenient - and not what the word actually means. Unfortunately,
in this book she becomes everything she's writing against.
We need to understand one another. White people like me want to better understand the racial dynamic in this country so we can
avoid or change the inherent prejudices that we know exist in our culture and in ourselves. Sharing the black experience with us
helps. Pretending to be an expert on how white people think ... is just a misguided, horrible idea - and as offensive (for being
so wrong) as it is when white people pretend to understand the black experience.
But books like this are like signs at a rally - written in hard strokes with a clenched fist - and this one has about the same
subtlety and precision. I give it two stars because it has the quality - like one of those signs - of stirring up emotions and
conversations, which is valuable.
Perhaps the author wouldn't have to use the term "fragile" if she were better at taking to and about white people as if they were
... actually people, and not white devils. How could any result but defensiveness be possible with such an approach?
When people are deaf, I understand that you have to shout. But you don't have to shout insults. That really just makes things
worse.
>
2.0 out of 5 stars
Exploiting
the White Liberal Guilt Complex
Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020
Verified Purchase
In "White Fragility: Why It's So Hard For White People To Talk About Racism," Robin Diangelo
claims that we whites do not want to talk about our racism because we do not want to admit that we are racists. Robin Diangelo
expects whites to be forever saying the secular equivalent of "Forgive me Father for I have sinned." The civil rights legislation
that we passed and the anti poverty programs designed specifically to help blacks that we finance with our tax money were not
nearly enough to absolve us of our guilt. The fact that blacks still tend to be less prosperous than we are is proof of our
sinful nature. Black problems are my fault, my own fault, my own most grievous fault. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Robin Diangelo is a professional diversity consultant. She earns a good living telling groups of whites how racist they are.
In her Introduction Robin Diangelo writes, "I am a white woman. I am standing beside a black woman. We are facing a group of
white people in front of us. We are in their workplace and have been hired by their employer to lead them in a dialogue about
race." When she discovers that many of them are angry at her she responds with hurt innocence, saying, "I have after all, only
articulated a definition of racism."
I suspect they were angry because their employer required them to sit through the scolding of two well paid Social Justice
Warriors, and they knew that it would be dangerous for them to discuss their opinions. In an environment like this, blacks are
encouraged to talk about how whites have hurt their feelings. This is not the dialogue on race the United States needs to have.
This is totalitarian re education. In a real dialogue, whites will be able to safely talk about how we feel about blacks and why.
Without endangering their careers geneticists will be able to discuss their discoveries of genes that determine intelligence and
influence criminal and sexual behavior, and how these genes are found in different proportions among the races.
When a white school teacher makes a comment about her experience with a black person that Robin Diangelo condemns as "racially
problematic," she tells the school teacher, "I am going to ask you to consider not telling that story in that way again I am only
asking you to try to listen with openness." After making it clear that she will not listen to the white school teacher, Robin
Diangelo expects the white school teacher to listen to her. This is a monologue on race that she is forcing white employees to
endure in order to safeguard their jobs.
When she dismisses the right of whites who participated in civil rights demonstrations to claim to be innocent of racism, Robin
Diangelo asks, "Might many [white civil rights activists] have dominated discussions, not listen to others, and assumed to know
what was best?" She has described herself.
Robin Deangelo writes, we "see stereotypical depictions of black people in the media we live in a culture that circulates
relentless messages of white superiority."
What culture is she writing about? The message we currently get from Hollywood movies and television programs is that blacks
perform and behave at least as well as whites. If a white person kills a black man, even in self defense, that is reported
nationally. The media takes the side of the black man, even when, as is nearly always the case, he was breaking a law. When a
black man kills a white person to rob him or her, the local newspaper frequently does not report the event, or refuses to report
the race of the criminal.
In the "Shaft" movie, the protagonist John Shaft is described as "a sex machine with all the chicks" (rather than as a
responsible husband and father, which John Shaft definitely is not). This description is presented as a complement.
Robin Deangelo writes, "Today we depict blacks as dangerous, a portrayal that perverts the true direction of violence between
whites and blacks since the founding of this country." She does not seem to realize it, but times have changed. In the America
that has resulted from the civil rights movement, whites are far more likely to be victims of black violence than the other way
around.
She claims, "Affirmative action is a tool to ensure that qualified minority applicants are given the same employment
opportunities as white people." Again she lives in a world of her imagination. Affirmative action discriminates against whites
and Orientals, lowers standards for blacks, and advances many blacks to positions where they are unable to perform adequately.
She writes, "A 2015 study by the American Sociological Foundation found that the the highest level of segregation is between
blacks and whites, the lowest is between [East] Asians and whites, and the level between Latinx and whites occupies an
intermediate position."
I feel almost embarrassed to have to explain why this is true: East Asians have a crime rate that is slightly lower than the
white crime rate; Hispanics have a crime rate that is somewhat higher than the white crime rate; blacks have a crime rate that is
eight times the white crime rate.
Robin Diangelo writes, "George Zimmerman would not have stopped me as I walked through a gated suburban neighborhood." That is
because middle aged white women have an incomparably lower crime rate than young black men. If George Zimmerman had followed a
young white man, the young white man would probably have walked over to George Zimmerman, keeping his hands in sight, and
apologized for creating suspicion. Then he would have explained who he was and why he was there. That is what I did in a similar
situation. It is the way civilized people behave.
Robin Diangelo claims that the worst racists are the whites who deny that they are racist. She dislikes the line in Martin Luther
King's "I have a dream" speech, where he says, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
She writes, "Anti-blackness is rooted in misinformation, fables, perversions, projections and lies." What misinformation? What
lies? What she writes is true of the anti racism Robin Diangelo expresses in White Fragility. Again and again in this book she
makes statements that are either misleading, or not true. She is used to getting away with this because she is used to speaking
before captive audiences of white employees who have been ordered to attend her scolding lectures, with the understanding that if
they express their opinions they will be risking their jobs.
When I am told that I am a racist, I do not say that I have had black friends, although I have. I do not say that I have a high
opinion of East Asians, although I do. I ask two questions: "What did I say that is not true? How do you define racism?"
I do not use the n word. I do not tell racist jokes. I readily acknowledge that there are some blacks who perform and behave
better than most whites. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. The fear of being called a "racist" interferes with the
dialogue on race people like Robin Diangelo claim to be leading, while doing everything they can to suppress.
>
Important
topic, absolutely wrong conceptually and factually
2.0 out of 5 stars
Important
topic, absolutely wrong conceptually and factually
Reviewed in the United States on October 16, 2019
Verified Purchase
White racism, and racism in general, is an important issue and the author is
well-intentioned. However, she also ignores almost all of the empirical research evidence on racism/ethnocentrism in the US, and
consequently creates a highly inaccurate racial binary in which white people are always racist and clueless, and black people are
always virtuous and aware. In her scheme, other racial and ethnic groups apparently don't exist, or don't matter (although she
does mention others occasionally and vaguely). This odd concept of white fragility ignores the overwhelming evidence that racist
whites--whether overt or covert racists--are not fragile, but quite solid in their sense of racial superiority. They do not react
defensively because they feel insecure, but because they will not tolerate (in their minds) an uppity whatever kind of non-white
person to challenge white hegemony. While she is correct that white racism has more institutional power than other forms of
discrimination, her own concept of "fragility" undermines her larger argument that white racism is encoded in the dominant
culture and institutions that reinforces white racism. Which one is it? Whites are insecure and fragile, or socially dominant and
in charge? Her answer seems to be both (see for example her discussion on page 90 and following the paperback version). The
reality is that not all white people are racist, not all black people are virtuous, and the intersection of race, class, gender,
sexuality, age, religion, and many other social groups opens the door to all kinds of discrimination in a society based on power
and domination in general. Consequently, racism and ethnocentrism occur more or less equally across all demographic groups,
although the target varies. For example, almost all groups in the US hold strongly negative ethnocentric attitudes toward
Muslims, and many American-born Latinix condemn impoverished refugees fleeing oppression and war in Central America when they
look for sanctuary in the US. DiAngelo treats race and ethnicity as the same thing, which perhaps explains why she can't see
cultural discrimination. Instead, I recommend Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality
in America by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (a book that DiAngelo cites inaccurately).
>
There's
a Difference Between 'Many Preconceived Notions' and 'Racism' that the Author...
2.0 out of 5 stars
There's
a Difference Between 'Many Preconceived Notions' and 'Racism' that the Author...
Reviewed in the United States on February 9, 2020
Verified Purchase
It's one thing to have Pre-Conceived Notions but be willing to change one's mind based on
new info, and people who are 'Racist' and won't budge on their views for anything. The author doesn't distinguish between this,
which is sad. That says it all there, about this book. Good points are made, but one has to wade through the repeated assertion
that we are all 'racist' to get to them. No, we all have Pre-Conceived Notions (at a minimum.) I really feel we need some
different terms to describe the differing degrees of what's going on.
I spent 15 years living in a very mixed neighborhood in Tampa, where no ethnic group was larger than 45% (not 'White'. They were
never more than 30%, tops,) and I don't think I heard one racist joke while I was there. When a person knows 3 people who belong
to any group having the joke told about them, those 'jokes' lose all relevancy. I really feel Integration would do worlds of good
for coming to see everyone for the human being that they are, and would single-handedly do away with a lot of the problems that
revolve around ethnicity.
I did hear ethnic references, but they were almost on a level of everyday Cultural Anthropology, not prejudice. "...She's from
Puerto Rico, so 'x' mannerism means..." Things like that. It's just a default until we know better, and know for sure.
Yes, we do need to talk about race. Different mannerisms and statistics ~do~ apply to different groups. If we're ever going to
address it, then we need to talk about it. Otherwise, it gets suppressed and simply festers, leading to no progress, and even
things getting worse.
I don't miss the poverty of that neighborhood, but I do miss the way people tended to default to seeing each other as people, and
bothered to get to know one another first. I had a lot of good experiences, learning to overcome my own Pre-Conceived Notions
there, and more. Now, in a much higher income bracket, I feel the walls going up again as a lot of people (but not all,) in
'minority' groups look at me and assume, "Oh, she's White. She can't possibly empathize." Well, yes and no. Hopefully I'm at
least somewhat aware, and always trying to be more aware, though I can never live in someone else's shoes.
1.0 out of 5 stars
A
new false religion of white guilt
Reviewed in the United States on June 17, 2020
Verified Purchase
Robin DiAngelo asserts that there has been no racial progress in the US since
the 1960s. Indeed, racism might even be worse now since white people less readily admit to being racist. In that one
respect, self-described white nationalists are more progressive than white liberals -- at least the former admit
their racism! But if that's the true, then why should we hope that this new crusade against racism is likely to be
any more successful than the last one? Oddly, she suggests some people want to return to the past, and she means this
as a criticism. But if there's been no genuine progress, then why shouldn't we return to the past? This is one of
many examples of the inconsistencies that plague this absurd book.
Her account is simplistic and essentializing in the extreme. She explicitly says that it's impossible for a non-white
person in the U.S. to be a racist. So if a black person goes into a mostly white church and shoots it up out of
hatred for white people nothing even a little bit racist has occurred, according to DiAngelo. Since only white people
occupy positions of power, only they can be racist. She presents this as a sophisticated account of racism, though it
is in fact a redefinition. A redefinition, however, that is only rhetorically effective if we continue to associate
racism with things like lynching and forced segregation. This becomes clear when we consider what rhetorical impact
the book would have had if DiAngelo had just used a completely different term.
She also seems committed to the view that all white people in the US are racists, though she doesn't say that
explicitly, as far as I recall. But if only some white people were racists, then she should believe people's denials.
The whole point of the book is to say that any denial, an especially an indignant denial, of white racism is itself a
tool in the service of white supremacy. Your denial is further evidence of your guilt. So confess and be a good ally
and... then what? Can we ever get beyond racism, personally and collectively? It's hard to see how DiAngelo's picture
leaves any room for this. DiAngelo envisions nothing beyond identity politics. She thinks there never has been
anything but identity politics, and that there never will be. Oddly, that empowers the very white racists she
opposes, who can now say "See, everyone else is engaging in racial politics, so why can't we?"
Although DiAngelo says racism is structural, it's quite clear that she thinks all white people including herself are
guilty since they are all to varying degrees complicit -- note the moral significance of the word -- with that
structure. It's like original sin in Christianity except that there is no savior, no hope for ultimate redemption and
only some people have original sin. DiAngelo is correct that no one is completely unbiased, but she uses this
psychological fact about human foibles exclusively as a weapon with which to silence anyone who reacts negatively to
the religion of white guilt she is promoting. DiAngelo considers her own racism, in fairness, but she doesn't ever
say anything to suggest that she has the slightest doubts about the sweeping and simplistic framework through which
she interprets essentially all human interactions. She also doesn't tell us how much money she is making on the
corporate anti-racism gravy train, but as a member of the Diversity Industrial Complex she is assuredly well
compensated for her labors.
At one point, she describes a woman who is so disturbed by being confronted with the supposedly racist impact of her
words, that her friends worry she is having a heart attack. DiAngelo takes this to show the lengths white people will
go to in order to avoid confronting their racism. At no point does she show any compassion for that woman, say she
might need to reconsider the impact of her own words, or even tell us whether she was ok. Clearly DiAngelo doesn't
care and doesn't want her readers to care.
That this book is being taken so seriously by so many people should be deeply alarming. It's sloppy argued and
appears to be motivated by a kind of pathological guilt bordering on masochism.
112 people found this helpful
Helpful
1 comment
Report
abuse
>
Warning:
This book was written by a racist who hates you for your skin color. Let that sink in.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Warning:
This book was written by a racist who hates you for your skin color. Let that sink in.
Reviewed in the United States on June 15, 2020
Verified Purchase
I can't believe how powerful subversion can be. We had all but eradicated racism
in our country, only for it to come back in full force by the very people who wanted to eradicate it in the first
place. Since the 1990s to now, we've gone from teaching our kids that 'skin color doesn't matter' to 'skin color is
all that matters'. That's why we're seeing books like this. We're living in scary times, folks. If you leave a 5-star
reviews for propaganda like this, you're part of the problem. You don't solve racism with more racism. Don't give
money to people who hate you.
111 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report
abuse
>
1.0 out of 5 stars
Subversive,
Race-Baiting Garbage
Reviewed in the United States on June 1, 2020
There are so many historical and factual inaccuracies in this book it should be
considered embarrassing to the author. However, when you are writing a White Guilt propaganda manual, I suppose facts
don't matter much.
The title of the book alone makes a racist, presumptuous case that White people are "fragile" because of their skin
color. Would this author dare to discuss Black Fragility? Asian Fragility? Jewish Fragility? How about the high rate
of Black criminality per capita, or the number of fatherless homes that lead to Black crime and incarceration? How
about the growing trend of liberal academic race-blaming that has led to street attacks in the USA and throughout the
West? She could even have looked at the amount of money spent by mostly Democrat politicians in the US to combat
poverty... trillions of dollars that never seems to make a dent in Black and Hispanic communities or help with
community cohesion? She could have written about any of those things to help offer solutions of racism and "feelings
of inequality". But no, White Fragility it is. Because Whiteness, the existence of White people, is the greatest
problem in the highly indoctrinated minds of the "well-meaning" liberal academics. THAT is what is holding Brown
folks down in her view.
She Wouldn't Dare criticize any other group the way she does with "fragile Whites", because she knows full well that
the outrage mob would come for her and burn her at the stake. This book isn't about having an honest conversation
about issues propping up racial conflict in Western countries. It isn't about easing Black misgivings toward Whites,
and it certainly isn't about helping White people in any fashion.
It is about pinning blame on a group she deems guilty by default.
The text makes the argument that Whites should make special concessions for people outside their own ingroup
interests, telling them to put aside their own life experiences as less valuable than people of other race's
experiences. This is allegedly to so Whites can have "better conversations about race", and better "understand" (aka
give priority consideration to) other groups who openly blame them for their own unhappiness, grievances, failures,
and insecurities.
She presumes to know where all White people are coming from in terms of understanding, perception and outlook, and
she has ZERO basis for that. Her "academic" assumption is in itself racist. But hey, White people, you should still
give up your "fragile world view" to lend a compassionate ear (aka, you must accept some one else's view of you, your
less important experiences, and your race as the gospel), because the current trending belief is that only your group
can be a racist...you know, because of the "power and privilege" you receive from having lesser melanin.
In other words, she wants you to understand that the people calling you racist for not "listening" to them have a
problem with YOUR skin color. But that's entirely your fault.
The fact is, just like other races, White people vary culturally, religiously, and socio-economically. Whites are not
autonomous. They don't all think the same and should never be taught to believe their experiences are lesser, or
invalid, because someone else says so, or because their experience is more important.
Skin color is NOT the cause of world's problems. You can lay the grand majority of the world's social problems right
now squarely on the shoulders of deeply disingenuous, fact-denying academics who are trying to use a shame and blame
strategy to shape the world into their utopian view of what it should be. White Fragility indeed. The author might as
well take the Van Jones or Obama eugenics approach and say Whites are racist because of their DNA.
Books like this are utter subversive garbage that do nothing but dredge up hostility between groups that would
otherwise get along with each other f people like the author didn't constantly make it a point to tell one group that
the other group owes them something because of the color of their skin.
Authors like this aren't out to solve issues of racism, their goal is ultimately to indoctrinate gullible people into
believing that Whites deserve to "answer" to other groups. It is using the unquantifiable rhetoric of White Fragility
to foster White Guilt in people who really do want to ease tensions between the races.
Books like this do more harm than good. White Fragility isn't why its so hard for people to talk about racism. Lies
from left-leaning academics with an agenda to push are why honest conversations about race cannot and do not take
place in our society today.
127 people found this helpful
>
White privilege exists and white people benefit from it from birth whether they want to or intend to.
Had she only stopped after these points were made, this book (with a different title) could have been so helpful.
These are good and necessary points and open discussion regarding same would have been a great starting place; however, Ms.
DiAngelo closes the door to any open discussion about racism, and does so in a way that seems self-hating of her own
whiteness.
Take the name of the book "White Fragility" and think of one example where you could call someone fragile and not have it be
an insult. There isn't one. So before the cover is opened she's given you a hint of how she will proceed, i.e., "you're bad
(weak and fragile) and there's nothing you can do about it." She then goes on to generalize that ALL white people suffer from
fragility and that ANY reaction to her narrative - including not responding to it at all - is evidence and proof of you being
a fragile person and unable to handle racism. She has now closed any door to discussing racism because white people are not
allowed to respond to her discussion, other than to meekly say "yes ma'am, I'm bad because I exist".
Having made her point that all white people are bad, fragile, and racist, (even if they don't mean to be - at least she gives
them that), Ms. DiAngelo devolves into following the Jane Elliott prescription of attempting to fix this racism by belittling
white people rather than by restoring equality to people of color. She states that the racial status quo is hostile and that
to interrupt the hostility (a hostility she's further stirring), white people should have to discuss their inner feelings in
her workshops WITHOUT their being trust established first. She then goes further to explain that the need for white people to
build trust prior to sharing confirms how fragile they (white people) are. Basically, she has created her own type of
"conversion therapy" where she attempts to trigger white people on purpose so she can belittle them so they'll know how it
feels to be discriminated against (again, an exact replica of Jane Elliott's methods). I found that sort of psychology to be
at best unhelpful, and at worst, to have the danger of creating a hostility where none existed.
This book had such an opportunity to be a light in the dark at a time when the country most needs it, but instead it turned
out to be a self-hating "white" woman belittling ALL people (a racial generalization) who look like her, and slamming the door
on any hope of real and much needed discussion of racial inequality.
>
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not
helpful
Reviewed in the United States on June 19, 2020
Verified Purchase
Honestly this book is not helpful. If you want white people to acknowledge their
privilege or their biases in a constructive manor to move people forward, then starting with the notion that all white people
are racists is at best alienating and At worst it does the job for alt right groups for them.. This book if anything make
white supremacy more mainstream by telling most well meaning but ignorant white people that instead of working toward a future
or a more justice and equal society they most accept that they have to acknowledge they are white supremacist.
Additionally, this book is guilty of what it preaches against. One of the sin it preaches is white media presentation of
people of color. The book rails against the movie the blind side. The author critized that the movie glorified that only white
people could life the black man out of poverty and this was feeding into a racist trope. However, her whole book premise is
that only white people have the power to fix racism due to them having the power, which completely negates the role people of
color can play in moving society forward.
>
1.0 out of 5 stars
Errors
from page one
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2019
It's hard to take an author seriously when there are assertions on the first page that
are highly debatable if not outright wrong. In the "Author's Note", we read:
"American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped African slaves and their descendants."
This sentence jumped out at me for several reasons. First, a minority of Americans owned slaves. On Quora, I found an answer
from Mary Mac Ogden, a 2011 history PhD with an emphasis on the American south. She estimates that 1.4% of the overall US
population owned slaves in 1860, and 4.8% of the southern US population owned slaves, roughly 25% of southern households --
even in the slave states, most people did not own slaves. Second, there has been debate about exactly how profitable slavery
was. A 2014 Economist article "Did slavery make economic sense?" quotes several experts on the subject. Some propose that
slavery was profitable for large plantations but not for the south generally; others say that slavery initially gave the south
an economic edge, which they gradually lost as the north developed more advanced technology that the south was slower to
adapt. Third, it's very well established that most inherited wealth is squandered, so even if a certain family did profit from
slavery there's a low likelihood of that wealth passing down more than one or two generations (see "70% of Rich Families Lose
Their Wealth by the Second Generation" on CNN dot com.) So clearly, it's highly debatable that "American wealth" generally
stems from slavery.
I flipped to the back of the book to see if DiAngelo had some evidence to support her claim that American wealth stems from
slavery. Maybe I was wrong. But there were no citations or notes for the author's introduction. So: she made a bold, sweeping
claim that does not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny and for which she offers not a whit of evidence.
Why should I read the rest of the book when the author blew her credibility in the first paragraph?
>
1.0 out of 5 stars
Errors
from page one
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2019
It's hard to take an author seriously when there are assertions on the first page that
are highly debatable if not outright wrong. In the "Author's Note", we read:
"American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped African slaves and their descendants."
This sentence jumped out at me for several reasons. First, a minority of Americans owned slaves. On Quora, I found an answer
from Mary Mac Ogden, a 2011 history PhD with an emphasis on the American south. She estimates that 1.4% of the overall US
population owned slaves in 1860, and 4.8% of the southern US population owned slaves, roughly 25% of southern households --
even in the slave states, most people did not own slaves. Second, there has been debate about exactly how profitable slavery
was. A 2014 Economist article "Did slavery make economic sense?" quotes several experts on the subject. Some propose that
slavery was profitable for large plantations but not for the south generally; others say that slavery initially gave the south
an economic edge, which they gradually lost as the north developed more advanced technology that the south was slower to
adapt. Third, it's very well established that most inherited wealth is squandered, so even if a certain family did profit from
slavery there's a low likelihood of that wealth passing down more than one or two generations (see "70% of Rich Families Lose
Their Wealth by the Second Generation" on CNN dot com.) So clearly, it's highly debatable that "American wealth" generally
stems from slavery.
I flipped to the back of the book to see if DiAngelo had some evidence to support her claim that American wealth stems from
slavery. Maybe I was wrong. But there were no citations or notes for the author's introduction. So: she made a bold, sweeping
claim that does not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny and for which she offers not a whit of evidence.
Why should I read the rest of the book when the author blew her credibility in the first paragraph?
>
Most people have a gut orientation around their views on race that are difficult to articulate, but they generally fall into
one of two camps. Coleman Hughes lays out the elements of both of the camps clearly in a Youtube video titled "Coleman Hughes
@ Lafayette, "Anti Racism and Humanism, Two Competing Visions"". Published 3/9/2019 IT IS A MUST WATCH if you want to
understand this issue more fully.
It is obvious that Robin Diangelo's book is strictly about JUST ONE of the two possible "competing visions" described by
Coleman Hughes.
Ms. Diangelo presents an unbalanced viewpoint, glossing over and discounting the vision and messaging of Martin Luther King
Jr.. By looking at the situation ONLY from her side, despite the fact that there is more reasoned alternate opinion, she
broadly dismisses white people disagreeing with her wrongheaded opinions as being defensive, argumentative, or simply
exhibiting "white fragility."
It is an understatement to say the Ms. Diangelo is overconfident in her opinions.
There are other major problems in the book. She cavalierly redefines the hot button words "racist", "racism", and "white
supremacy" in ways that are not the commonly held definitions in the general population. However, she then asserts that all of
those terms be applied in one degree or another to all white people and only white people because "whites hold social and
institutional power over people of color." People of color CANNOT be racist with her "new definitions", but all white people
ARE in fact either racist or contribute to racism.
She writes "I believe white progressives cause the most deadly damage to people of color."
and "I define white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist...."
How this book gets 4.5 stars is beyond me. She must be preaching to some choir that is in dire need of taking a more balanced
look at the issue of race. Her formula for addressing race, and placing such ongoing emphasis on the racial group you are in,
will surely not ever allow us to get to a "post racial society" where one is judged by the content of their character rather
than the color of their skin.
Please watch the following YOUTUBE video for a much better presentation on the issue of race: "Coleman Hughes @ Lafayette,
"Anti Racism and Humanism, Two Competing Visions""
>
Fails
to Address Systemic Racism and Dangerously Mischaracterizes Social Interactions
1.0 out of 5 stars
Fails
to Address Systemic Racism and Dangerously Mischaracterizes Social Interactions
Reviewed in the United States on June 3, 2020
Erving Goffman spoke a great deal about the masks that we put on each day - and how each
day is a performance on stage - what identity do we choose to select during different parts of our day, our workplace, our
lives, etc. But even more than that he spoke about the challenges of navigating identity and our place in the world as human
beings, our necessity to be present in relationships with others, and in 'Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled
Identity,' the challenge of maintaining our selves in the face of the judgments of others.
Robin here is plying her own misconceptions in a way to promulgate conspicuous consumption of ignorance. The systemic
injustices created by racial division and the identities, the masks-if you will-that those with more melanin than a 'white
person' as she describes them-have to wear on a daily basis to navigate this world are not in any way dependent upon 'white
fragility,' or the 'moral condition of white people's soul.' This isn't about 'white supremacy,' 'white fragility,' 'whiteness
studies,' or 'white rage,' and its never been about that. It's about the lived African-American experience and how they
navigate this world and their identities in spite of being discriminated against in the past and currently.
The 'other' in majority societies, whether black or brown in majority white or a korean in majority Japanese, or an
African-American in rural China, has to navigate the world and change their performance based upon the majority culture of
experience they live in. Gaijin, foreigner, immigrant, 'those people,' poor people, gang members - these are all terms used by
majority societies to describe the 'other.'
By jumping on the neologism 'White Fragility' to sell a book and continuing to misuse this term as a blanket application all
across America, the author dangerously mischaracterizes the lived experiences of whites and blacks in America and promulgates
a chilling expression of ignorance and hatred during a time when we must come together and bridge divides. The performances we
each undertake during our daily lives to navigate the complexities of majority societies are not dependent upon monolithic,
unchanging fiats of social interactions that are subsumed under the term 'White Fragility' as the author claims.
Goffman, Malcolm X, and other authors are more appropriate to read here and will give you a better picture of how to
characterize these interactions-they are not predicated on this denial of the self of white individuals and the blanket
assumption of original sin for all white people. By promoting the culture of 'J'Accuse!' of the French Revolution and sending
all white people off to the guillotine before there is a chance to object, to actively work to address racism and stand
together with their fellow Americans who may be African-American or other minorities, the author is being intellectually
dishonest and terribly insults the intelligence of her readers.
This is neither the time, nor the place to promote these juvenile neologisms to sell books. Thorstein Veblen highlighted this
impulse and Ms. Diangelo is happy to jump on the bandwagon.
>
This
book is about closing your mind because you have all the answers. It's autobiographical.
1.0 out of 5 stars
This
book is about closing your mind because you have all the answers. It's autobiographical.
Reviewed in the United States on June 18, 2020
Verified Purchase
White Fragility - a newly discovered white people's universal mental illness.
Robin, It's hard for you to talk to white people about racism because you start by accusing them of being perpetrators of
systemic racism, and you refuse to open your mind to their objections. Here's what you should do. Take over the government,
set up re-education camps like they do in enlightened countries, and preach to a captive audience. Good luck with that.
The Definition of Racism in short is the idea, that one race is superior to another. This is a kind of nationalism applied to
rase instead of nationality.
Amazon Customer
4
days ago
In
reply to
an
earlier post
Report abuse
The Definition of Racism in short is the idea, that one race is
better than another for one reason or another. I am married, A US Navy Veteran, and a Florida Officer. I have been the victim of
racial discrimination, I was once told I don't like your kind of people in my class. I was the only White person in the room. I
called this person out for having made this statement and was told she can't be racist, She's black. The reason we have issues
today is nobody really listened to Dr. King when he stated," I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!"
The keywords of this statement are "NOT JUDGED BY THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN." Until we quit using race and or sex as a defining
part of applications, for loan grants or anything, and simply write our names. We will never realise Dr. Kings Dream!
yggdcvhjniuhjmkmnb
4
days ago
In
reply to
an
earlier post
Report abuse
Thank you for this comment. I, as a white female, has been in
this same situation. I don't think people realize the one sidedness to what they say.
Leave a
reply
Heather Lyons
6
days ago
Report abuse
To say that a white person hasn't experienced racism is
incorrect. I have been around people of color my whole life. I have been the victim of several unprovoked attacks both
physical and verbal from black people and even Hispanics. A black person once started choking me for no reason. I wasn't even
talking to him. I wasn't speaking at all! I mind my own business and don't start confrontations with these people. I believe
they target me because I am white. If you don't believe that blacks and Hispanics can be racist toward whites, maybe you
haven't been around them very much.
>
2.0 out of 5 stars
Worth
Reading But Profoundly Illogical
Reviewed in the United States on June 27, 2020
Verified Purchase
I read this book, along with "White Guilt" by by Shelby Steele (https://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578637/),
to see "both sides" of this important issues. Steele's book is by far a better book, but I expected them to be in contradiction.
They are not. Steele, for example, argues that "White Guilt" and the white identity have morphed from overt oppression into a New
Paternalism. Blacks can't "save themselves," goes the idea because of "systemic racism." Thus they need "white allies" to help
them. Steele's thesis is that the New Racism is White Guilt and White Paternalism. Ironically, that idea is the essence of "White
Fragility." "White guilt" as defined by Mr. Steele lurks on every page of "White Fragility." Ending racial oppression against
black people is a white person problem; that's the core idea of "White Fragility." Think about what that means. Because black
people are allegedly enmeshed in oppression, they must have white "rescuers." They can't "save themselves" because the "systems
of oppression" are too powerful. Really? As Steele points out, we have had a black President. We have had black Senators and
still do. We have incredible and well-deserved black success in the media, in entertainment, and in sports. In those areas, no
one tells black people that "systemic racism" holds them back. And black people succeed. Black people prove again and again that
they are very capable of success. Look at sports. Look at entertainment. Look at politics. That's point No 1 about the illogic
and unsubstantiated allegations in "White Fragility." There are clear and falsifiable examples of where black people succeed.
Point #2 is the illogic of the argument on a personal level. If you love the book, you're "racist" because you are acknowledging
your participation in the racist system. If you hate the book, you're "racist," too, because you are "in denial." So heads you're
a racist, tails you're a racist, and your only course of action is to take courses in overcoming your "racism," from highly paid
consultants and others in the "racism" industry. Follow the money. This book is the #1 book on Amazon as I write this and it (and
books, protests, speeches, nonprofits, etc.) enrich an entire industry that is heavily, heavily invested in "white guilt." That's
problem #2. As for problem #3, evidence. Where is the statistical, proven evidence of not only the outcomes of "racism" but the
"causes?" Scant evidence is provided, and where it is it is anecdotal. Yes, of course, there are racial oppressions in the USA.
Yes, of course, the terrible weight of history and the United States' terrible "original sin" of racism weighs on black people.
The historical legacy of racism definitely has denied black people of the kind of accumulated capital that helps many white
people. But where is a discussion of the collapse of the black family? Of the attitudes towards work? Of the collapse of
education in our inner cities? Of individual responsibility? Of comparisons between native-born and immigrant black communities?
Of statistics and not just self-confirming anecdotes? (And this is allegedly a "social science" book?) Nowhere to be found.
That's too "hot" of a topic to really be addressed. And, finally, the fourth problem. What is to be done? What specifically
should we do as a society and as individuals? Beyond just wallowing in our "white guilt," we are not given any specific courses
of action. "Defund the police," for example, is a nice slogan, but what specifically is our new vision of policing? How are we
specifically going to improve the black family and out-of-wedlock births, given that the highest correlation to poverty is not
the color of one's skin but the lack of a father in the home? No specifics are given. Most importantly, how are black people
supposed to help themselves after us white folk finally (and thankfully) get out of their way? And that's the whole point. Sell
more books. Make more white people feel guilty. Virtue-signal ad infinitum and, at the end of the day, do next to nothing to
really help our society be colorblind, next to nothing to help our society allow black people to rise to their full potential.
"White Fragility," at its core, is a fraud. It is but the illusion of an argument, the illusion of evidence and nothing, nothing
to its argument except a money-making machine that sells you on your "white guilt" with no agenda and no actionable to-dos.
>
2.0 out of 5 stars
Ultimately
Divisive
Reviewed in the United States on June 21, 2020
Verified Purchase
I believe passionately about this subject, but I did not like this book. I don't
agree that we live in a society that is institutionally established to support the white race and for whites to
implicitly benefit from white privilege. I also don't like the author's broadened definitions of "white supremacy" and
"racist" - I find these divisive. I don't think our issues today are as much about "race" as they are about a denial of
the trauma we have caused different minority groups, and specifically African
-Americans, and work we need to do as a country, across our institutions, to support and create opportunities to bridge
the gaps we have created with our trauma. We've seen how change can evolve with the leaps we've had in women's rights
over the past generation, which didn't involve asking all men to identify as chauvinists and denounce our
establishments, but involved progressive policy, support mechanisms within our institutions, and mentorship programs.
I do agree with DiAngelo's statement that "nothing in mainstream US culture gives us the information we need to have the
nuanced understanding of arguably the most complex and enduring social dynamic of the last several hundred years". I
have recently read several books, Ron Chernow's Grant, Isabel Wilkerson's Warmth of Other Suns, and Thomas Jefferson:
The Art of Power by Jon Meacham. Each of these books exposed a legacy of trauma, both nuanced and explicit - violence,
sexual assault, separation of families, murder, terrorism, theft, false imprisonment, oppression of Constitutional
rights - that African Americans endured for which we are responsible for the fall out. While I learned about slavery,
Jim Crowe, and the civil rights in school and in mainstream culture, I had no idea how deep and broad our wrongs were,
especially post-slavery. As a country, the South lost the Civil War, and yet we refused to hold their continued
rebellion to account and allowed "slavery" to continue for another 100+ plus years without the label.
This was not many generations ago and it is no wonder that many still struggle with this legacy. It is also not
unrelated to disproportionate levels of poverty, addiction, domestic violence, desperation, and petty crime we see in
certain neighborhoods which furthers a cycle of false and destructive stereotypes and police brutality that current
generations are unable to escape. We need to pour support, policy change, and resources into these communities, but I
believe that we should look beyond labels and focus more broadly about righting a long-standing wrong.
I will continue to respectfully ponder ideas put forward in this book, but as a whole, I feel that it misses the
well-spring of positive change that so many Americans today want to be part of, and puts forward a fatalistic ethos that
holds us back from a more perfect union.
11 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report
abuse
>
2.0 out of 5 stars
Freudian
account of racism
Reviewed in the United States on June 18, 2020
Verified Purchase
Wow, Freud would love this book. Racism reduced to a fragility complex, like Sex
being reduced to an Oedipus complex. Not agreeing with it becomes proof of it. It's all about understanding our white
racist unconscious repressions. There is no proof of whites having white fragility. More like I'm correct because I'm
not not correct. But, you know, get on the gravy train. Make money while you can.
If the author wasn't so sincere about her efforts to help people I would think she was just being mean to people who are
fragile to begin with.
'White Fragility: Why It's
So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism' has recently ensconced itself in the global zeitgeist. Despite being written in
2018, its popularity has soared this year in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and global Black Lives Matter
protests-cum-riots. It is currently on both the New York Times and Amazon bestseller lists, no doubt making its author, Robin
DiAngelo, a very wealthy woman.
I didn't want to read this
book; Scandinavian detective novels are more my bag to be honest, but given the prominence of it, I thought it best to see
what all the fuss was about. Thus I subjected myself to thisexhausting, boring read, so you don't have to put yourself through
it – or further line the pockets of Professor DiAngelo.
The book's argument is
simple: if you are white, you are a racist. There is no way out of this fact as DiAngelo says that white people denying they
are racist is simply further proof that they are racist. This, she argues, is the eponymous 'white fragility' which is a
product of white people growing up in a society which is steeped in 'white supremacy'.
You may well have thought
that white supremacy was confined to meetings of skinheads with swastika tattoos and rallies full of hooded lunatics setting
fire to crosses. However, DiAngelo argues that Western society is built on white supremacy and as a result it pervades
everything. Again, denying that our society is inherently racist only serves to compound and protect that white supremacy on
which it is built.
Even if people of colour
gain positions of power in society, such as Barack Obama, Colin Powell, or Clarence Thomas, this does nothing to make the
system less racist as they
"support the status quo."
DiAngelo's claims are
completely unfalsifiable and effectively make racism in the West something akin to 'The Force' in Star Wars.
Perplexingly, along with
being unfalsifiable, they are also contradictory. For example, DiAngelo argues that white people don't see themselves in
racial terms, while simultaneously arguing that their actions preserve "white solidarity." How can a group that doesn't see
themselves as a group express solidarity? It is also argued that white people should both not avoid talking about race and not
expect black people to "educate" them about it. This again makes no sense.
However, while white
people can never not be racist – DiAngelo herself says she is still racist – they can do "work" to make themselves more aware.
Coincidentally, this "work" happens to be DiAngelo, who along with being a professor in "multicultural education" specialising
in "whiteness studies" is also a diversity "facilitator." This means that
for
a fee of between $30,000-$40,000
she will lecture you for around 90 minutes, at the end of which, if you listen very
closely, you will still be racist, but more aware of it. That doesn't exactly seem like money well spent.
The purpose of these
lectures is not only to make whites aware that they are inherently racist, but also to build up their "racial stamina." You
see, racial stamina is the way to combat white fragility and, from the sounds of it, building up this stamina is a deeply
unpleasant process. The book is littered with anecdotes from these lectures and seminars, all of which appear to end with
someone either in tears or storming out in a rage. Although this is obviously no indication of the lectures themselves being
bad or insulting, just indicative of white fragility.
The crying is a particular
problem for Professor DiAngelo, particularly white women crying in front of black people. Indeed, she considers this so much
of a problem that there is an entire chapter of the book titled 'White Women's Tears'. Her reasoning behind this is that there
is a history of black men being tortured and murdered because of white women's distress. As a white woman herself, she
writes,
"our tears trigger the terrorism of this history,"
before citing the case
of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 after allegedly flirting with a white woman.
This example is a perfect
illustration of how DiAngelo's warped view of the world manages to simultaneously be insulting to both white and black people.
She argues not only that black men will immediately think of lynching when they see a white woman cry, but also that if they
comfort the woman they are doing so not out of sympathy or concern, but because they have been conditioned by sexism and the
patriarchy.
Her argument constantly
seems to rob people of colour of their own agency, while impugning the motive of racism into any action by a white person. If
a white person is nice to a black person, it is racist. If they are nasty to a black person, that is also racist. Saying that
you were taught to treat everyone equally is not only racist but also ignorant as it shows you are unaware of your socialised
racism.
To illustrate this
socialised racism, the book is peppered with anecdotes designed to show that all white people are racist, but really just
display DiAngelo's own prejudices. She argues that white people come away from the story of Jackie Robinson believing he was
the first black baseball player good enough to play with whites rather than the first who was allowed to. But no one with even
a passing interest in the sport believes that he was simply the first black man capable of competing with whites, making her
argument a total fallacy.
Elsewhere she says that
white people use coded language such as "sketchy," "urban," or "bad neighbourhood" when what they really mean is a lot of
black people live there. To demonstrate this, DiAngelo writes about a conversation she was having with a white friend who was
telling her about a white couple she knew that had moved to New Orleans for $25,000. Her friend then told her that the couple
had also bought a gun, at which point DiAngelo says, "I immediately knew they had bought a home in a black neighbourhood."
DiAngelo will presumably assert that all white people would make that assumption, but she cannot be sure of that. This
statement is indicative her own prejudices, not a universal one.
DiAngelo's argument is a
perfect circular one, you are racist because you are white, only white people can be racist, so being racist makes you white.
It is then impossible to argue against because denial is simply further proof of your racism. You can't even argue that you
just treat people as individuals because that ignores their experience as a member of a group in an inescapable intersectional
power structure. Ironically, she shares the exact same view of race as the white nationalists she presumably despises.
The best example of the
unfalsifiability of her argument comes when DiAngelo lists a series of phrases used by white people to claim they are not
racist. This includes phrases like: "I know people of colour," "I marched in the sixties," "the real oppression is class,"
"you don't know me," but the most telling one of all is, "I disagree."
In Robin DiAngelo's view,
disagreeing with her is just proof that you are a racist. There is no room for nuance or debate, no shades of grey – to
Professor DiAngelo the world is, in every sense of the phrase, black and white.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Melanin comes with compassion. Melanin comes with soul. We call it soul, we soul brothers
and sisters. That's the melanin that connects us. So the people that don't have it are, and
I'm going to say this carefully [laughs], are a little less, and where the term comes from,
and bringing it all the way back around to Minister Farrakhan, to where they may not have the
compassion . . . . So therefore, the only way they can act is evil . [emphasis added]
They have to rob, steal, rape, kill and fight in order to survive. So these people who didn't
have what we had, and when I say we I speak of the melanated people, they had to be savages.
They had to be barbaric. . . . so they're acting as animals. So they're the ones that are
closer to animals.
Mr. Cannon also
claimed blacks are "descendants from God himself," and discussed "the idea of having to
define myself as a god." He bragged about the power of melanin. I must lack soul, or, since I'm
closer to an animal, I don't have the intelligence to understand melanated wisdom. Still, Mr.
Cannon's claims are implicit in the way media talk about race. The very phrase "people of
color" implies that whites lack something.
LINK
BOOKMARK Media sometimes call white advocates or race realists
"white supremacists," "Nazis," or something close to terrorists
. Still, I've never met a white advocate who believes his skin color gives him magic powers.
I've never even heard of any anyone who believes white people are "gods" or who thinks blacks
only do evil.
When it comes to who robs, rapes, kills, and fights, the evidence shows blacks do these things more
often than whites. They are doing it especially
enthusiastically right now because Black Lives Matter undermines police.
Though whites are often
victims , the melanin "soul" connection is certainly not strong enough to prevent black
viciousness towards other blacks.
Mr. Cannon said that whites are "closer to animals" because of our race. If a white person
said this about blacks, his podcast would be banned and he would be deplatformed.
This hasn't happened. You can still find Mr. Cannon's podcast on Spotify . Mr. Cannon did pay a price
-- CBS dropped him and his talk show was put on hold -- though not because he said bad things
about whites. It's because of what he said about Jews.
"The Semitic people are black people," he said, arguing that blacks could therefore not be
anti-Semitic without being self-hating. He said this while discussing the music industry with
Richard "Professor Griff" Griffin, who left the rap group Public Enemy after he criticized
Jews. The two discussed whether Jews control the music industry and whether some are "scared of
the truth." There was nothing about their being closer to animals or always doing evil. And
yet, almost all the media coverage about Mr. Cannon's interview was about his "anti-Semitic"
comments.
This must have helped, but Mr. Cannon hasn't been "canceled." He didn't apologize to whites,
nor was there pressure for him to do so. Fox is
keeping him on the television program "Masked Singer." His upcoming daytime program hasn't
been canceled, just delayed .
Sean "Diddy" Combs offered him a job. "
Charlamagne Tha God "
defended him and spoke frankly about collective racial interests.
No one should be surprised by this. Fifty percent of black voters have
a favorable opinion of Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are a black
racial vanguard for their people. Blacks appreciate this. The mainstream media doesn't, but
mostly because Mr. Farrakhan keeps insulting Jews.
If he didn't, he would probably get the same welcome Al Sharpton does today. Mr. Sharpton began
his career with crazed rants about "Greek homos" stealing the secrets of "astrology" from
blacks, and defending
a notorious hate-crime hoax . Now, he
stands next to Bill de Blasio painting "Black Lives Matter" on the street outside Trump
Tower.
It's OK to hate whites. Anyone can insult us and get away with it. That is because most
whites are not racially
conscious and do not defend those who speak for them . At the
same time, whites suffer far greater penalties if they speak in defense of their race,
sometimes
especially at the hands of conservatives.
White advocates face unprecedented deplatforming, legal persecution, and even physical
attack. The mask is off. Whatever his successes or failures, President Donald Trump frightened oligarchs and
journalists into showing their true colors. It's far harder now to pretend that America is a
free country.
What holds whites back is our collective fear. Our opponents' power seems great, but it's
brittle. Censorship, economic blackmail, and force are their last remaining weapons. We have
the truth, and if we survive these conditions, we will win.
(Republished from American
Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
I don't think we are held back per se. The "intersectionality" agenda says we are at the top
of the mountain socially and politically and everyone else is bearing the burden of our
existence, so they have the freedom to attack whereas we have the obligation to not respond in
kind to those attacks. So it's a weird kind of supremacy that we have that has to be manifested
in virtue as kindness and being long-suffering and being willing to let them voice their
(uninformed, offensive) opinions. Ultimately what Nick Cannon said is a lot like how an
unattractive, overweight girl who did not get picked for the cheer leading team might talk
about the girls on the team who are dating the coolest jocks in high school. That he is talking
that way is evidence that he is trying to mask his feelings of inferiority. I was raised to
tell a fat girl she looks cute in jeans just to make her feel good about herself. Putting up
with Nick Cannon calling white people animals when we have obviously been the products of and
participated in the development of the most awesome civilization ever is basically just a way
of telling him he looks cute in those jeans even though we all know he is a complete moron. Who
derives their self-esteem from insulting others? Crazy.
So let it slide Gregory. They are just trying to trigger you into making bad decisions.
Don't fall for it.
Er, only (genetically defective) pure albinos lack melanin. Only a coddled Black celebrity
would make a fuss about this pigment without understanding that.
Unfortunately, most Blacks these days are frauds. The "Black Fraud" is more than a "Cottage
Industry" in America. It's actually part of the college and university "Afrocentrism" degrees
and programs. With fake Anthropology, Archaeology, History and variety of other domains they
steal and appropriate for themselves the best of everyone else's worth. They believe the
Egyptians, King Tut, and Pharaohs were black. It doesn't matter that DNA studies have shown
that their wrong. If you read carefully the BLM agenda is against all science, truth, and
objectivism.
Just read some of their forums and you will realize just how crazy these idiots are. You
thought they only wanted to steal your television ..no .they want everything that you made
because they can't build modern civilizations.
The enemies of White people enjoy distinct privileges. This grievance-driven transformation
has been trending for years. Take speech. There are simply no words which, apparently, can
offend Whites. It's all a big laugh! (Right, gringo ?)
That goes for you rednecks, gwai, crackers, haole, hillbillies, neo-Nazis, and goyim. These
words might be offensive to some 'deplorables', but they're certainly not hate speech, which is
very serious. So the rules are this: Whites must accept race-oriented, verbal abuse–but
never dish it out. That's when it becomes hate !
The beneficiaries of these uneven rules of discourse include all POC as well as all Jews.
Why the different standards? Well, it's complicated.
America's new, post-George-Floyd normal now revolves around the most egregious
social offense: the 'slur'–which has come to mean a disparaging word or sentence that
emanates from an entitled White person and is directed towards an oppressed out-group. This
transgression can carry very serious penalties. So watch your step! Never utter the N-word, you
Nazi!
Remember: one N-word is hurtful, while the other N-word helpful.
The moral difference between these two terms depends on one thing: what group is giving the
offense, and what group is receiving it.
The claim that melanin imbues blacks with special powers and qualities is just afrocentrism
101 and isn't new. Blacks are so desperate to find something to boost their fragile self esteem
and assuage their racial inferiority complex that they have to invent wacky stuff.
But if one subjects the melanin claim to a little "white supremacist" objective analysis
you'll see that blacks are some of the most violent and cruel people in America if not the
entire world. Blacks kill and terrorize each other like no other people. Melanin is no match
for systemic racism which is alleged to be the cause of all black character defects.
The fact that Nick Cannon's mea culpa was directed at Jews while he seemingly could care
less about apologizing to whites just proves once again who wields the power in America. Just
ask (or axe) whom am I not permitted to criticize?
And so, Mr. Cannon met with a rabbi from the Simon Wiesenthal center, and did what was
required.
"First and foremost I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies to my Jewish sisters
and brothers for the hurtful and divisive words that came out of my mouth during my interview
with Richard Griffin
"They reinforced the worst stereotypes of a proud and magnificent people and I feel
ashamed of the uninformed and naïve place that these words came from. The video of this
interview has since been removed
"While the Jewish experience encompasses more than 5,000 years and there is so much I have
yet to learn, I have had at least a minor history lesson over the past few days and to say
that it is eye-opening would be a vast understatement."
-- Nick Cannon (@NickCannon) July 16, 2020
Seriously, do Blacks really talk like that?
Imagine what transpired as Nick met the rabbi:
"Nick, we've got a statement here for you to read."
This is the difference all right -- but it's not a "moral" difference. It's pure political
correctness, otherwise known as Cultural Marxism. This asymmetry is intrinsic to Marxism. Lenin
described it as "Who?Whom?"
I find Cannon's views highly amusing as it struck me that this is just one more example of
what I call typical negro "logic." And, to people of color, how about referring to us wypipo as
People of Light. Thanks.
The "cancel culture" proponents who actually do the most damage (as opposed to twitter
spats and maybe blocking speakers from a college campus here and there) are the pro-israel
types. frum's presence alone brings up that question and i'm sure greenwald's positions on
palestine were a major factor. chomsky is ostensibly anti-imperialist and anti-racist but
let's not forget he lived on a kibbutz for a while and still thinks the two state solution is
a good idea whereas BDS supposedly isn't. greenwald has also backed taibbi to some degree in
his anti-cancel stance so that didn't help.
"The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful
ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy."
This sacred cow of illusion is being threatened from all directions it seems. Democracy is
great for whoever owns it, and whoever owns the media owns democracy. A cow well worth
milking.
@the pair:
"the "cancel culture" proponents who actually do the most damage (as opposed to twitter spats
and maybe blocking speakers from a college campus here and there) are the pro-israel types.
frum's presence alone brings up that question and i'm sure greenwald's positions on palestine
were a major factor"
Exactly this! Greenwald has been a major irritant to many of the letters signatories. You
mentioned Frum, but also it would include the hyper hypocritical "cancel culture" queen
herslf: Ms. Bari Weiss - who recently 'resigned' from her last pro Zionist platform: the
NYT's.
Jonathan Cook has one of the most cogent, nuanced and accurate critiques of this Harpers
letter at than anyone I've read. Very long and well reasoned, with three additional updates
too. He takes many of the signers to task, especially in their noted over-whelming support
for Israel, for which many of them are now 'suffering' criticism
....It is easy to agree with the letter's generalised argument for tolerance and free and
fair debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have
shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds...
....The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a
more just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President
George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting
"interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free
speech.
....Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to
free speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.
...Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all, because he correctly
understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who
challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests
in dominating the public space..."
And then Cook says, most importantly:
...By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the
centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them. They care
about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating the
public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years
ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little...."
While Sullivan does not share the Likudnik politics of Weiss, he enjoys some notable
institutional and personal links to her political network. As the former editor of The New
Republic , Sullivan worked under the direction of the magazine's fanatically pro-Israel
former publisher, Marty Peretz, who has since relocated to Tel Aviv .
Peretz's daughter, Evgenia, published a fawning
profile of Weiss in Vanity Fair in April 2019, portraying her as an inspiring new
talent who was "genuinely fueled by curiosity, the desire to connect, to cross boundaries and
try out new things."
During the time Sullivan and Peretz ran The New Republic , the magazine was
funded by the
pro-Israel businessman Roger Hertog. Hertog also plowed his fortune
into the Shalem Center to launch a training institute for young pro-Israel pundits in 2002.
Among the first interns to pass through the Shalem training school was a Columbia University
student named Bari Weiss. (Weiss' editor at the Times , Rubenstein, had also been
involved in the Hertog Foundation) .
Whether or not Weiss plans to join Sullivan at a new outlet for disgruntled anti-SJW [social
justice warrior] centrists, the circumstances surrounding her self-expulsion reveal her
resignation letter as an insincere whitewash.
Besides the possibility that Weiss' departure was a PR stunt, there is the fact that she has
spent a large portion of her adult life working to cancel Palestinian academics and left-wing
politicians while howling about the rise of a totalitarian "cancel culture."
Self-Styled Free Thinker Campaigns to Silence Left-Wing Dissenters
Before Bari Weiss branded herself as an avatar of free thought, she established herself as
the queen of a particular kind of cancel culture. The 36-year-old pundit has dedicated a
significant portion of her adult life to destroying the careers of critics of Israel, tarring
them as anti-Semites, and carrying out the kind of defamation campaigns that would result in
her targets losing their jobs.
The pundit has
shown a particular obsession with Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad and the New
York City-based Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour. Other targets have included Keith
Ellison, the Minnesota Attorney General who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, an ardent opponent of U.S. regime change wars.
There is also ample evidence that while at Columbia University, Weiss helped bring down
the dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, for inviting
Iran's then-President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak on campus. Anderson's son has pointed to
Weiss as a key factor in her resignation:
In her resignation letter, Weiss found space to castigate the Times for publishing
an interview with renowned African-American author Alice Walker , whom she casually defamed as "a proud
anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati."
Weiss also flexed her bona fides as a proud neoconservative activist, saying she was
"honored" to have given the world's most prestigious media platform to a slew of regime-change
activists from countries targeted by the U.S. national security for overthrow, including
Venezuela, Iran, and Hong Kong, along with notorious Islamophobe Ayaan
Hirsi Ali and Chloe Valdary – a fellow Israel lobby product who previously
worked as an intern for Bret Stephens .
In her three-year career as an editor of the opinion section of the newspaper of record,
Weiss devoted a significant chunk of her columns to attacking her left-wing critics, while
complaining endlessly of the haters in her Twitter mentions (which is risible given her
lamentation in her resignation letter that "Twitter has become [the Times '] ultimate
editor").
In her 2019 book, Weiss condemned the pro-Palestine left as a whole. She insisted the idea
that Zionism is a colonialist and racist movement is an anti-Semitic "Soviet conspiracy;" that
the UK Labour Party under leader Jeremy Corbyn was a "hub of Jew hatred," and that "leftist
anti-Semites" are "more insidious and perhaps existentially dangerous" than far-right
"Hitlerian anti-Semites."
It is worth reviewing this historical record to show how Cancel Queen Bari Weiss' apparent
change of heart on cancel culture might more appropriately be described as an opportunist
career choice.
Campaigns to Cancel Massad, Sarsour & Ellison
In her 2019 book "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," Weiss revived her condemnations of Massad,
whom she first targeted at Columbia University after interning at the Hertog-funded Shalem
Center.
Weiss also argued that New York University (NYU) was
rife with anti-Semitism . Her proof? An individual student was told some stupid
anti-Semitic comments, and -- much more disconcertingly for Weiss – "In December 2018,
the student government successfully passed a BDS resolution," and "NYU gave the President's
Service Award, the school's highest honor, to Students for Justice in Palestine."
Massad was hardly the only victim of Bari Weiss' compulsive cancel culture campaigns. The
neoconservative pundit wrote an entire New York Times column in 2017 dedicated to
trying to cancel
Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour .
Rapping progressives over the knuckles for purportedly "embracing hate," Weiss characterized
Sarsour as an unhinged anti-Semite because of her criticism of the colonialist Zionist
movement, and worked to disrupt the Women's March, which Sarsour helped to found.
Then in a tag-team cancel campaign with feverishly pro-war CNN host Jake Tapper (who
has his own questionable
history with
racial issues ), they portrayed Sarsour as an extremist for expressing support for former
Black Panther leader Assata Shakur, whom they jointly demonized as a "cop-killer fugitive in
Cuba."
Next, Weiss turned her sights on the Democratic Attorney General of Minnesota Keith Ellison,
claiming in a 2017
column that he had a "long history of defending and working with anti-Semites."
Attempts to Cancel Tulsi Gabbard
Bari Weiss' cancelation rampage continued without a moment of self-reflection.
In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan in January 2019, the
pundit tried to cancel Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard because of her work advocating
against the international proxy war on Syria.
When Rogan mentioned Gabbard's name, Weiss scoffed that the congresswoman is "monstrous,"
smearing her an "Assad toady," in reference to the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Confused,
Rogan asked Weiss what exactly that meant. The bumbling New York Times pundit could
not answer, unable to define or even spell the insult.
Claims 'Leftist Anti-Semitism' Worse Than 'Hitlerian Anti-Semitism'
Bari Weiss' most extreme views on Israel-Palestine and the left can be seen in her 2019 book
How to Fight Anti-Semitism . In this tome, the neoconservative writer set out to
cancel the pro-Palestinian anti-racist left as a whole by arguing that supposed "leftist
anti-Semitism" is more dangerous than "Hitlerian anti-Semitism."
Weiss wrote:
"Hitlerian anti-Semitism announces its intentions unequivocally. But leftist
anti-Semitism, like communism itself, pretends to be the opposition of what it actually
is.
Because of the easy way it can be smuggled into the mainstream and manipulate us –
who doesn't seek justice and progress? who doesn't want a universal brotherhood of man?
– anti-Semitism that originates on the political left is more insidious and perhaps
existentially dangerous [than on the right]."
When she says "leftist anti-Semitism," Weiss almost invariably means progressive criticism
of Israeli apartheid, racism, and brutality against the indigenous Palestinian population.
If that wasn't already obvious, Weiss spelled it out:
"If you want to see the stakes, just look across the pond, where Jeremy Corbyn, an
anti-Semite, has successfully transformed one of the country's great parties into a hub of
Jew hatred.
Corbynism is not confined to the U.K. Right now in America, leftists who share Corbyn's
worldview are building grassroots movements and establishing factions with the Democratic
Party that are suspiciously unskeptical of genocidal terrorist groups like Hamas and actively
hostile to Jewish power and the state of Israel."
In her book, Weiss insisted the idea that Zionism is a colonialist and racist movement is
the product of a
"Soviet conspiracy" spread by USSR in order to destroy Israel. She expressly ignored the
words of the father of Zionism himself, Theodor Herzl, who wrote that Zionism "is a colonial idea"
and requested help from British colonialists, including colonial master Cecil Rhodes.
"Progressives have, knowingly or unknowingly, embraced the Soviet lie that Israel is a
colonialist outpost that should be opposed," Weiss lamented.
"In the most elite spaces across the country, people declare, unthinkingly, that Israel is a
racist state and that Zionism is racism, without realizing that they are participating in a
Soviet conspiracy, without realizing that they are aligning themselves with the greatest mass
murderers in modern history," she bemoaned.
Not mincing her words, Weiss concluded, "When anti-Zionism becomes a normative political
position, active anti-Semitism becomes the norm."
With these passages, it became clear that her How to Fight Anti-Semitism was a
book-length attempt to cancel anti-Zionists as a whole, by conflating their opposition to
Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism.
Anyone who disputes that Israel is "a political and historical miracle" is secretly a Jew
hater, Weiss has argued. She effused, "That I can walk the streets of Tel Aviv today as a
feminist woman in a tank top," she marveled, "that it is a free and liberated society in the
middle of the Middle East, is an achievement so great that it is often hard for many people to
grasp."
As with much of the content Weiss produces, her gushing praise for Israel's supposedly
"liberated society" could have been lifted from a propaganda pamphlet distributed on campus by
a pro-Israel lobbying outfit. But it was never quality writing or original ideas that won Weiss
the attention she sought, and which has virtually ensured she will be "cancelled" into a new,
high-profile position in the mainstream commentariat.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including
best-selling " Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War ," and " The Management of
Savagery ." He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video
reports, and several documentaries, including "Killing Gaza ." Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in
2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous
domestic repercussions.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone , and the producer of the " Moderate Rebels" podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
The establishment's massive propaganda campaigns and psyops CANCEL the truth or make it
unrecognizable via coloring and half-truths. Russiagate, White Helmets, Skripals, MH-17,
Integrity Initiative, Assange, Russian Bounties & remaining in Afghanistan, "China
virus", hydroxyChloroquine, etc.
The Trump Administration has CANCELED entire countries via terminating peace treaties,
imposing sanctions, covert war, and conducting a propaganda war.
Where is the outrage from writers, artists, and academics about THAT?
They trot out old power dynamics and pathetically shadowbox authority. Yet they're the ones
who are in charge now. Former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss. Credit: HBO/YouTube
Screenshot
If only we could all lead pampered lives like Salman Rushdie.
Last week, several dozen writers and intellectuals published a letter in
Harper's Magazine that condemned -- though they never used the term explicitly -- cancel
culture. The signatories included Margaret Atwood and Martin Amis, Gloria Steinem and Steven
Pinker, while the missive itself was a fairly routine statement of classical liberal
principles. "The free exchange of information and ideas," it reads, "the lifeblood of a liberal
society, is daily becoming more constricted." Also: "The restriction of debate, whether by a
repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes
everyone less capable of democratic participation." The political right under Donald Trump long
ago grew illiberal, the signers say. Now the resistance to Trump and the online woke are going
the same way.
What happened next was utterly predictable. Conservatives, despite being denounced as
illiberal in the very first paragraph, did not attack the letter, demand consequences for the
signers, sneer themselves into post-anoxic comas on Twitter; mostly they praised the document
and passed it around. The left, meanwhile, began a four-alarm hissy fit that's somehow still
ongoing today. The letter was accused of fanning a moral panic. Cancel culture was dismissed as
fake news, a repackaging of normal political passions and activism into a counterfeit
bogey.
Mostly though, progressives just crammed the letter into their usual class war. The
signatories were tagged as elites desperately trying to safeguard their privilege, in contrast
to their targets, the huddled masses of the Twitter woke. The letter's critics, as
Michael Hobbes of the Huffington Post put it, were "ordinary people" who lack
"institutional power" and "point out the failures of those institutions." A woke response
letter published at The
Objective, which appears to have been penned by an illiterate -- it may be that the real
divide here is between those who can write and those who can't -- claimed of the first letter,
"The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who
does not." It continued, " Harper's has decided to bestow its platform not to
marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities
to make their views heard."
A few words on all this.
First, you don't get more "marginalized" than having a fatwa declared against your novel by
a national government, becoming the target of riots and book burnings, being forced into
hiding, and dodging repeated attempts on your life, as happened to Salman Rushdie, one of the
Harper's signers. Another, Garry Kasparov, was exiled from Russia for supporting
democracy. To be sure, this hardly compares to the tribulations undergone by your average
Huffington Post staffer, who risks ennui-filled glances from her coworkers every time she
shares the wrong Handmaid's Tale GIF. But it does seem like Rushdie and Kasparov might
know something about standing up for free expression. It may even be that we should consider
what they have to say.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.396.0_en.html#goog_424665540 00:13 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Second and more importantly, the reaction to the letter demonstrates just how oblivious the
left has become to its own power. Back in the 1960s, to be a leftist was to be countercultural,
smashing monogamy and fighting the man. Today's left wants that same rebellious aura, except
that they've since marched through just about every major institution. Academia swallows whole
their assumptions; so does the publishing industry, many corporate boards, much of the media,
the federal bureaucracy, a healthy section of the internet. Those who speak out against the
Harper's letter are thus not remotely "marginalized"; they are heard loudly and often.
Many of them have blue Twitter checkmarks, that garish amulet of the modern elite. This is how
power works now: money and rank matter less than they used to, visibility and influence count
for more. And by those yardsticks, the woke are plenty powerful.
This is why a social media mob -- an aggregate of all that power -- can be just as coercive,
just as authoritarian, as an out-of-control government. Yet the wokesters refuse to see this.
They act as though by participating in cancel culture, they're merely exercising their own free
speech, their right to critique authority, a far cry from the state shutting someone up. In
this, they make a mistake usually committed by only the most doctrinaire libertarians. There's
a tendency among some libertarians to divide the world into the private sector and the public
sector. And right on -- that bifurcation is healthy and necessary, even if these are imprecise
and overlapping terms. But emblazon that line too brightly and the division can become a moral
one. You start treating everything on the public side as suspect and worthy of criticism, while
rationalizing away the bad on the private side. That's just business being business ,
you say. You come to view Google, for example, as not just free to do as it likes, but
fundamentally justified in its actions by mere virtue of its epistemological geography in the
private sector.
The woke left is now falling into a similar trap. So long as the government isn't kicking
down anyone's door, they say, there's no censorship at work, since their angry letters and
boycotts all fall under the umbrella of private expression. Yet such private expression can be
a bullying force all its own. A professor who risks being fired from his position and
permanently stigmatized on the internet because he says the wrong thing is not really free to
speak his mind. He may not receive a cease-and-desist order in the mail, but he's still being
suppressed. Yet the left has willfully blindfolded itself to this. Over at The New
Republic , Osita Nwanevu
notes, "When a speaker is denied or when staffers at a publication argue that something
should not have been published, the rights of the parties in question haven't been
violated in any way." That's technically true. But the result can be close to the same. The
idea that the spirit of free speech can't be squashed by private actors, by a culture or a
crowd, is absurd.
From here, the woke left issues another denial: cancel culture doesn't really exist.
What the Harper's letter frets about, they say, is just a smattering of incidents that
hardly amount to a pattern. Really? A University of Chicago economist was recently
put on leave for criticizing Black Lives Matter and opposing efforts to defund police
departments. A political data analyst was fired for
tweeting out academic research that found that riots in 1968 helped Richard Nixon. A
children's author was sacked for saying she
stood with J.K. Rowling . A novelist
stopped her own book from being published after it was attacked for depicting intra-racial
slavery.
Another novelist
had his book yanked for the crime of being set during the Kosovo War. Two professors at
Yale
stepped down as heads of a residential college because they'd suggested the university
didn't need a policy against offensive Halloween costumes. A New York Review of Books
editor resigned for
publishing an essay by a broadcaster who'd been acquitted of sexual assault.
Conservatives like Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Ben Shapiro have been regularly
attacked and disrupted when they try to speak on college campuses. How much more needs to
happen before we're allowed to acknowledge a trend? This isn't prudent maintenance of the
Overton window, weeding out genuine hatred and bigotry; it's the enforcement of the whims of a
neighing, infantile mob. Its aim isn't to inquire and improve, but to ossify and silence.
The Harper's signers thus aren't "the real illiberals," as the woke have asserted.
Nothing in their letter suggests they want to use their power to silence their critics. What
they desire is the opposite: an end to hair-trigger punishments that have sent a chill through
our intellectual life. It shouldn't be remotely surprising that artists and academics support
free expression. What should really flabbergast us is that the consensus in bohemia and the
ivory tower is tilting in the other direction. As I wrap up this column, Bari Weiss, one of the
Harper's signers, has just left the New York Times , citing a hostile woke work
environment. Steven Pinker, another signatory, has narrowly
survived an attempt to cancel him. The new orthodoxy is intolerant, hell-bent on enforcing
its views, pathetically shadowboxing an elite it long ago joined. It threatens nothing less
than our essential ability to communicate. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Matt Purple is a senior editor at The American Conservative .
Well, it should be very obvious now what you shouldn't do - throw a Trump against them.
It just revs them up more, and his group are too radical in their own way to win away the
middle from them.
"When you cannot attack then defend. When you cannot defend then retreat." Retreat.
Curse them with victory. Without a force like Trump to allow them to unify a group under
their banner they'll make innumerable enemies, as these shots over their bow indicate, who
no longer have any reason to tolerate them whatsoever.
I believe the left and their elite enablers are intentionally trying to provoke a
response from middle America, so they can crack down. So far, they have been stuck
blue-on-blue. Not only that, but when they do win, they lose, as you said. There is
learning.
They are also rapidly accelerating the number of people they alienate.
A friend of mine was a Navy SEAL. He said sometimes, you just keep quiet and watch.
Most of the victims of cancel culture seem to fall into two groups: 1. people who share
most of the ideology of the cancellers but differ on one or two points, and 2.
old-fashioned (usually older and white) liberals who don't realize that the rules of the
game have changed.
JK Rowling, for instance, belongs to group 1: she was a flaming social liberal who
enthusiastically accepted all liberal assumptions until she found one she couldn't accept.
Examples of group 2 include the dismissed Poetry Foundation officials, and the museum
curator in San Francisco who was canned because he said he wasn't going to discriminate
against white artists.
It is much harder to cancel religious fundamentalists, ethno-nationalists,
neo-reactionaries, and other anti-liberals because they normally refuse to play the liberal
game (correctly seeing at as rigged against them), and therefore they often develop
strategies for surviving "off the grid" of the standard media and institutions.
Your last paragraph isn't true. Many of the Charlottesville people were canceled. They
lost their jobs and lost their income when they were sued for damages. Most of these people
weren't actually living off the grid.
True, but I'm thinking of people like Vox Day (who started his own publishing house) and
the various alt-right/ alt-left/ alt-whatever types who got kicked off YouTube and wound up
at other platforms. "Build your own platforms" is a principle with many of them, because
they assume they will eventually get kicked off of someone else's.
I hate Trump and didn't vote for him in 2016 but am going to this year because the left
has gone off the deep end. And does not recognize how extreme it is. Won't matter though
since I live in Western Washington. But other people must feel the same way.
Exactly the same way. I did not vote for him in 2016 and began his term set firmly in
the anti-Trump camp. I no longer 'hate' Trump (remember he is not a politician but a real
estate developer): nothing he does, not a single tweet, nor even their sum total, comes
anywhere close to the damage the current left is inflicting. He is the dam holding back
total chaos.
" A woke response letter published at The Objective, which appears to have been penned
by an illiterate -- it may be that the real divide here is between those who can write and
those who can't -- claimed of the first letter,"
This is a totally unnecessary and mean spirited line.
I don't think criticizing poor grammar or whatever is necessarily meanspirited. But I
expected that the ensuing quote would illustrate what was "illiterate" about that letter.
As far as I can tell, the alleged illiterate managed to communicate in writing, thereby
disproving Purple's assessment.
If the cancel culture continues, at some point a critical mass will be reached, and the
cancellees will be numerous enough to set up their own media and institutions.
Has anyone ever noticed that many people who seem to be participating in this cancelling
behavior are the groups of people (e.g., black, LGBTQ) who are/have typically been
vulnerable to "cancellation" efforts of a more aggressive kind? Is it possible that is more
of an "offense as defense" situation?
I think this is to some degree the case, yes. Ezra Klein makes the point that the
argument of the letter writers would go down much better if they acknowledged the way that
marginalized people have been cancelled forever, and had some active concern for addressing
the ways that some of the debates that the woke want to shut down have real implications
for the rights and safety of marginalized groups.
I also think that given the climate right now people have the mindset that they have to
take what they can get. There is nothing substantive being done to reunite separated
families at the border, but they can make the Goya people uncomfortable for standing with
those in power for example. If marginalized people felt like their concerns were being
taken seriously by those in power, the value of these boycotts and disruption would likely
be reduced.
Yes, cancel culture, like riots, are to some degree the language of the unheard. There
are plenty of cases where I think cancel culture was the best outlet available, since our
justice system has failed so hard to adequately address injustices. #metoo is a huge
example of this, and was effective and appropriate when it was bringing town powerful
people with multiple accusers (though the real takedowns of #metoo happened less on twitter
and more through journalism). But, of course, this kind of tool is extremely dangerous and
unweildy and is only appropriate for exceptional cases.
What I can't stand are the people that decry cancel culture AND think the status quo is
okay for marginalized people (or for the way sexual assualt is handled in this country). If
you don't address injustice, people will find a way to be heard, and you probably won't end
up liking it.
Again, I say this as someone deeply critical of cancel culture.
Well, the elites have no real problem with cancel culture, especially when they can fund
its purveyors to keep people distracted from demanding health care and living wages for
all, among other things that would actually help a lot more people than tearing down some
statues.
Is it just me, or has most of the Fortune 500 come through the last few years of cancel
culture fairly unscathed?
It's just not that simple to analyze others' psycology. It's so easy to say "if they
REALLY believed X, then they would Y." Liberals would say that if conservatives really
cared about safety they'd be pro-gun control and if they really cared about life they would
be anti-capital punishment and for the social safety net.
I think the defund movement is a ridiculous pipe dream, up there with how libertarians
think we'd all just get along if government got out of the way. But it's bad logic, not bad
faith, that leads them to think this way--they are very, very much motivated by safety.
Given all the comments on Mr. Dreher's post concerning the ousting of Bari Weiss, I
would have placed a different picture for the article... Nobody seems to shed a tear for
that particular person, who appears to have gotten on her position for being a very
skillful at cancel culture herself...
Not sure why this took me so long to figure out. But the reason the woke feel like this
letter is trying to silence them is clear. While the letter in no way trying to silence
anyone, it IS in a very real way, asking to strip the woke of recently achieved power. No
one wants to give up power, and the wokes' power is of a special kind since, as laid out in
this piece, it's power the woke wield while denying they even have it. Someone trying to
take your power away does feel like being silenced.
It's a conundrum I do sympathize with in this sense: no, the Twitter woke are not
marginalized withing the social-political sphere. However, they are still championing and
often made up of the representatives of genuinely marginalized groups who still face
descrimination and threats to their real, actual safety in their daily lives. This is
particularly true of trans people, a deeply vulnerable group who get nothing but ridicule,
political attacks, and efforts to restrict their rights from the right and even from the
center. That is why trans activists are the most militant, their people are the most
vulnerable. So there's this sense that the powerless finally have some power to wield, and
now they are being asked to give it up. None of that changes the dangerousness of the power
held by a righteous mob; it IS illiberal, and and the woke need to (haha) wake up to that
fact and do better.
Transactivists, unlike actual transpeople 20 years ago, are NOT deeply vulnerable, at
all. They are the most militant because half of the males are autogynephiliacs who
literally fetishize transgressing into women's spaces. Their rape and death threats and
endless sexualizing of their transition to their new "identity" and forcing other women
(especially lesbians) to validate their false identity is the behavior of heterosexual
males WITH POWER. This is the most dangerous movement in the past 30 years, causing untold
damage to children and teens. I'm sorry you don't see that and hope you can open your eyes
and ears to alternative media like Women Are Human, Feminist Current, and 4th Wave Now to
learn the facts.
Reddit just cancelled several gender critical groups--international support groups
including for teens going the painful process of "detransitioning"--because saying trans
women are not biological women is "hate speech." Meanwhile Reddit keeps up its militant
mens rights groups and several rape and teen focused pornography sites, because that
apparently isn't hate speech. If you can't see the power dynamics here, I don't know how to
help you.
To elaborate: do you even know any trans people? Because I know plenty. And follow some
on the internet, and read their writings. I hate to break it to you, but they are just
people. Like any people, there are some unsavory people amongst them, of course. But you
are deeply, deeply misguided in your sources, and are slandering people that just want to
live their lives in peace. Due to the difficulty they have doing that, yes, some are rather
militant in their activism; I don't support that, but I do support trans people and trans
rights.
By the way, as an intellectually curious person who doesn't want to miss things, I've
looked into the "gender critical" world, and it's not the least bit convincing. I have a
certain amount of sympathy for women who feel like trans-women are encroaching on their
spaces (they're wrong though, their reactions are a lot like male gatekeeping as women gain
rights), but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the abusive, dehumanizing language about
trans people that is all over those sites (just as I have no sympathy whatsoever for trans
people that throw abuse at detractors).
Your first comment was pretty good but you are wrong on some points here;
1) Biological men don't belong in women's safe spaces.
2) The trans movement is doing enormous damage to children and teens who are sucked up into
its ideology and making (or having their parents make) irreversible choices. See the
suppressed study on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria by Lisa Littman among others.
There are in addition increasing numbers of people who are transitioning and then coming to
regret their choice, though granted others claim it rescued them. How anyone can ignore the
hige downside of this phenomenon is beyond me.
Thank you. The left today, at least in its extremes, seems to borrow more from the
underworld than from an essay -erred or not -of human reason. The problem is that these
elements are seeping into the left's main current like a weaponized infiltration.
Liberal elites are so steeped in virtue-signaling that they have convinced themselves
that anything they do is just and righteous. That leaves no room for discussion or
disagreement, and opens the door for cancellation. The real "sin" of the letters is to see
in illiberal cancel culture the mirror image of the intolerance that liberals have been
attributing to Trump. It's obvious now that the atmosphere around the left has become
brutally authoritarian, and the responses to Weiss's letter and the Harper's letter
demonstrate this. Both letters contain necessary critiques of the intolerance of cancel
culture/wokeness, but liberal critics chose to ignore the critiques and focus on the
characters of the signers. This is woke culture in action. Using the typical academic ad
hominem attack, liberal critics opted to kill the messengers because they feared the
message.
If the "woke" are just a tiny number of "four alarm hissy-fit" throwers, how can they
cancel anything?
How is what they are doing any different than boycotts, plenty of which have been
orchestrated by so-called conservatives?
And this author's example of Rushdie as marginalized by having a well publicized fatwa
against him issued makes me conclude that he really doesn't understand the concept.
Boycotts are powerful tools--when weilded effectively. But it's hard to do so. You have
to have a LOT of widespread support, organization, and commitment, to make a boycott work.
Plenty of attempted boycotts fail because there just aren't enough people committed to them
for a long enough time. This is a built-in, self-limiting component of them.
Cancellation, on the other hand, requires little more than thought-free keyboard
warriorism. Canecllation has sometimes involved the woke targetting small local businesses,
where the woke mob can be enough to send a business under, as in the Denver yoga studio
case:
https://coloradosun.com/202... I, personally, think the bar for boycotting a local
business should be FAR higher than what is exhibited here.
Cancel culture wokeness will never "make America good again." The more we indulge that
foul spirit, the more diseased and debased our culture becomes. We don't need more mob
vitality; we need more reasonable actors.
While I basically agree with you on the substance of your piece, I resent dismissing the
left of the 60s as wanting to end monogamy--really? I was part of that movement and I can
tell you we were against the Vietnam War and for the end of segregation, and recognizing
the crimes against people of color, native peoples, the poor, sexual minorities and women's
rights and, above all, the right to free speech. We wanted the values we expounded
thunderously around the world to actually mean something. We weren't all united on
everything but pansexualism was a very minor issue among a very small minority of our
number.
I don't recognize the current "left" as leftist at all but precisely who they appear to
be effete cultural snobs from the upper-middle-class who resemble the "know-nothings",
Maoists and have little to do with class-struggle.
"Nothing in their letter suggests they want to use their power to silence their
critics."
There is an entire paragraph devoted to suggesting that some of the signatories of the
original letter - specifically Bari Weiss, Katha Pollitt, Emily Yoffe, Anne-Marie Slaughter
and Cary Nelson - have tried to use their power to silence their critics, and provided
links to the allegations. I didn't actually follow the links, but the suggestion is
certainly there.
"A woke response letter published at The Objective, which appears to have been penned by
an illiterate -- it may be that the real divide here is between those who can write and
those who can't -- claimed of the first letter..."
I didn't find the Observer letter illiterate, at all, myself.
has anyone commenting here actually been targeted by cancel culture?
I have and it's not fun having to talk to HR about why your boss is receiving anonymous
letters trying to get you fired for stuff said online. in my case it was the celebratory tone
I took upon hearing John McCain had died that inspired this gutless piece of shit to act
IRL.
even the New York Times got a piece of the action by threatening to name the blogger
behind Slate Star Codex.
this is from New Statesman:
Scott Alexander are the real first and middle names of the author, a psychiatrist based in
California, who had kept his full identity secret. However, as he revealed in a post this
week, a New York Times tech reporter decided to write about his blog and the community
around it, and intended to publish Scott Alexander's full name. In response, Alexander
decided to close down Slate Star Codex, claiming that revealing his identity would
undermine his ability to treat his patients, and expose him to death threats, something he
said he had already received in small numbers.
The response on Twitter, where many of the blog's readers often dwell, has been one of
outrage. Luminaries such as Steven Pinker described it as a "tragedy on the blogosphere".
Others such as software inventor and investor Paul Graham talked of cancelling their NYT
subscriptions. The title's "threat" has been widely described as "doxxing", a term more
commonly used for posting online the personal details of an individual behind a social
media account than publishing someone's name in a newspaper story.
by making things personal and consequential in real life, cancel culture is fanning
divisive flames that could one day turn into a real civil conflagration.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
The other turned out to be a 'Novelist'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_Ha
"Rahman was a college scholar at Balliol College,[6] one of the constituent colleges of
Oxford University, and received a first class honours degree in mathematics,[7] before
completing further studies in mathematics, economics, and law at the Maximilianeum, a
foundation for gifted students, and Munich, Cambridge, and Yale universities. He briefly
worked as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs in New York before practising as a corporate
lawyer and then as an international human rights lawyer with the Open Society Foundations
focusing on grand corruption in Africa.[8] He has also worked as an anti-corruption activist
for Transparency International in South Asia.[9]"
Perhaps a small sample but Culture Cancel and Crooke's Woke most likely intersect, perhaps
being one and the same.
The white nationalist contingent here always whines about the alleged oppression of
white people, and my habitual response is to roll my eyes. It seems obvious to me that
white Americans do not rank highly among this planet's long list of oppressed, subjugated,
and dispossessed.
A couple things on this:
Maybe White "Americans" don't have a long history of being oppressed but "Americans" are
not the only Whites being attacked (physically, culturally, or metaphorically) by the Left,
non-whites, tech billionaires, and Globalists.
They are talking about ALL whites all over the world over our entire histories.
And Whites have been enormously oppressed & subjugated. Whites were enslaved in the
American colonies, in most European nations by the "elites", and by North Africans and Middle
Easterners.
Genghis Khan's Mongolian empire reached as far as Europe where Europeans where subjugated,
slaughtered, and raped. To this day there are some Nordic and Slavic people who have slight
hints of the epicanthic fold, even some with blond, blue eyes.
It is now assumed that Europeans used small pox as a "biological weapon" on American
Indians, which there is little evidence supporting this. In fact, when the Small Pox vaccine
was created (I believe it was around 1798) the US government provided the vaccine to Natives
as well as whites. If there had been a program to genocide the Natives, it would have
happened but it didn't.
In Defense of WHITE MALES :
Where I work, for going on 5 years, the white male supervisory population in our company
has been almost ALL replaced by females (all white females). I enjoyed my last supervisor, a
male, he was always fair and very motivating. Since he left we got a woman who has never been
a supervisor but is best friends with one of the level two managers. Our entire team has gone
down hill.
The whole department is like being in high school now.
I will continue to defend white males, even though they rarely defend me .because they're
my people!
The entire white female/male fight that is on-going is only there to prevent us from
uniting. I hope you will begin to support ALL white folks, even those you disagree with the
more we are supportive the more we become united.
Just look at the cost of smartphone that they display at the riots and you instantly get a
certain impression about income of their parents
Notable quotes:
"... And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter, rather, would be its facilitators and financiers." ..."
A section quoted by Crooke in the piece karlof1 linked to
"A social revolution that would be pushed forward by radical children of the bourgeoisie.
Their leaders would have almost nothing to say about poverty or unemployment. Their demands
would be centred on utopian ideals: diversity and racial justice – ideals pursued with
the fervour of an abstract, millenarian ideology.
And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of
society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter,
rather, would be its facilitators and financiers."
And Crooke's thoughts..
"So, what can we make of all this? The US has suddenly exploded into, on the one hand,
culture cancelation, and on the other, into silent seething at the lawlessness, and at all
the statues toppled. It is a nation becoming angrier, and edging towards violence.
One segment of the country believes that America is inherently and institutionally
racist, and incapable of self-correcting its flawed founding principles – absent the
required chemotherapy to kill-off the deadly mutated cells of its past history, traditions
and customs.
Another, affirms those principles that underlay America's 'golden age'; which made
America great; and which, in their view, are precisely those qualities which can make it
great again."
The USA and GB actually implement caste system. That's what job quota means.
Notable quotes:
"... It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we're to help the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it -- but it is vital to be able to compare groups to know who's falling behind, relative to their peers. In the UK, Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 percent less than whites on average, for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 percent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 percent less, but Chinese earn 30 percent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren't systematically discriminating between people on the basis of their skin color, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality. ..."
"... Poor Chinese girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children. ..."
"... But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle class and 57 percent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 percent of them go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group. ..."
"... Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase 'deaths of despair' when he looked at the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject ( Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism , co-written with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls 'the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century'. ..."
You can argue about the merits of pulling down statues, but it's hard to make the case that mass protests serve no useful purpose.
At the very least, they provoke debate and draw attention to uncomfortable topics that it might otherwise be easier to ignore. The
recent protests have forced everyone to have difficult discussions about race, class, poverty and attainment. Any serious examination
of the statistics shows that we're pretty far from equal, but what the figures also show is that it's wrong-headed and damaging to
lump very different groups together.
In these discussions politicians often lazily assume that all BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people are the same, and
that all white groups are equally privileged. But a proper look at the data shows not just that there are striking difference within
BAME groups, but that the very worst-performing group of all are white working-class boys -- the forgotten demographic .
It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we're to help
the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it -- but it is vital to be able to compare groups
to know who's falling behind, relative to their peers. In the UK, Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 percent less than whites on average,
for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 percent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 percent less, but
Chinese earn 30 percent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren't systematically discriminating between people
on the basis of their skin color, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality.
Ucas, the British university admissions service, can provide unique insight into these issues: it is the only outfit in the
world to gather detailed information on all university applicants, including their age, gender, neighborhood and school type. This
is collected along with data on who applied for which courses and who was accepted, and it is renewed in huge detail every year.
Much of the data shows predictable results: there is a gap between rich and poor, as you might expect in a UK state system where
the best schools tend to be located in the most expensive areas. But there are surprising discoveries too: nearly half the children
eligible for free school meals in inner London go on to higher education, but in the country outside London as a whole it is just
26 percent.
Black African British children outperform white children, whereas black Caribbean children tend to do worse. Poor Chinese
girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children.
But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma,
every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle
class and 57 percent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 percent of them
go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group.
This is a trend that can also be seen in the GCSE data; only 17 percent of white British pupils eligible for free school meals
achieve a strong pass in English and maths. Students categorized as Bangladeshi, Black African and Indian are more than twice as
likely to do so. In 2007, the state sector saw 23 percent of black students go on to higher education; this was true for 22 percent
of whites. So about the same. But at the last count, in 2018, the gap had widened to 11 points (41 percent for black students, 30
percent for whites). The children of the white working class are falling away from their peers, in danger of becoming lost.
Going to university is not the golden ticket it once was, but it requires stupefying naivety to believe that seven out of eight
poor white boys take a sober look at the economics of higher education and choose to set up their own businesses instead. The trail
of hard evidence runs cold once they leave school, but the prospects for those who can barely read and write are dreadful and we
can get some idea of the consequences by looking at the 'left behind' areas where unemployment, crime and 'deaths of despair' are
significantly higher than the national average.
Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase 'deaths of despair' when he looked at
the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and
those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject (
Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism , co-written
with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls 'the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century'.
Yet while white working-class males are the largest disadvantaged minority, their cause is the least fashionable. In the intersectional
pyramid of victimhood, white males are at the bottom, tarnished by ideas of 'toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' despite the
fact that in Britain class has always been the most significant indicator of true privilege. It's worrying, then, that any who attempt
'positive action' on behalf of poor white boys face a hostile reaction. Last year, Dulwich and Winchester colleges turned down a
bequest of more than £1 million ($1.25 million) because the donor, Sir Bryan Thwaites, wanted the money ring-fenced for scholarships
for white working-class boys. Peter Lampl, founder of the Sutton Trust, a charity whose stated mission is to improve social mobility,
described Thwaites's offer as 'obnoxious'.
When Ben Bradley, the Conservative MP for Mansfield, tried to ask an 'Equalities' question about working-class white boys in parliament
earlier this year, he was turned down by the Table Office because they do not have any 'protected characteristics'. The concept of
'protected characteristics' was wheeled into UK law by Harriet Harman's Equality Act, 10 years ago, and the Tories, then in opposition,
took the rare step of voting for it. The nine protected characteristics include 'race', 'sex' and 'sexual orientation', but the Table
Office is not alone in interpreting these as 'non-white', 'female' and 'gay'.
Under the Equality Act, 'positive discrimination' remains technically unlawful, but the barely indistinguishable concept of 'positive
action' is explicitly legal. Firms cannot have quotas, but they can set targets. Employers cannot refuse to look at job applications
from people who lack protected characteristics, but by stating that 'applications are particularly welcome' from BAME, female or
LBGTQ+ candidates they send a message that some need not apply.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In 2016 the BBC pledged that half its workforce and leadership would be female by 2020 despite less than 40 percent of Britain's
full-time workers being women. It also set an 8 percent target for LGBT employees, although only around 2 percent of the population
identify as LGBT. This target has been comfortably exceeded, as has been the target of having 15 percent of employees from a BAME
background. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests last month, the corporation raised this target to 20 per cent.
The BBC admits that people from 'low and intermediate income households' are hugely underrepresented in its workforce. But what
does it do about it? Earlier this month Oxford University proudly reported that it was making 'steady progress' in its efforts to
make its campuses 'representative of wider society'. Of its most recent intake of British students, only 14 percent came from the
poorest 40 percent of households.
This fits a pattern: at a push, we can hear acknowledgement of the 'poor white male' problem. But that's as far as it ever goes.
The underperformance of white boys and men is not considered to be a problem worth solving. When figures come out showing the stunning
attainment gaps between boys and girls, the interest lasts for about a day. 'It always got a few headlines,' says Mary Curnock Cook,
the former head of Ucas. 'Where it never got any traction at all was in policy-making in government. I began to think that the subject
of white boys is just too difficult for them, given the politicization of feminism and women's equality.'
When I asked a teacher why white working-class boys have fallen so far behind, he gave me a short answer: girls are better behaved
and immigrant parents are stricter. This is a generalization but nonetheless interesting: if it is the case that parenting is the
problem, then it's not clear how much the UK government can do. Perhaps the reluctance to discuss the subject stems from fear that
such a discussion would lead to difficult territory about family structure, quality of parenting and -- in short -- culture. Perhaps
politicians think it better to let the problem fester, and the children suffer, than to risk discussing it.
Last month, the British government announced that its commission on racial inequality would include an examination into the underperformance
of working-class white boys at schools. Will it look deep into the causes? It might look at recent studies that suggest poor reading
levels in schools is a huge part of the problem. And it might ask whether 'positive action' in the name of diversity has left white
working-class boys behind.
The Michigan State University administration pressured professor Stephen Hsu to resign from
his position as vice president of research and innovation because he touted research that found
police are not more likely to shoot black Americans. The study found:
"The race of a police officer did not predict the race of the citizen shot. In other
words, black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers
were."
For political reasons, the authors of the study sought its retraction.
The U.S. Department of Education warned UCLA that it may impose fines for improperly and
abusively targeting white professor Lt. Col. W. Ajax Peris for disciplinary action over his use
of the n-word while reading to his class Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham
Jail" that contained the expressions "when your first name becomes "n----r," your middle name
becomes "boy" (however old you are). Referring to white civil rights activists King wrote,
"They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of
policemen who view them as 'dirty n----r-lovers.'"
Boston University is considering changing the name of its mascot Rhett because of his link
to "Gone with the Wind." Almost 4,000 Rutgers University students signed a petition to rename
campus buildings Hardenbergh Hall, Frelinghuysen Hall, and Milledoler Hall because these men
were slave owners . University of Arkansas students petitioned to remove a statue of J. William
Fulbright because he was a segregationist who opposed the Brown v. Board of Education that
ruled against school segregation.
The suppression of free speech and ideas by the elite is nothing new. It has a long ugly
history. Galileo Galilei was a 17th-century Italian astronomer, physicist, and engineer,
sometimes called "father of modern physics." The Catholic Church and other scientists of his
day believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo offered evidence that the
Earth traveled around the sun -- heliocentrism. That made him "vehemently suspect of heresy"
and was forced to recant and sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the
Inquisition and was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
Much of today's totalitarianism, promotion of hate and not to mention outright stupidity,
has its roots on college campuses. Sources that report on some of the more egregious forms of
the abandonment of free inquiry, hate, and stupidity at our colleges are College Reform and
College Fix.
Prof. William S. Penn, who was a Distinguished Faculty Award recipient at Michigan State
University in 2003, and a two-time winner of the prestigious Stephen Crane Prize for Fiction,
explained to his students, "This country still is full of closet racists." He said:
"Republicans are not a majority in this country anymore. They are a bunch of dead white
people. Or dying white people."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The public has recently been treated to the term -- white privilege. Colleges have long-held
courses and seminars on "whiteness." One college even has a course titled "Abolition of
Whiteness." According to some academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that non-whites
do not. They earn a higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better
schools and achieve more. Based on that idea, Asian Americans have more white privilege than
white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has more white privilege than probably 95%
of white Americans.
Evidence of how stupid college ideas find their way into the public arena can be seen on our
daily news. Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, "We have to stop demonizing people and realize
the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right,
and we have to start doing something about them." Steven Clifford, a former King Broadcasting
CEO, said, "I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe
supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise (to vote), and I
think that will save our democracy."
As George Orwell said, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."
If the stupid ideas of academic intellectuals remained on college campuses and did not
infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment -- much like a circus.
"... By David Kerans , historian of Russia and financial analyst. He has held appointments at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale Universities, as well as at Wall Street investment houses. ..."
"... "It sees America as in its essence not about freedom but oppression. It argues, in fact, that all the ideals about individual liberty, religious freedom, limited government, and the equality of all human beings were always a falsehood to cover for and justify and entrench the enslavement of human beings under the fiction of race. It wasn't that these values competed with the poison of slavery, and eventually overcame it . It's that the liberal system is itself a form of white supremacy ..."
"... "This view of the world certainly has "moral clarity." What it lacks is moral complexity. No country can be so reduced to one single prism and damned because of it. American society has far more complexity and history has far more contingency than can be jammed into this rubric." ..."
"... " the banks frankly own the place." ..."
"... "wall of propaganda" ..."
"... "racial capitalism" ..."
"... "cancel culture" ..."
"... "all lives matter" ..."
"... "silence is violence" ..."
"... "Putin apologist." ..."
"... " a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate in favor of ideological conformity" ..."
"... "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism", a "tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty" ..."
"... "calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought." ..."
"... "resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion," ..."
"... "We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists, who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement. This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
By
David
Kerans
, historian of Russia and financial analyst. He has held appointments at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale
Universities, as well as at Wall Street investment houses.
Should the issue of racism really trump all of America's other flaws, such as runaway wealth inequality, out of control
military spending, a corrupt finance system, an oligarchic mass media, and a throttled democracy?
Headcounters inform us
that 15 to 25 million people have turned up in the past six weeks for demonstrations related to Black Lives Matter (BLM),
making this one of the biggest waves of civic engagement in American history. A few reforms to policing are under discussion,
and we see some shifts in political leanings – polls indicate enthusiasm for Trump ebbing, pessimism about the direction of
the country rising, and support for reduced funding of police departments. But surely something broader is afoot?
It isn't difficult to see
that the BLM movement is making a real mark in two ways. In the conceptual realm, many BLM-supporting scholars are promoting
an unabashedly narrow understanding of the driving forces of American history and power structures, ardently centered on
racial
oppression
.
On the ground, meanwhile, a strong current of left illiberalism has taken shape, wherein a minority of strident activists are
imposing their orthodoxy on race-related matters with a fervor approaching Red Scare McCarthyism.
Andrew Sullivan
, writing in The Intelligencer, has aptly characterized BLM's analytical approach:
"It sees America as in its essence not about freedom but oppression. It argues, in fact,
that all the ideals about individual liberty, religious freedom, limited government, and the equality of all human beings were
always a falsehood to cover for and justify and entrench the enslavement of human beings under the fiction of race. It wasn't
that these values competed with the poison of slavery, and eventually overcame it . It's that the liberal system is itself a
form of white supremacy
"This view of the world certainly has "moral clarity." What it lacks is moral
complexity. No country can be so reduced to one single prism and damned because of it. American society has far more
complexity and history has far more contingency than can be jammed into this rubric."
Allow yourself a moment to
survey the country's primary problems. Your list might include:
Runaway global warming,
plausibly a threat to all forms of life on earth within the foreseeable future.
A finance system that
fuels corruption and capital flight from all over the world to
"offshore"
banking
havens
–
meaning primarily UK dependencies and the US – thereby hollowing out their tax bases, and ours. The amounts are staggering, in
the tens of trillions of
dollars
.
Runaway wealth inequality,
which correlates
persuasively
to
every measurable human pathology, across every geography, across all wealth groups. The biological consequences of the
stresses accompanying inequality are heavy, and even punish the
rich
,
as Richard G Wilkinson and Kate Pickett elaborate throughout their book The Spirit Level.
About 150 million
Americans
live
with chronic disease, attributable partly to pollution from pesticides, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc, and, likely also to
the stress effects of wealth inequality.
The Pentagon's colossal
budget –
unauditable
and
thus unaccountable to Congress – sucking out ever increasing resources, and inclining the US to stoke international tensions
so as to justify the river of money.
A higher-education constellation steered more to producing profit than mature citizens, with a consequent erosion of America's
human
capital
on
various planes.
A throttled democracy,
where the trivial controls over campaign fundraising allow big-money donors and corporations to influence politicians. Senator
Dick
Durbin
(D-Illinois) expressed his despair about crafting meaningful banking regulations back in 2009:
" the
banks frankly own the place."
And so the stimulus package gives hundreds of billions to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin with
virtually no
controls
and
with corrupt
outcomes
,
but without public uproar.
An oligarchic mass media
that erects a
"wall of propaganda"
(political commentator Cenk Uygur's phrasing)
against anything smelling like social democracy – and, I would add, any gesture of rapprochement with Russia, among other
taboo subjects, including climate change, and military
intervention
.
Are any of these issues
dependent on the legacy of American slavery? America has myriad challenges to face, the vestiges of slavery and racism among
them, not above them. Contorting analytical approaches to prioritize the perspective of racial oppression obscures more than
it illuminates. America needs citizens better informed on all of the crises listed above.
The trajectory of the
George Floyd demonstrations seems to illustrate the risk of BLM becoming myopic.
BLM
architects
in the academy insist that the goal is to end
"racial capitalism"
via a
color-conscious
version
of
social democracy, but the race-grievance dimension – once presented as all-eclipsing – drowns out all other messages. And so
the mass media has easily channeled the demonstrations into very narrow terrain: demands to reduce police budgets and ensure
accountability for rogue cops. (Not so long ago, be it noted, BLM leadership cozied up to numerous corporate donors, and has
looked decidedly not revolutionary to keen critics such as social commentator
Paul
Street
.)
Meanwhile, BLM's
self-righteous repudiation of America has found potent application in its culture wars. An armada of aggressive online
social-justice warriors has honed a seemingly unbridled
"cancel culture"
–
including iconoclasm (toppling statues, for example), conformity control (condemning the phrase
"all
lives matter"
, or anything
else
that
might somehow
dilute
anti-racist
messaging), demanding participatory anti-racism on their terms (
"silence is violence"
,
for
instance
), denunciations (branding any level of skepticism racist, and often insisting that beliefs straying from their
line threaten the physical safety of black
people
),
and punishment. Plenty of people accused of racism – or simply racial insensitivity, or
less
–
have been fired, some even after making self-abasing confessions to their perceived sins, because their employer fears the
wrath of the woke mob.
BLM did not invent any
dimension of cancel culture, ie, the exclusion of tainted persons, groups or institutions from communication venues or
respectful attention. Recall, for instance, the McCarthyist anti-communist witch hunts, or the establishment's branding of
anyone doubting the Russiagate narrative as a
"Putin apologist."
But BLM's
stridency and moral certitude has fomented cancel culture.
Cancel culture is not
risk-free to progressive causes. In 2017, its #metoo emanation claimed the career of Senator Al Franken, one of the most
progressive senators – an outcome many of his colleagues
regret
.
And this is not an epiphenomenon. On July 7, Harper's Magazine published an
open
letter
from more than 150 cultural luminaries, including left-wing icons Noam Chomsky and Gloria Steinem, expressing grave
alarm over
" a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken
our norms of open debate in favor of ideological conformity"
,
"a vogue for public
shaming and ostracism", a "tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty"
, and
"calls
for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought."
They warn that
"resistance
must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion,"
and lament the cowardly obedience of corporate
and university leaders in bowing to digital woke-mob demands.
"We are already paying the
price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists, who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the
consensus or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement. This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of
our time."
Let's hope that message
gets through.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
"... "Whiteness (and its accepted normality) also exist as everyday microaggressions toward people of color," is not a message one might expect to find on the website of a Smithsonian Institution museum. Yet there it is, part of the topic titled 'Whiteness' in a series called 'Talking About Race', second from the top of the home page of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC). ..."
"... There is no way to tell how long it has been up on the site, but it was brought to the public eye on Tuesday by Claremont Institute president Ryan P. Williams, who described it as "divisive propaganda." ..."
"... "common characteristics of most US White people," ..."
"... "committed to equity." ..."
"... It's bad enough that this kind of racialist propaganda is being pushed by the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian, but it gets worse. The Trump administration is literally paying race hucksters to brainwash its own employees, right now. Defense Secretary Mark Esper virtue-signaled on Twitter on Wednesday about the first meeting of the DOD Board on Diversity and Inclusion, which will do such vitally important work as reviewing "hairstyle and grooming policies for racial bias." ..."
"... Leaked documents published by researcher Christopher Rufo show diversity training along the lines above currently being carried out at the Treasury Department. The contractor who is doing this billed the federal government millions for various "diversity" schemes over the past 15 years. ..."
"... People like that are part of an entire cottage industry of "anti-racism" consultants that charge big money for "educating" captive audiences of corporate and government employees, forced to attend their "sensitivity training" and "unconscious bias" workshops for years. The best part – for them, not for the country – is that the way they define racism, it can never be overcome or resolved, requiring their grift to continue indefinitely. ..."
"... This is "racism masquerading as antiracism" as Rufo puts it, calling for the Trump administration to immediately ban the teaching of "toxic principles of critical race theory, race essentialism, and neo-segregationism." ..."
"Whiteness (and its accepted normality) also exist as everyday microaggressions toward
people of color," is not a message one might expect to find on the website of a Smithsonian Institution museum. Yet there
it is, part of the
topic
titled
'Whiteness' in a series called 'Talking About Race', second from the top of the home
page
of
the National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC).
There is no way to tell
how long it has been up on the site, but it was brought to the public eye on Tuesday by Claremont Institute president Ryan P.
Williams, who described it as
"divisive propaganda."
Others weren't so
restrained.
"This is seriously the most racist document I've ever seen in mainstream
circulation,"
said columnist
Inez
Stepman
, while radio show host
Seth
Leibsohn
described it as
"out and out bigotry"
and called to
"Defund
the Smithsonian now."
You see, NMAAHC is the
newest addition to the Smithsonian family of museums – opened in 2016 to great fanfare, with then-President Barack Obama in
attendance – and therefore funded by US taxpayers.
The most controversial
portion of the 'Whiteness' presentation is an infographic about
"common characteristics
of most US White people,"
based on a slide by corporate consultant Judith H Katz and spruced up by NMAAHC designers.
There we find out that self-reliance, nuclear family, the scientific method, 'Judeo-Christian tradition', delaying
gratification, competitiveness and justice based on protecting property and English common law are all
"white"
things.
What's particularly
disturbing is that Katz wrote that back in 1990. According to her
bio
on
the website of Kaleel Jamison Consulting, a New York-based outfit, she actually wrote a Handbook for Anti-Racism Training in
1978. Now her ideas have been dusted off and sandwiched between 'White Fragility' author and corporate grifter Robin DiAngelo,
and radical feminist and social justice activist bell hooks. Capping off the 'Whiteness' section are suggested readings and
videos from liberal media outlets such as the Guardian, Vox and the Atlantic, along with questions designed for teachers.
And then it hits you: it's
a lesson plan. Sure enough, the first of the three categories the museum pitches its 'Talking about race' series to are
"educators,"
followed
by parents and finally persons
"committed to equity."
Which doesn't mean ownership
of assets with debts or liabilities, but "equality of outcomes," in the new language of intersectional social justice.
But wait, there's more!
The current featured topic in the series is '
Being
Antiracist
' – a celebration of race-based policies and outcomes as defined by social justice activist Ibram X. Kendi and
others. Just wait till you get to '
Social
Identities and Systems of Oppression
'...
It's bad enough that this
kind of racialist propaganda is being pushed by the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian, but it gets worse. The Trump administration
is literally paying race hucksters to brainwash its own employees, right now. Defense Secretary Mark Esper
virtue-signaled
on
Twitter on Wednesday about the first meeting of the DOD Board on Diversity and Inclusion, which will do such vitally important
work as reviewing
"hairstyle and grooming policies for racial bias."
Just last week, the US
Army emailed out a graphic describing President Donald Trump's campaign slogan 'Make America Great Again' as an example of
"covert
white supremacy,"
only to say it was done
"in error"
when caught.
Leaked documents published
by researcher Christopher Rufo show diversity training along the lines above currently being carried out at the Treasury
Department. The contractor who is doing this billed the federal government millions for various "diversity"
schemes
over the past 15 years.
People like that are part
of an entire cottage industry of
"anti-racism"
consultants that charge big money
for
"educating"
captive audiences of corporate and government employees, forced to
attend their
"sensitivity training"
and
"unconscious
bias"
workshops for years. The best part – for them, not for the country – is that the way they define racism, it can
never be overcome or resolved, requiring their grift to continue indefinitely.
By the logic of these
anti-racist
"educators,"
when the Rev. Martin Luther King Junior dreamed a dream in
1963 that his children
"will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character,"
he was in fact racist. Segregation is not an evil to be condemned, but a good that brings about
"equity."
Now
bend the knee and fork over your money, sinners!
This is "racism masquerading as antiracism" as Rufo
puts
it,
calling for the Trump administration to immediately ban the teaching of "toxic principles of critical race theory, race
essentialism, and neo-segregationism."
There is ample evidence
these teachings underpinned last month's race riots across America. If left unchecked, it isn't too hard to see that there
will be war. There is still time to step back from the brink and for people to see reason. Ah, but I forget, that's a
"white
people thing."
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
"... In their quest to change Western culture, Black Lives Matter and 'Woke Twitter' are redefining racism to weaponize the charge against anyone they choose. It's a dishonest tactic that lets them get away with their own bigotry. ..."
Micah Curtis is a game and tech
journalist from the US. Aside from writing for RT, he hosts the podcast Micah and The Hatman, and is an independent
comic book writer. Follow Micah at
@MindofMicahC
In their quest to change Western culture, Black Lives Matter and 'Woke Twitter' are redefining racism to weaponize the charge
against anyone they choose. It's a dishonest tactic that lets them get away with their own bigotry.
Racism is an evil thing.
People who are branded with that title are given a massive scarlet letter, and are generally cast out of civil society.
Rightfully so, as no one wants to interact with someone who is so malicious towards someone else's skin color. Individuals
like Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer are not tolerated (unless they're
commentating
for
CNN I suppose).
One of the above words
needs to be stressed: it's 'malicious'. As it has been understood for as far as I can remember, racism requires malice. This
is why the term 'hate group' was first coined. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, or other white
nationalists or white supremacists are considered 'hateful' because that is their modus operandi. They outright despise anyone
who isn't like they are.
However, racism isn't
something that is understood to be exclusive to a skin color either. Well, unless you're 'woke'. If you're America's Got
Talent host Nick Cannon, you can call white people and Jews
"
closer
to animals
"
and somehow you're not a racist. You can throw a
"
mute
white people
"
button on your platform and you're somehow totally cool. Bill De Blasio can tell Jewish
people
and
other religious groups that they can't assemble, but a BLM mural is serious business. And, of course, you can be a sitting
senator and brand all Trump supporters
"
white
supremacists
"
with no pushback.
The woke mob doesn't like
the current definition of racism because they fit it to a T. Most people that they are trying to say are racists are more
offended by pineapple on their pizza than anyone's melanin. Meanwhile, BLM supporters like Nick Cannon can spout something
that sounds like it would appear in Der Sturmer and he's fine. You're also going to have to explain to me how the Goya Foods
CEO, a Trump supporter, is a white supremacist when he's a Latino.
Why follow the rules or
adhere to definitions, when you can weaponize the debate to change the rules and definitions to suit your needs?
This is exactly how dopey
the conversation has become. The CDC had over a thousand employees asking the organization to
"declare
racism a public health
crisis
."
So
in the midst of an epidemic, your priority is declaring an irrational emotional response to melanin content in one's skin a
health crisis?! That's not even the CDC's job! Not to mention, acting as if America has anything close to the problems we had
in the 1960s and before is just revisionist. But then again, that's the problem with redefining a term that needs a strong
definition. Everything is becoming racist to the point that the term is becoming worthless.
We're at a point where no one knows who the racists are any more, because we can't even agree on the term. Certain groups are
excluded because they're 'the oppressed groups', as if that has anything to do with evil behavior. Racism is evil. Truly evil.
Evil is not relegated to a specific group or social class. Evil is simply evil. If we redefine something evil as the opposite
at any point, we open the door for tragedy. Many groups of people have been the victim of this behavior at one point in
history or another. If the woke mob gets its way, history will repeat itself.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
The Talmud is the absolute paradigm for racial supremacy, intolerance and hatred, a
satanic bible compiled for psychopaths and pedophiles. Anyone who burns it gets my vote for a
statue.
Our website traffic easily broke all records for the month of June, and these high levels
have now continued into July, suggesting that the huge rise produced by the initial wave of
Black Lives Matters protests may be more than temporary. It appears that many new readers first
discovered our alternative webzine at that point, and quite a few have stayed on as regular
visitors.
A longer-term factor that may be strengthening our position is the unprecedented wave of
ideological purges that have swept our country since early June, with prominent figures in the
intellectual and media firmaments being especially hard hit. When opinion-leaders become
fearful of uttering even slightly controversial words, they either grow silent or only mouth
the most saccharine homilies, thereby forcing many of their erstwhile readers to look elsewhere
for more candid discussions. And our own webzine is about as "elsewhere" as one could possibly
get.
Take, for example, the New York Times , more than ever our national newspaper of
record. For the last few years, one of its top figures had been Editorial Page Editor James
Bennet, who had previously run The Atlantic , and he was widely considered a leading
candidate to assume the same position at the Gray Lady after next year's scheduled retirement
of the current top editor. Indeed, with his brother serving as U.S. Senator from Colorado --
and a serious if second-rank presidential candidate -- the Lifestyle section of the
Washington Post had already hailed
the Bennet brothers as the potential saviors of the American establishment.
But then his paper published an op-ed by an influential Republican senator endorsing
President Trump's call for a harsh crackdown on riots and looting, and a Twitter mob of
outraged junior Times staffers organized a revolt. The mission of the NYT Opinion
Pages is obviously to provide a diversity of opinions, but Bennet
was quickly purged .
A similar fate befell the highly-regarded longtime editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer after his
paper ran a headline considered insufficiently respectful to black rioters . Michigan State
University researchers had raised doubts about the accepted narrative of black deaths at the
hands of police, and physicist Stephen Hsu, the Senior Vice President who had supported their
work,
was forced to resign his administrative position as a consequence.
Numerous other figures of lesser rank have been purged, their careers and livelihoods
destroyed for Tweeting
out a phrase such as "All Lives Matter," whose current classification as "hate speech"
might have stunned even George Orwell. Or perhaps a spouse or other close relative
had denounced the black rioters . The standards of acceptable discourse are changing so
rapidly that positions which were completely innocuous just a few weeks ago have suddenly
become controversial or even forbidden, with punishments sometimes inflicted on a retroactive
basis.
I am hardly alone in viewing this situation with great concern. Just last week, some 150
prominent American writers, academics, and intellectuals published an open
letter in Harpers expressing their grave concern over protecting our freedom of
speech and thought.
Admittedly, the credentials of some of the names on the list
were rather doubtful . After all, David Frum and various hard-core Neocons had themselves
led the effort to purge from the media all critics of Bush's disastrous Iraq War, and more
recently they have continued to do with same with regard to our irrational hostility towards
Putin's Russia. But the principled histories of other signers such as Noam Chomsky partially
compensated for the inclusion of such unpleasant opportunists.
Although the Harpers statement attracted many stars of our liberal firmament,
apparently few people read Harpers these days, with its website traffic being just a
tenth of our own. Therefore, the reaction in the media itself was a much more important factor,
and this seems to have been decidedly mixed. 150 rather obscure activists soon issued a
contrasting statement, which major outlets such as NYT , CNN , and the Los
Angeles Times seem to have accorded equal or greater weight, hardly suggesting that the
ideological tide has started to turn.
Back a couple of years ago, there was a popular joke going around Chinese social media in
which Chairman Mao came back to life with all sorts of questions about the modern world. Among
other things, he was informed his disastrous Cultural Revolution had shifted to America, a
prescient observation given the events of the last few weeks:
The controversial May 25th death of a black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis police
custody soon set off the greatest nationwide wave of protests, riots, and looting in at least
two generations, and the once-placid hometown of the Mary Tyler Moore Show alone suffered some
five hundred million dollars of damage. Some of the main political reactions have been
especially surprising, as the newly elevated activists of the Black Lives Matter movement have
received massive media support for their demands that local urban police departments be
"defunded," a proposal so bizarre that it had previously been almost unknown.
Statues, monuments, and other symbolic representations of traditional American history
quickly became a leading target. Hubert Humphrey's Minneapolis has long been an extremely
liberal bastion of the heavily Scandinavian Upper Midwest, having no ties to the South or
slavery, but Floyd's death soon launched an unprecedented national effort to eradicate all
remaining Confederate memorials and other Southern cultural traces throughout our society.
Popular country music groups such as the Dixie Chicks
and Lady
Antebellum had freely recorded their songs for decades, but they were now suddenly forced
to change their names in frantic haste.
And although this revolutionary purge began with Confederacy, it soon extended to include
much of our entire national history, with illustrious former occupants of the White House being
the most prominent targets. Woodrow Wilson ranked as Princeton University's most famous alumnus
and its former president, but his name
was quickly scraped off the renowned public policy school , while the Natural History
Museum of New York is similarly
removing a statue of Theodore Roosevelt .
Abraham Lincoln and
Ulysses S. Grant had together won the Civil War and abolished black slavery, but their
statues around the country were vandalized or ordered removed. The same fate befell
Andrew Jackson along with the author of the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem.
The leading heroes of the American Republic from its birth in 1776 face "cancellation" and
this sudden tidal wave of attacks has clearly gained considerable elite backing. The New
York Times carries enormous weight in such circles, and last Tuesday their lead opinion
piece called for the
Jefferson Memorial to be replaced by a towering statue of a black woman, while one of their
regular columnists has repeatedly demanded that all
monuments honoring George Washington suffer a similar fate . Stacy Abrams, often mentioned
as one of Joe Biden's leading Vice Presidential choices, had previously made
the destruction of Georgia's historic Stone Mountain Memorial part of her campaign
platform, so we now seem only a step or two away from credible political demands that Mount
Rushmore be dynamited Taliban-style.
The original roots of our country were Anglo-Saxon and this heritage remained dominant
during its first century or more, but other strands in our national tapestry are suffering
similar vilification. Christopher Columbus discovered the New World for Spain, but he has
became a hated
and despised figure across our country , so perhaps in the near future his only surviving
North American monument will be the huge statue honoring him in the
heart of Mexico City . Father Junipero Serra founded Hispanic California and a few years
ago was canonized as the first and only Latin American saint, but his
statues have been toppled and his name already removed from Stanford University buildings.
At the time we acquired the sparsely-populated American Southwest, the bulk of our new Hispanic
population was concentrated in New Mexico, but the founding father of that region has now had
his monument attacked and vandalized . Cervantes, author of Don Quixote , is
considered the greatest writer in the Spanish language, and his statue was also
vandalized .
Perhaps these trends will abate and the onrushing tide of cultural destruction may begin to
recede. But at present there seems a serious possibility that the overwhelming majority of
America's leading historical figures prior to the political revolution of the 1930s may be
destined for the scrap heap. A decade ago, President Obama and most prominent Democrats opposed
Gay Marriage, but just a few years later, the CEO of Mozilla
was forced to resign when his past political contribution to a California initiative taking
that same position came to light, and today private individuals might easily lose their jobs at
many corporations for expressing such views. Thus, one might easily imagine that within five or
ten years, any public expressions of admiration for Washington or Jefferson might be considered
by many as bordering on "hate speech," and carry severe social and employment consequences. Our
nation seems to be suffering the sort of fate normally inflicted upon a conquered people, whose
new masters seek to break their spirit and stamp out any notions of future resistance.
A good example of this growing climate of fear came a couple of weeks ago when a longtime
blogger going under the name "Scott Alexander"
deleted his entire website and its millions of words of accumulated archives because the
New York Times was about to run an article revealing his true identity. I had only been
slightly aware of the SlateStarCodex
blogsite and the "rationalist" community it had gradually accumulated, but the development
was apparently significant enough to provoke
a long article in the New Yorker .
The target of the alleged witch-hunt was hardly any sort of right-winger. He was reportedly
a liberal Jewish psychiatrist living in Berkeley, whose most notable piece of writing had been
a massive 30,000 word refutation of neo-reactionary thought. But because he was willing to
entertain ideas and contributors outside the tight envelope of the politically-correct canon,
he believed that his life would be destroyed if his name became known.
Conservative commenter Tucker Carlson has recently attracted the highest ratings in cable
history for populist positions, some of which have influenced President Trump. But just a
couple of days ago, his top writer, a certain Blake Neff, was
forced to resign after CNN revealed his years of pseudonymous remarks on a rightwing
forum, even though the most egregious of these seemed no worse than somewhat crude
racially-charged humor.
Our own website attracts thousands of commenters, many of whom have left remarks vastly more
controversial than anything written by Neff let alone Alexander, and these two incidents
naturally
inspired several posts by blogger Steve Sailer , which attracted many hundreds of worried
comments in the resulting threads. Although I could entirely understood that many members of
our community were fearful of being "doxxed" by the media, I explained why I thought the
possibility quite unlikely.
Although it's been a few years since my name last appeared on the front page of the New
York Times , I am still at least a bit of a public figure, and I would say that many of the
articles I have published under my own name have been at least 100 times as "controversial" as
anything written by the unfortunate "Scott Alexander." The regular monthly traffic to our
website is six or seven times as great as that which flowed to SlateStarCodex prior to its
sudden disappearance, and I suspect that our influence has also been far greater. Any serious
journalist who wanted to get in touch with me could certainly do so, and I have been freely
given many interviews in the past, while hundreds of reasonably prominent writers, academics,
and other intellectuals have spent years on my regular distribution list.
Tracking down the identity of an anonymous commenter who once or twice made doubtful remarks
is extremely hard work, and at the end of the process you will have probably netted yourself a
pretty small fish. Surely any eager scalp-hunter in the media would prefer to casually mine the
hundreds of thousands of words in my articles, which would provide a veritable cornucopia of
exceptionally explosive material, all fully searchable and conveniently organized by particular
taboos. Yet for years the entire journalistic community has scrupulously averted their eyes
from such mammoth potential scandal. And the likely explanation may provide some important
insights into the dynamics of ideological conflict in the media.
Activist organizations often take the lead in locating controversial statements, which they
then pass along to their media allies for ritual denunciation, and much of my own material
would seem especially provocative to the fearsome ADL. Yet oddly enough, that organization
seemed quite reluctant to engage with me, and only after my repeated baiting did
they finally issue a rather short and perfunctory critique in 2018, which lacked any named
author. But even that lackluster effort afforded me an opening to respond with my own
7,300 word essay highlighting the very unsavory origins and activities of that
controversial organization. After that exchange, they went back into hiding and have remained
there ever since.
In my lengthy analysis
of the true history of World War II, I described what I called "the Lord Voldemort Effect,"
explaining why so much of our mainstream source material should be treated with great care:
In the popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young
magicians, is often identified as "He Who Must Not Be Named," since the mere vocalization of
those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the speaker. Jews have long enjoyed
enormous power and influence over the media and political life, while fanatic Jewish
activists demonstrate hair-trigger eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of
being insufficiently friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two
factors has therefore induced such a "Lord Voldemort Effect" regarding Jewish activities in
most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should become very
cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might possibly contain a Jewish
dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments from silence.
However, even dread Lord Voldemorts may shrink from a terrifying Lord Voldemort of their
own, and I think that this website falls into that category. The ADL and various other powerful
organizations may have quietly issued an edict that absolutely forbids the media outlets they
influence from mentioning our existence. I believe there is strong evidence in favor of this
remarkable hypothesis.
Among Trump's surviving advisors, Stephen Miller provokes some of the most intense
hostility, and last November the SPLC and its media allies made a concerted attempt to force
his resignation based upon some of his private emails, which had promoted several controversial
posts by Steve Sailer. The resulting firestorm was discussed on this website, and
I analyzed some of the strange anomalies:
Just as might be expected, the whole SPLC attack is "guilt by association," and Ctrl-F
reveals a full 14 references to VDare, with the website characterized in very harsh terms.
Yet although there are several mentions of Steve and his writings, there is absolutely no
reference to this webzine, despite being Steve's primary venue.
Offhand, this might seem extremely odd. My own guess is that much of the material we
publish is 10x as "controversial" as anything VDare has ever run, and many of my own personal
articles, including those that have spent over a year on the Home page, might be up in the
30x or 40x potency range. Moreover, I think our traffic these days is something like 10x that
of VDare, seemingly making us an extremely juicy target.
Now admittedly, I don't know that Miller fellow, but the horrifying VDare post that Miller
supposedly shared was actually republished by VDare from this website. And that would surely
have made it very, very easy for the SPLC to use the connection as a opening to begin
cataloguing the unspeakingly horrifying list of transgressions we regularly feature, easily
expanding the length of their attack on Miller by adding another 6,000 words. Yet the silence
has been totally deafening. Puzzling
Here's my own hypothesis
As everyone knows, there are certain "powerful groups" in our society that so terrify
members of the media and political worlds that they receive the "Lord Voldemort Treatment,"
with mainstream individuals being terrified that merely speaking the name would result in
destruction. Indeed, the SPLC is one of the primary enforcers of that edict.
However, my theory is that even those dread Lord Voldemorts greatly fear an even more
dreadful Lord Voldemort of their own, namely this webzine. The SPLC writer knew perfectly
well that mere mention of The Unz Review might ensure his destruction. I'd guess that
the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC has made this prohibition absolutely clear to everyone in the
media/political worlds.
Given that Miller's main transgression was his promotion of posts originally published on
this website, the media could have easily associated him with the rest of our material, much of
which was sufficiently explosive to have almost certainly forced his resignation. Yet when the
journalists and activists weighed the likelihood of destroying Trump's most hated advisor
against the danger of mentioning our existence, the latter factor was still judged the
stronger, allowing Miller to survive.
This hypothesis was strongly supported by a second incident later that same month. We had
previously published an article by Prof. Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University, and I read in my
morning Times that he had suddenly
become embroiled in a major Internet controversy , with a chorus of angry critics seeking
to have him removed. According to the article, he had apparently promoted the "vile and stupid"
views of some anti-feminist website in one of his Tweets, which had come to the attention of an
enraged activist. The resulting firestorm of denunciations on Twitter had been viewed 2.5
million times, provoking a major academic controversy in the national media.
Being curious about what had happened, I contacted Rasmusen to see whether he might want to
submit a piece regarding the controversy,
which he did . But to my utter astonishment, I discovered that the website involved had
actually been our own, a fact that I never would never have suspected from the extremely vague
and circuitous discussion provided in the newspaper. Apparently, the old-fashioned
Who-What-Where provisions of the Times style manual had been quietly amended to prohibit
providing any hint of our existence even when we were at the absolute center of one of their
1,000 word news stories.
Highly-controversial ideas backed by strong evidence may prove dangerously contagious, and
the political/media strategy pursued by the ADL, the Times , and numerous other organs
of the elite establishment seems perfectly rational. Since our Bill of Rights still provides
considerable protection for freedom of speech, the next-best alternative is to institute a
strict cordon sanitaire , intended to strictly minimize the number of individuals who
might become infected.
Our webzine and my own articles are hardly the only victims of this sort of strategy -- once
dubbed "the Blackout" by eminent historian Harry Elmer Barnes -- whose other targets often
possess the most respectable of establishmentarian credentials.
Last month marked the 31st anniversary of the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and
elite media coverage was especially extensive this year due to our current global confrontation
with China. The New York Times devoted most of two full pages to a photo-laden
recapitulation while the Wall Street Journal gave it front-page treatment, with just
those two publications alone running some six separate articles and columns on those horrifying
events from three decades ago.
Yet back in the 1990s, the former Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post , who
had personally covered the events, published a long article in the prestigious Columbia
Journalism Review entitled The Myth of Tiananmen
, in which he publicly admitted that the supposed "massacre" was merely a fraudulent concoction
of careless journalists and dishonest propagandists. At least some of our top editors and
journalists must surely be aware of these facts, and feel guilty about promoting a
long-debunked hoax of the late 1980s. But any mention of those widely-known historical facts is
strictly forbidden in the media, lest American readers become confused and begin to consider an
alternative narrative.
Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal at least as powerful as our own, and the total break in
our relations began when Congress passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012, targeting important Russian
leaders. Yet none of our media outlets have ever been willing to admit that the facts used to
justify that very dangerous decision seem to have been entirely fraudulent, as recounted
in
the article we recently published by Prof. John Ryan.
Similarly, our sudden purge from both Google and Facebook came just days after my own
long article presenting the strong evidence that America's ongoing Covid-19 disaster was
the unintentional blowback from our own extremely reckless biowarfare attack against China (and
Iran). Over 130,000 of our citizens have already died and our daily life has been wrecked, so
the American people might grow outraged if they began to suspect that this huge national
disaster was entirely self-inflicted.
And the incident that sparked our current national upheaval includes certain elements that
our media has scrupulously avoided mentioning. The knee-neck hold used against George Floyd was
standard police procedure in Minneapolis and many other cities, and had apparently been
employed thousands of times across our country in recent years with virtually no fatalities.
Meanwhile, Floyd's official autopsy indicated that he had lethal levels
of Fentanyl and other illegal drugs in his system at the time of his demise. Perhaps the
connection between these two facts is more than purely coincidental, and if they became widely
known, popular sentiments might shift.
Finally, our alternative media webzine is pleased to have recently added two additional
columnists together with major portions of their archives, which will help to further broaden
our perspective.
Larry Romanoff has been a regular contributor to the Global Research website, most recently
focusing on the Coronavirus outbreak in China, and earlier this year he published an
article pointed to the considerable evidence that the virus had originated in the U.S.,
which was cited by Chinese officials and
soon became a flashpoint in American-Chinese relations . After having been viewed millions
of times, that piece and several others seem to have disappeared from their original venue, but
along with the rest of his writings, they are now conveniently available on our own
website .
For the last quarter-century, Jared Taylor has probably been America's most prominent White
Nationalist writer. Although Black Nationalists such as Al Sharpton have cable television shows
and boast of many dozens of visits to the White House, the growing climate of ideological
repression has caused Taylor and his American Renaissance organization to be
deplatformed from YouTube, Twitter, and numerous other Internet services. One of his main
writers is Gregory Hood, whom we have now added as a regular columnist , together with dozens of
his pieces over the last few years.
Claiming 'Unique Opportunity to Lead the Nation,' Parents Ask High School to Adopt 'Freedom
of Expression Resolution'
Has the cancel culture infected your kids' school? A parent group may have a partial remedy.
A
resolution submitted to the New Trier High School board in north suburban Chicago would, if
adopted, assure:
New Trier High School's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by
most members of the New Trier High School community to be offensive, unwise.
It would guaranty all members of the school community "the broadest possible latitude to
speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn."
The resolution apparently would be the first of its kind in the nation at the high school
level. It is modeled on
The Chicago Statement , which was adopted by the University of Chicago in 2015 in response
to the illiberal trend of free speech intolerance on college campuses . The full resolution
appears below.
It was drafted by New Trier
Neighbors , a parent group that grew out of opposition to what was criticized as one-sided
content in the school's "Seminar Day" in 2017, which a
Wall Street Journal article called "Racial Indoctrination Day."
The seminar received extensive, national media attention because of its exclusive focus on
topics like systemic racism, implicit bias and, as the Journal put it, the "divisive view of
race as a primordial fact, the essence of identity, a bright line between oppressed and
oppressor."
We
wrote about it here at the time. My son attended the school then. I was among the critics
who asked for a broader range of viewpoints like those of Robert Woodson, Shelby Steele, Thomas
Sowell, John McWhorter and Corey Brooks. The school rejected our requests.
Since then, the school has only broadened what it describes as its "equity initiative,"
expanding what dissenting parents regard as authoritarian imposition of the far left's
single-minded views on race – as well as other topics. Last year, the school moved to
infuse its administration's views on "equity" into virtually all subject areas including math,
science, sports, language and more, which you can see in the
memo linked here .
Some right-of-center students have
spoken up about having their viewpoints squelched, and even being penalized on grading for
their views. My kids reported the same things when there.
New Trier is hardly alone. Similar stories from high schools and even grade schools around
the country are now common.
The resolution presents the school with an opportunity to move in a more balanced direction
that respects diversity of opinion and returns the school to a focus on critical thinking
skills. New Trier Neighbors drafted the resolution in consultation with the K-12 policy experts
at the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education.
No word yet on how or when the school board will act on it.
We often receive emails at Wirepoints from ordinary citizens asking "What can I do? How can
I get involved to stop what's happening?"
This resolution is one answer. Push for a similar one in your school districts.
The cancel culture that now plagues the nation has its roots where it should have no place
whatsoever – schools. That's especially true about the disastrously counterproductive
orthodoxy on systemic racism, implicit bias and the like. Its easily predictable consequences
are now apparent across the nation – more racism and division. Race relations have been
set back by fifty years.
For those reasons, what New Trier itself does with the resolution is actually secondary.
While we hope it will adopt the resolution, it's far more important that its introduction set a
trend for districts around the nation.
Indoctrination long ago replaced education on most college campuses. Freedom of expression
resolutions might help save high schools from the same fate.
Parents, it's in your hands.
The New Trier High School Freedom of Expression Resolution, presented to the Board for
adoption in its entirety, and based on The Chicago Statement:
Because New Trier High School is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it
guarantees all members of the New Trier High School community the broadest possible latitude to
speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are
necessary to the functioning of New Trier High School, New Trier High School fully respects and
supports the freedom of all members of the New Trier High School community "to discuss any
problem that presents itself."
Of course, the ideas of different members of the New Trier High School community will often
and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of New Trier High School to attempt
to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even
offensive. Although New Trier High School greatly values civility, and although all members of
the New Trier High School community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of
mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification
for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to
some members of our community.
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean
that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. New Trier High School may
restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that
constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or
confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of
New Trier High School.In addition, New Trier High School may reasonably regulate the time,
place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of
New Trier High School. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of
expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is
inconsistent with New Trier High School's commitment to a completely free and open discussion
of ideas.
In a word, New Trier High School's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by
most members of the New Trier High School community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or
wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the New Trier High School community, not for
New Trier High School as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on
those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the
ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the New Trier High School
community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is
an essential part of New Trier High School's educational mission.
As a corollary to New Trier High School's commitment to protect and promote free expression,
members of the New Trier High School community must also act in conformity with the principle
of free expression. Although members of the New Trier High School community are free to
criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who
are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with
the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, New Trier High
School has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate
and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it."
Criticisms of "cancel culture" often is hypocrtical, as was the case with Weiss, and are connected with prioritizing speech that
shores up the status quo -- necon dominance in the US MSM.
An open letter published by Harper's magazine,
and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new
"cancel culture".
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K
Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.
Although the letter doesn't explicitly use the term "cancel culture", it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a "stifling"
cultural climate that is imposing "ideological conformity" and weakening "norms of open debate and toleration of differences".
It is easy to agree with the letter's generalized argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many
of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech,
not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinize the motives , rather than the substance,
of the letter.
A new 'illiberalism'
"Cancel culture" started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of
late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak
at a public venue or to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of "illiberalism":
"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls
for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred
from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; The result has been to steadily
narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion
among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient
zeal in agreement."
Tricky identity politics
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing –
like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting "interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively,
not being held up as champions of free speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling
opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed
because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while
advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be
so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of
identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an
article that
violated
the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the
mistake of thinking her followers would be as
fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.
'Fake news, Russian trolls'
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive
climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all , because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too
keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their
interests in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions
will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice
speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for
themselves and those like them . They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating
the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level
the playing field a little.
The center and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status
quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting "fake news" or is a "Russian troll". This updating of the charge of being
"un-American" embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social media accountability
In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status
quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees
with the letter's vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel.
And as Israel's critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before
the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarized
state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the
global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error
of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel
culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the "cancel culture" because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals
and leftists, and a new popular demand for "accountability" spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel's critics
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying
their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become
a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realize
long-harbored plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow "robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters" on Israel, Israel's supporters have preferred the
tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions
of speech and thought".
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one
of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper's list, including
Rowling and
Weiss . Such claims
were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modeled on the one
that helped push South Africa's leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss
again has been a prime
offender .
The incidents highlighted in the Harper's letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the
cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists
– have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel's behavior and its abuses of Palestinian
rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,
that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritizing the safety of Israel from being criticized
before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come
to
regret .
Why has none of this "cancel culture" provoked an open letter to Harper's from these champions of free speech?
Double-edge sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the
public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to
get Muslim professors
fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner
of "academic freedom", claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom.
This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors
as a formative experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free
speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for
example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.
Narcissistic concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they
are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left
British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists
among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article
published in the Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the "cancel culture" campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key
figures in Britain's Jewish community who breathed life into the
antisemitism smears
against Corbyn and his supporters.
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland's voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel
culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel's most extreme apologists –
those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a "kapo", the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a "sonderkommando",
the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse "burrows under your skin" and
"hurts tremendously".
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community,
Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the
flimsiest of evidence.
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture – unless it applies to himself . His concern is purely
narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.
Conducting a monologue
The letter's main conceit is the pretence that "illiberalism" is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that
the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback
section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account
"the great and the good".
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions
to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved
opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media,
all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they
could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and
social media.
Silencing the left
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper's. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility
by Chomsky's name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the
part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture
– the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held
to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are
using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don't like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of "cancel culture" are really about prioritizing "responsible" speech, defined as speech shared by centrists
and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a
manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.
The new attacks on "cancel culture" echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders' supporters, who were framed as "Bernie Bros" – the evidence-free
allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders' policies, so the center and the right now want to discredit the left more generally
by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their "cancel culture".
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside
Chomsky's. Trump used his recent Independence Day
speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper's letter. He at least was explicit in equating "cancel culture"
with what he called "far-left fascism":
"One of [the left's] political weapons is 'Cancel Culture' – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding
total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism This attack on our liberty, our magnificent
liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly."
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper's letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new
"cancel culture" are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about "fake news" and "Russian trolls" – in the establishment's
efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is
to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right.
And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of
the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivaled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled
by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths,
turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects
we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela,
or rationalized war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can
only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social
media.
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also
as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, "liberal" cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow
"consensus" politics (the Overton window), or the new "leftwing" cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural
targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky's name is attached should beware. Just as "fake news" has provided
the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish left-wingers from searches and threads, just
as "antisemitism" has been redefined to demonize the left, so too the supposed threat of "cancel culture" will be exploited to silence
the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying left-wing "mob" – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views
on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against "irresponsible" or
"intimidating" speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear
being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that
they are the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
You don't criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a
whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed,
so I want to quickly address it. Here's one my followers expressing the point succinctly:
"The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories,
nor their future plans."
The problem, as I'm sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people
who signed it but on its merit too . And that's because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established
forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding
of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we
side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than
address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over "fake news", even though there is some fake news on social media?
Why has he not endorsed the "Bernie Bros" narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media?
Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites
in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn't joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left
you hit up, not down. You certainly don't cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is
setting it out in relation to Iran:
"Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies
I don't agree with, like bombing."
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he
shouldn't have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He's fallible.
Also, this isn't about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch
of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork
for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that
narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That's why Chomsky's role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.
Here's the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech
by the left when we are threatened with being "cancelled" – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against
anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets
to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won't help the left because "cancel culture" is being framed
– by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a "loony left" problem. It is a new iteration of the "politically correct gone mad"
discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won't help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel's killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris
Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party's record on being anti-racist.
The "cancel culture" furore isn't interested in the fact that they were "cancelled". Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole
idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling
Israel and Jews.
Israel's supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel "cancels" that country ("wipes it off
the map"), "cancels" Israel's Jewish population ("drives them into the sea"), and "cancels" Jews more generally ("denies a central
component of modern Jewish identity").
Greater awareness of "cancel culture" would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture
that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as "cancelling".
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often
– to the power dynamics of the "cancel culture" discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything
Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour's anti-Zionists. He doesn't see that witch-hunt
as "cancel culture", and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:
There is no issue in American life about which the mainstream media ignores or distorts
the truth more than Israel/Palestine, and censors or "cancels" the people who could tell
it.
So far, the growing debate over "cancel culture" has understandably focused on individual
cases. Certainly, Israel/Palestine has many examples of courageous thinkers who have suffered
for their views: Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein come immediately to mind. But the
blackout has been so far-reaching for so long that we can say that an entire subject has been
ignored or distorted in the mainstream almost beyond recognition.
Right now, Israel is conducting a violent sabotage campaign against Iran, in an effort to
provoke America into war -- and there is a nearly complete news blackout in the United
States.
Maybe the 153 celebrated signatories to that now famous letter to
Harper's magazine that warned about "cancel culture" could draft another epistle,
one that appeals for an end to suppressing free discussion about Israel and
Palestine.
On July 10, another explosion hit near near Tehran, the latest in a string that have
struck at, among other targets, Iran's nuclear energy program at Natanz. The New York
Times , to its credit, is
reporting on the sabotage campaign, and the paper even said that one of the attacks was
"apparently engineered by Israel." But beyond the basic facts, nothing: no editorials, no
opinion pieces warning about the risk of war, no reminder that Benjamin Netanyahu has been
trying to instigate the U.S. against Iran for at least a decade. There was no effort to
explain that Israel's attacks are meant to goad Iran into retaliating, which will draw in the
U.S., and possibly help Donald Trump's sinking reelection campaign.
At least the Times is doing the bare minimum. So far in the Washington
Post, not a word from its own reporters or commenters; you would think that the paper
could find sources in the D.C. intelligence community to explain the danger of war. On
National Public Radio, one short,
confused report that provided no context at all. Foreign coverage on the U.S. cable
networks continues to be an insignificant joke.
U.S. soldiers, sailors and pilots could soon find themselves in a shooting war that would
stun our citizens with its suddenness.
The mainstream U.S. media's failure to report Israel's effort to provoke fighting with
Iran is happening at the same time as American journalistic malpractice continues over
Netanyahu's plan to illegally annex up to 30 percent of occupied West Bank Palestine. There
has been
very little news coverage of annexation, and Palestinian voices continue to be ignored.
Three members of the New York Times editorial board have extensive experience with
Israel/Palestine: Thomas Friedman, Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. None of them has yet written
a single word about annexation.
Here is a final paradox. "Cancel culture" means that the New York Times and the
rest of the mainstream are nearly closed to the truth about both Israel's instigation over
Iran, and its probable illegal annexation in the West Bank. But Friedman, the most
influential foreign affairs columnist in America, has to, along with his editorial page
colleagues, self cancel -- because he, like them, can't write anything without
sharply criticizing Israel.
When Sportsnet
fired Canadian hockey and media personality Don Cherry in November 2019 for his bigoted remarks on Coach's Corner , we
heard the usual right-wing complaint chorus about the suppression of free speech by the liberal left.
A favored method of censorship nowadays is said to be "de-platforming," or denying those you disagree with a platform to speak.
This is also called "cancel culture." Most recently, a group of around 150 prominent intellectuals signed a "
Letter on Justice and Open Debate " in
Harper 's magazine, setting off a firestorm of debate about the limits of free speech on the left.
In reality, though, cancel culture is (at best) a marginal activity on the left. By and large, progressives still believe in reasoned
debate.
This article refers to experience in Canada, but it has its counterpart in many other countries as well.
If we want to identify the real masters of cancel culture, however, we need to follow the modus operandi of the institutional
pro-Israel lobby and its adherents, like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), B'nai Brith Canada (BBC), the Simon Wiesenthal
Center (SWC) and other organizations on the Jewish right. They can teach us a thing or two about how to kill free speech, and how
cancel culture works to stop an utterance before it is even spoken.
Presumably, the reason to nip an Israel-critical event in the bud is that if it goes forward, people might attend and learn something,
especially from a rigorous debate. Even a picket-line outside an event or a disruption during one might draw attention to what is
being said. For the avid intellectual protectors of Israel, that must be stopped at all costs.
The Pro-Israel Cancel Culture Playbook
A spate of examples will follow, but first, to summarize, here are what might be called the "rules of engagement" for the pro-Israel
de-platformers.
The minute you hear about an event featuring a critique of Israel, employ the following formula:
Have a number of organizations at work. If the CIJA is squeamish, then get B'nai Brith Canada to do it. If they or the Simon Wiesenthal
Center have qualms, then the imprudent and belligerent Jewish Defense League or Herut Canada can rush in. No matter how distinguished
and credible the speaker, try guilt-by-association, however tenuous. Did their uncle belong to a questionable organization? Did their
cousin write something critical of Israel? Do they pay dues to a student union that supports Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)?
Shut them down! If the speakers are academics, go after their publications or insist their tenure be denied. If they are students,
demand that their degrees be withheld. The Canadian Jewish News recently reported
: "Rather than debating them about Israel, Manfred Gerstenfeld, the former chair of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs (JCPA),
makes the case for professionally discrediting the enemies [sic] of Israel. 'Find plagiarism or a wrong footnote and make it public,'
he said at a fundraising event for the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, in Montreal on Dec. 1 [2019]. 'Only about 10 per cent
of academics are hard-core anti-Israel and the rest are not going to risk their careers. Academics are cowards.'" Absent real evidence
of antisemitism, a mere accusation will suffice. Find out where the event is being held and who are the sponsors. Contact both the
venue and the sponsors and tell them that the speaker or the event is antisemitic. If you don't want to threaten violence yourself,
suggest that there might be violence from some unknown quarter if the event proceeds. Tell the host or sponsor that they too will
be considered antisemitic if they continue involvement. If any of the venues or sponsors accede to these demands, publicize it to
shame the non-acceders. If an event you don't like is cancelled or postponed, claim credit. Even if the shut-down attempt is not
completely successful, the cost and effort involved in resisting your attack will frighten the organizers and make others think twice
about doing something similar in the future. What I call the "cringe effect" is particularly useful with the media. When a critic
of Israel appears, initiate an avalanche of disparaging letters, emails, and phone calls. Even if the preponderance of material in
the particular media outlet has been pro-Israel, criticize the "lack of balance." If all else fails, demand "equal time" of equal
prominence for an opposing view. That should scare the media outlet away from the topic. The Playbook in Action
While pro-Israel cancel culture goes back a long way, the following are more than two dozen fairly recent examples of the playbook
in action. They are taken mostly from published reports, but a few are taken from accounts by people who were directly involved.
Vancouver
In 2016, anti-Israeli-occupation activists were slated for a panel at a Simon Fraser University (SFU) conference on genocide.
One presenter would argue that what had been done to the Palestinians constituted genocide. (The Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition involves any of the following: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily
or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and/or forcibly transferring children
of the group to another group.) B'nai Brith
reached out to SFU to have the panel cancelled. Organizers pushed back, reaching out to a range of supporters at SFU. The panel
and conference went ahead.
In 2017, the University of British Columbia (UBC) Alma Mater Society (student union) gave notice of a referendum to support the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement: "Do you support your student union in boycotting products and divesting from companies
that support Israeli war crimes, illegal occupation and the oppression of Palestinians?" Rather than campaigning to get students
to reject that motion on its merits, Hillel, an organization that purports to represent Jewish university students, filed a court
motion to bar the referendum entirely. That court action
failed .
In 2018, the Canadian Association of Cultural Studies sponsored a conference at SFU entitled "Carceral Culture" including a panel
on Israel/Palestine. Again, B'nai Brith attempted to get it cancelled. Counter-mobilization defeated the B'nai Brith gambit.
Calgary
In 2014, the group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) prepared a photo exhibit entitled "
Dispossessed, but Defiant: Indigenous Struggles
from around the World " which juxtaposed the Palestinian travails with those of other objects of colonialism, like South African
blacks under apartheid and Canadian indigenous peoples. The exhibition was meant to travel to venues around Canada, but pro-Israel
opponents attempted repeatedly to block those displays. In Calgary, they managed to de-platform the exhibit from a small community
centre. When the hosts finally found a United Church location, opponents inundated the new venue with calls and emails. The show
went ahead but the activists have never been able to rent that church since, validating points 10 and 11 in the playbook, above.
In 2016, local activists booked space at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for a talk by Haider Abu Ghosh of the Palestinian
Medical Relief Society, about the eradication by the Israelis of three Palestinian villages in 1967. The activists were forced by
complaints to switch the event to the Calgary Public Library. Pro-Israel groups put so much pressure on the library that the hosts
were forced to provide security, at significant cost.
Calgary writer Marcello Di Cintio won the City of Calgary W. O. Mitchell Book Prize in 2012 for "
Walls: Travels Along the Barricades " and, again, in 2018
for " Pay No Heed to the Rockets: Palestine in
the Present Tense ." But local pro-Israel organizations opposed his appointment as writer-in-residence at the public library,
insisting, against all evidence, that he was an antisemite.
Winnipeg
In February, 2018, several groups, including Independent Jewish Voices-Winnipeg, the Canadian Arab Association of Manitoba and
the United Jewish Peoples Order-Winnipeg, organized a public meeting at the University of Winnipeg entitled "My Jerusalem" to discuss
the US government's recent decision to move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. One of the speakers was Rabbi David Mivasair, a member
of Independent Jewish Voices. Unable to have the meeting cancelled,
B'nai
Brith Canada complained to the university that the speakers were antisemitic and demanded that the university apologize. B'nai
Brith claimed that one of the speakers accused Israel of committing a "genocide" against Palestinians and that another referred to
Israeli Jews as "European settlers." The university's Human Rights and Equity officer investigated the complaint and, claiming to
have consulted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, allowed the smear to stand, concluding
that the criticism of Israel amounted to antisemitism. When asked by meeting sponsors precisely which statements in the meeting were
antisemitic, the officer declined to answer.
Rabbinical student Lex Rofeberg, an activist with the American Institute for the Next Jewish Future, had been invited as a keynote
speaker to Limmud Winnipeg (an annual Jewish cultural and educational event) in March 2019. Limmud
canceled the invitation when the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg threatened to withdraw its sponsorship, complaining that Rofeberg
was a critic of Israel and a supporter of BDS and the organization
IfNotNow . Neither of Rofeberg's planned presentations (one on digital Judaism, the other on Judaism and sports) had anything
to do with his views on Israel, but he was guilty by association.
In April 2019, the Winnipeg Social Planning Council and the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute invited American-Palestinian activist
and co-founder of the 2017 women's march Linda Sarsour to speak. The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg and B'nai Brith Canada, among
others, lobbied to get the event cancelled and convinced the Winnipeg mayor and the provincial deputy premier to oppose it. The opponents
managed to get Sarsour shut out of the Seven Oaks Performing Arts Centre and the meeting moved to the Ukrainian Labour Temple, where
it
continued .
A MEMBER OF THE JDL DEFACING THE FOODBENDERS STOREFRONT (PHOTO: TWITTER)
Toronto
With Canada's largest Jewish as well as Muslim and Arab populations, Toronto can be a lightning rod for de-platforming outrages.
In 2007, CanStage, a theater company, decided to
cancel
its plans to mount a production of "My Name is Rachel Corrie" (a play taken from the writings of the American activist killed
in Gaza by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting), and two years later Crow's Theatre
presented no more
than a few "staged readings" of "Seven Jewish Children" (by British playwright Caryl Churchill). Both plays were critical of
Israel, and both of these Toronto productions had been subject to negative lobbying by the pro-Israel lobby who labelled them antisemitic.
A more sensational example of cancel culture occurred when, in 2009, scholars at Queen's University and at York University's Osgoode
Hall Law School organized an international conference called "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace."
The advisory board of the conference included four Israelis. Yet, pro-Israel organizations including the Jewish Defense League, CIJA,
Hasbara, B'nai Brith, and United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto went on the warpath, demanding the conference be cancelled.
York University was warned of boycotts and the cessation of donations and was denounced in full-page newspaper ads. When B'nai Brith
accused one of the speakers of being a Holocaust denier, a threatened lawsuit forced B'nai Brith to apologize on its web page. When
the university refused to cancel the event, the Stephen Harper Conservative federal government ordered the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council to reconsider its funding of the event (which the SSHRC refused). The Canadian Association of University Teachers
(CAUT) set up an independent commission of Inquiry under mathematician Jon Thompson to investigate. The commission and the book that
emerged from it (" No Debate: The Israel Lobby and
Free Speech at Canadian Universities ," Lorimer 2011) concluded that, although the event went ahead, academic freedom had been
grievously damaged.
In 2009, the Koffler Centre for the Arts (associated with Toronto's Jewish community) commissioned an art project from Reena Katz
commemorating the history of Kensington Market. But when its executive director discovered that Katz had called Israel an "apartheid
state", the organization dissociated itself
from the project . As in the Limmud case in Winnipeg, above, and other examples, below, the Kensington exhibit had nothing to
do with Israel. But Katz was guilty by association.
In 2011, a master's thesis critical of Israel by University of Toronto student Ben Peto entitled "The Victimhood of the Powerful:
White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education," was
roundly denounced
by pro-Israel groups , who demanded that the university withdraw their degree. University officials demurred.
For years, pro-Israel organizations have attempted to have the Quds Day march in Toronto entirely shut down. Occurring annually
in June and originally sponsored by the Iranian government, the event has drawn fire from pro-Israel organizations, mostly due to
the strength of its criticism of the Israeli regime. In March 2019, after consultations with legal specialists and other stakeholders,
Toronto city staff reported that shutting down the entire activity was not advisable. After demands to reconsider, staff reported
a month later that the city already had means at its disposal to counter specific acts of alleged hate speech. According to this
second report , moreover, in response to complaints by pro-Israel advocates about the 2018 rally, Toronto police had concluded
"the words spoken during the rally, which were captured and posted to YouTube, did not fit the criteria of a Hate Crime." Undeterred,
opponents initiated other actions to disallow the event. The rally went ahead in June 2019, with 1,000 participants and proceeded
online amid the coronavirus lockdown in 2020.
In summer of 2019, the Palestine Youth Movement was planning an event at Toronto's Trinity St. Paul's United Church to launch
a new scholarship named after Palestinian novelist and nationalist
Ghassan Kanafani . B'nai
Brith Canada appealed to the board of the church to cancel the event, based on its claims that Kanafani was a spokesperson for the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and was implicated in the 1972 Lod Airport Massacre (he was assassinated soon afterward
by the Israelis). The church board
quickly capitulated . Kanafani has a martyr's cachet among Palestinians similar to that of
Josef Trumpeldor for Israeli Jews.
Sometimes the pro-Israel cancel culture crowd targets moderate pro-Israel Jews, too, reminiscent of the toxic internal feuds that
tear family businesses apart. In January 2020, York University's Israel and Golda Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies
canceled
a panel discussion about the climate for Jewish students on campuses. The Jewish Defense League boasted online that it was responsible,
explaining that it opposed the appearance of moderate Mira Sucharov (which the JDL labelled, incorrectly, a "BDS enabler"). To make
the intervention truly bizarre, the JDL also opposed the presence of Alexandre Joffe, who is the editor and BDS monitor for the group
Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which is anti-BDS.
In July 2020, an individual with the Jewish Defense League (JDL) was filmed defacing the storefront of the Foodbenders sandwich
shop in Toronto in broad daylight. According to Yves Engler, writing at Mondoweiss
:
"JDL thugs held a rally in front of Foodbenders, which has 'I Love Gaza' painted on its window. During their hate fest they
scrubbed a Palestinian Lives Matter marking from the sidewalk and, similar to what Jewish supremacist settlers do to Palestinian
homes in the occupied West Bank, someone painted the symbol on the Israeli flag onto the restaurant window. Alongside painting
Stars of David on her storefront, Foodbenders' owner Kimberly Hawkins has faced a bevy of online abuse. Hawkins has been called
a 'dirty Palestinian whore' and told 'Palestine sucks I will burn your business down' and 'I hope your family gets trapped inside
the restaurant when it burns.'"
For over 25 years, Hamilton has hosted the Gandhi Peace Festival. In 2019, B'nai Brith attempted to have two speakers kicked off
the program, organized by McMaster Professor Rama Singh. One of the speakers targeted was Azeezah Kanji, an Islamic law scholar and
director of programming at the Toronto-based Noor Cultural Centre. The other was McMaster Professor Emeritus Dr. Atif Kubursi, an
economist specializing in oil and the Middle East and former Acting Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Western Asia. He is the recipient of the Canadian Centennial Medal for his outstanding academic contributions. Neither
of them was expected to even speak about Palestine at the event, but both had made statements critical of Israel in the past and
thus were accused of guilt by association. At B'nai Brith's urging, the Hamilton Jewish Federation
withdrew its
participation . The event went on without the Federation's participation but with those two speakers presenting.
Institutional Jewish organizations have tried for many years to get university presidents across the country to ban Israeli Apartheid
Week (IAW). One of the more aggressive campaigns against IAW has been at McMaster University. In 2020, several groups, including
the Jewish Defense League and Hillel Ontario
asked McMaster
University to outlaw the annual event , claiming it makes Jewish students on campus uncomfortable and unsafe. The university
declined to comply with the blanket request to shut down the activities. A spokesperson insisted that "The group organizing the event
in question is a student group registered with the McMaster Students Union [these] groups are governed by McMaster's Student Code
of Conduct, which promotes the safety and security of all students and encourages respect for others."
London
The University of Western Ontario's Student's Council
has a long
history of trying to de-platform campus organizations devoted to criticism of Israel. At first, it was Solidarity for Palestinian
Human Rights (SPHR), then UWO Public Interest Research Group (UWO-PIRG). One of the speakers that UWO-PIRG had sponsored (and presumably
offended the Student's Council) was renowned Jewish-Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, author of, among other books, "
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
." The Ontario Human Rights Commission upheld three complaints against the university and one against the Student's Council and
required the Student's Council to apologize and to ratify the organizations.
Ottawa
Rehab Nazzal is a multidisciplinary artist of Palestinian origin based in Toronto, some of whose work deals with the harsh treatment
of Palestinians by Israel. Nazzal's 2014 exhibition "Invisible" at the Karsh-Masson Art Gallery on the ground floor of city hall
in Ottawa was publicly condemned by Israel's ambassador to Canada, and several pro-Israel groups, including B'nai Brith Canada demanded
that the mayor cancel the exhibition. The mayor refused, citing freedom of expression. But the city posted a disclaimer outside.
The groups also protested the fact that Nazzal had received a financial award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada. Nazzal later
spoke to a standing-room-only crowd in Ottawa and received a standing ovation. In 2015, an Israeli sniper shot Nazzal in the
leg while she was photographing a confrontation in Bethlehem. According to the Ottawa Citizen, Israeli spokesperson Eitan Weiss
commented , "It's very
difficult to ascertain what happens during a riot, because you have to imagine hundreds of people throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails,
using live firearms it's very difficult to prove that it ever happened, and it's very difficult to prove that it didn't happen."
Montreal
Zahra Kazemi was an Iranian-Canadian photographer who died in 2003 under mysterious circumstances in an Iranian jail after being
arrested for taking pictures of a demonstration in that country. In June 2005,
five photographs were pulled
from an exhibition of her work at the Côte St Luc (in Montreal) municipal library. The controversial photos were taken in Palestine.
A borough official explained that consideration of the borough's large Jewish population played a role in the decision. Kazemi's
son, Stephan Hachemi, refused to let the display continue without the censored photos, arguing that it was an insult to his mother's
legacy.
In January 2009, the Combined Jewish Appeal
cancelled
at the last minute a lecture at its Gelber Centre by the noted Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper. Halper was on a Canada-wide
tour to criticize Israel's Operation Cast Lead against Gaza, which killed 1,417 and wounded 5,303 Palestinians. A similar cancellation
of Halper occurred in Winnipeg, though Halper filled other auditoriums across the country.
In February 2010, pro-Israel organizations
attempted to block the CJPME
photo exhibit (see Calgary above) from being shown at the Cinema du Parc theatre. Lawyers for the cinema's landlord insisted that
the premises were only "for cinemagraphic [sic] use." The cinema, which had hosted other political displays in the past, refused
to back down, and the exhibit went on.
In November 2013, a Limmud Montreal conference (named "Le Mood") funded by the local Jewish federation
canceled
two presentations by Sarah Woolf , an activist behind "Renounce Birthright" (a website critical of junkets to Israel for Jewish
youth). One session was entitled "Where are all the radical Jews?" and another focussed on the history Jewish garment workers in
that city. Woolf and co-facilitator Aaron Lakoff wrote on Lakoff's blog: "Ultimately, we've been banned from speaking at Le Mood
because of our personal politics (or whatever Le Mood and Federation CJA perceive our respective politics to be), not based on the
content of our panels, which were reviewed, accepted, and scheduled months ago." In response to the de-platforming, Lakoff and Woolf
set up the presentations in a parking lot outside the main conference site and garnered a crowd of over 100 people.
Halifax
In October 2016, the Halifax Pride Annual General Meeting
entertained a motion from the group "Queer Arabs of Halifax." The resolution would disallow the distribution at the annual Pride
Fair of materials touting the state of Israel for its alleged LGBT-friendliness. QAH and its allies claimed that these materials
allowed for the 'pinkwashing' of Israel's violations of human rights against the Palestinians. Another group, the Nova Scotia Rainbow
Action Project, had collected over 500 names on a petition condemning the pinkwashing. In response, the Atlantic Jewish Council organized
hundreds of Jewish community members to attend the AGM to protest and disrupt the vote, although the vast majority of the interlopers
were not LGBTQ+. AGM organizers made the controversial decision to allow all attendees at the meeting to vote. This resulted in the
defeat of all Israel-critical resolutions and a walkout by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) participants claiming,
"Straight white pride wins again." A Palestinian LGBTQ+ participant said the meeting takeover reminded him of the Israeli occupation.
Another commentator
summed it up thus : "This is a classic example of where one group hides behind the guise of free speech until the moment where
they can take their free speech and beat it over the head of everyone else."
During the 2018 Naim Ateek tour mentioned above, the Religious Studies Department of Saint Mary's University, one of the sponsors
of the Halifax event, received a letter from B'nai Brith Canada
demanding the cancellation of
the talk . The department, familiar with Ateek's work and repute, refused, and the event continued.
In June 2019, a Dartmouth, Nova Scotia NDP candidate standing for the 2019 federal election was discovered to have made some tweets
a year earlier comparing the Israeli shooting of Gazans in the "March of the Return" to the actions of Nazi Germany. Rana Zaman,
a tireless community activist, issued an apology with the help of IJV-Halifax, but the NDP federal office suggested she run it by
the Atlantic Jewish Council, the local institutional Jewish organization. The AJC had no response to the apology other than sending
Zaman a copy of the IHRA definition, which labels as automatically antisemitic "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy
to that of the Nazis." The NDP Federal office
removed
Zaman from the candidacy .
In December 2019, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission bestowed a coveted "Individual Human Rights Award" on Zaman. The Atlantic
Jewish Council immediately began a campaign to have Zaman stripped of the award, and the
revocation followed a mere ten days later. Jewish institutional organizations refused to accept Zaman's original apology, insisting
that it was insincere.
Conclusion
All of the above de-platforming takes a lot of work. And it makes the pro-Israel lobby look like the bullies they are. Right now,
there is altogether too much messy debate. Consequently, the lobby wants to build a better mousetrap; one that will alleviate the
need to intervene each and every time there is an event or activity criticizing Israel. How much easier if the better mousetrap operates
to slam shut automatically, breaking the mouse's neck without untidy arguments and recrimination.
Such a better mousetrap is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism. As Independent
Jewish Voices has pointed out , the IHRA definition is remarkably sloppy and
vague. But it does contain eleven "examples" of antisemitism, seven of which involve criticism of Israel.
The lobby is trying to get the IHRA definition adopted by legislatures, city councils, non-governmental organizations, student
unions, human rights bodies, police departments, universities, and any forum that could possibly be in a position to shut down or
sanction activity critical of Israel. We do not know whether or how the adoption of the IHRA definition by these bodies could actually
criminalize criticism of Israel. In Canada, after all, we still have freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, we have seen how the mere accusation of antisemitism -- accurate and deserved or entirely bogus -- has been used to hobble
political and other types of careers.
We have also seen how the IHRA definition has been used to punish people and organizations who have run afoul of it. The case
of the University of Winnipeg cited above is one example. Claiming to have employed the IHRA definition, the university's diversity
officer declared the meeting antisemitic, and the university apologized for allowing the meeting to take place.
We have seen that B'nai Brith Canada
employs the IHRA
definition to decide which occurrences should be added to their audit of antisemitic incidents.
Finally, we have seen that the increasingly open use of the term antisemitic to label those who criticize Israel could encumber
legitimate lawsuits for defamation by victims of that slur.
That is why defenders of Palestinian human rights and proponents of peace and justice in the Middle East need to double our vigilance
to ensure that the IHRA definition goes no further and that freedom of expression and sanity returns.
Outspoken British comedian Ricky Gervais has once again exposed, in his usual direct manner,
the escalating use of the term "hate speech" to crush any dissenting view from the mainstream
narratives has unleashed "a new weird sort of fascism."
In an interview with talkRADIO host Kevin O'Sullivan, Gervais dismissed the new 'trendy
myth' that the only people who want free speech want to use it to say terrible things:
"There's this new weird sort of fascism of people thinking they know what you can say and
what you can't say and it's a really weird thing that there's this new trendy myth that
people who want free speech want it to say awful things all the time, which just isn't true.
It protects everyone ."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.395.0_en.html#goog_603224593
NOW PLAYING
Ricky Gervais says 'The Office' couldn't be made today
Ricky Gervais And The Bees
Ricky Gervais: Bees are more important than humans
Celebs born on the 25th of June
Ricky Gervais Needs One More Season
Ricky Gervais wants to stop After Life with third series
Ricky Gervais Is In The Writing Room
Ricky Gervais confirms more After Life
Critically, Gervais sees two catastrophic problems with the term 'hate speech':
" One, what constitutes hate speech? Everyone disagrees. There's no consensus on what hate
speech is."
" Two, who decides? And there's the real rub because obviously the people who think they
want to close down free speech because it's bad are the fascists. It's a really weird,
mixed-up idea that these people hide behind a shield of goodness."
Additionally, 'The Office' star points out that "social media amplifies
everything."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"If you're mildly left-wing on Twitter you're suddenly Trotsky . If you're mildly
conservative you're Hitler and if you're centrist and you look at both arguments, you're a
coward and they both hate you,"
As with the Weather Underground, America's privileged are now lashing out at their own
self-loathing. Protesters demonstrate in front of Lafayette Square near the White House in
Washington, DC on June 20, 2020. (Photo by Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images)
June 24, 2020
|
12:01 am
Matt
Purple Depicting revolutionary France, Dickens wrote, "Six tumbrils roll along the streets.
Change these back again to what they were, thou powerful enchanter, Time, and they shall be
seen to be the carriages of absolute monarchs, the equipages of feudal nobles, the toilettes of
flaring Jezebels, the churches that are not my father's house but dens of thieves, the huts of
millions of starving peasants!"
Today America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers,
unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and
sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the
floor. Rioters over the weekend
destroyed a statue of Ulysses S. Grant, the general who finished off the Confederacy.
Falsehoods and innuendoes outpace the truth: in Oakland, a panic arose over what were
supposedly nooses in a public park; turns out they were just exercise equipment that had
been there for months. But no matter. America's Jacobins are in no mood to reason. As in
Dickens' France, genuine social problems have mushroomed into a national orgy of self-harm.
But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is the
inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the murder of
George Floyd. The reality is something more bourgeoisie. As Kevin
Williamson observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class,
toy radicals and Champagne Bolsheviks playing Jacobin for a while until they go back to
graduate school." Most of the culling is taking place not in the streets, but in the faculty
lounge, the corporate boardroom, the upstart real estate firm with a socially conscious Twitter
footprint and a penchant for Mean Girls GIFs. The most high-profile casualty so far
isn't even a person but a maple syrup, Aunt Jemima, whose threat to world peace seems rather
manageable.
Such superficial victories are a clear sign of the bourgeoisie's soft hand. Meaningful
police legislation, the kind that might prevent future George Floyds, currently being worked on
by serious reformers, is a difficult push. Whereas reducing policymaking to maximalist slogans
is easy; spray-painting a statue is even easier; whining about a visage on a syrup bottle is
easier still. And ease is the currency of these weekend warriors, these erstwhile stoppers of
Kony. Who is the face of their revolution? It's tempting to name Melissa
Click, the white (check) communications professor (check) who at a 2015 protest over racial
issues (check) exhorted others (check) to beat up a student journalist. (Click was later fired
for her misconduct by the University of Missouri, only to be scooped
up by Gonzaga. The culling, it seems, only ever goes in one direction.)
But there's another figure who I think is even more representative than Click -- not from
the French Revolution or our present Tantrum of the Tenured, but the 1960s.
In early 1970, a townhouse in Greenwich Village exploded, leaving a charred hole in the
facade on West 11th Street. Police later concluded that the cause was a short-circuited bomb,
which young radicals had been building in the basement. This was the work of the Weather
Underground, the left-wing terrorist group, which was planning to plant the explosive at an
officers' ball at Fort Dix. Among those killed in the blast was a young woman named Diana
Oughton, who may have been holding the bomb when it accidentally went off.
It will not surprise you to learn that Oughton did not have a difficult childhood. Her
father, James Oughton, was one of the wealthiest men in the state of Illinois thanks to his
vast agricultural holdings. Diana grew up in a small town, Dwight, but amid immense privilege,
and when she arrived right on time at Bryn Mawr, she was a paint-by-numbers Republican who
supported abolishing Social Security. Her transformation over the intervening decade is one of
the most instructive and fascinating cases of radicalization ever documented, one that's
inspired both Hollywood (the movie Katherine is loosely based on her life) and the news
media (a four-part UPI
profile of Oughton by journalists Lucinda Franks and Thomas Powers won a Pulitzer). Somehow
Oughton went from a lively and caring rich girl to very nearly one of America's worst mass
murderers.
How did this happen? Some of it had to do with her volunteer work at a far-flung village in
Guatemala, which opened her eyes to poverty, inequality, and the corruption of American foreign
aid. Some of it had to do with her beau, leftist lowlife Bill Ayers, who later became one of
the Weather Underground's leaders. But a good deal more had to do with her gilded upbringing,
which drew the contempt of her fellow radicals and seemed to turn her hatred inwards. It will
also not surprise you to learn that the Weathermen were white. What drove them to madness was a
cloying need to repudiate their privilege and prove themselves worthy comrades of the African
Americans then fighting for liberation. (It didn't work: the Black Panthers ultimately
denounced them as "chauvinistic" and "scatterbrains.")
Oughton, Franks and Powers note, came to detest "everything that she was." They conclude,
"She regarded the world she saw around her as the implacable enemy of everything she believed
in. Like the rest of the Weathermen, the privileged children of that world, in the end Diana
had only one ambition: to be its executioner."
The Diana Oughtons of today aren't about to start blowing up federal buildings, as did the
Weather Underground. But they do share that mentality: in deploring their privilege, they've
come to reject everything that bestowed it upon them, their history, their nationality, their
traditions, their culture, most of the past and some of the present as well. As recently as a
decade ago, President Barack Obama portrayed America as an imperfect but worthy project,
applying its ideals of opportunity and equality to those still left behind. Today such
incrementalism is a dirty word. The waypoints of societal change are intolerable. All
must measure up to the uniform yet constantly changing woke yardstick. Thus did a CNN
contributor
casually suggest that the Washington Monument might be demolished because George Washington
was a slaveowner. Anyone suspected of harboring racism -- even a founding father who, however
imperfect himself, helped codify principles that ended slavery -- must be brought to his
knees.
It's worth repeating that this isn't a working class production. It's driven by a new
generation of bratty Bolsheviks, those spoiled enough to think they can set a single standard
and then tear down the world for not living up to it. In lashing out at the society that
coddled them, they swing first at themselves. Once our tumbrils were police vans and pickup
trucks with Confederate flag bumper stickers; now they're vehicles for upper-class solipsism
and masochism.
Just the high rates of violent crime. For some reason only the men seem to outperform, one
would think lead intake would not be gender specific. Lead doesn't help, but i suspect it is
more than that. I suspect it is cultural. If people are raised in a. Violent culture, they
resort to violence. Wife beaters are often the children of wife beaters.
Men have always been arrested and incarcerated more than women, worldwide. If we're talking
about comparisons between racial groups, then differing levels of lead exposure should be,
and have been, examined as a factor. It seems to be highly significant.
Instead of trying to improve failing NYC schools it is easier to claim racism. Some people just do not want to study. The
number of people who barely can read in the is really staggering and can't be explained by racism, which typically just mobilize the
oppressed minority to strive in education. That's probably why children of first generation emigrants (which parent having
poor English and discriminated at jobs) usually do very well educationally.
Although further progress is desirable, the level of racism and xenophobia in the USA is much less than in many countries.
Karl Marx once said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. Nothing
proved the truth of Marx's claim better than the farcical battle over the statue of St. Louis
in, yes, St. Louis which followed hot on the heels of the tragedy of George Floyd in
Minneapolis.
The battle over the statue began as an exercise in identity politics, and before long it
degenerated into an example of identity theft. The main protagonist in this story is Umar Lee,
who was born Bret Darran Lee in 1974 to a southern Presbyterian family and grew up in
Florissant, Missouri just outside St. Louis. Lee may or may not be Black, which is an
ideological marker based upon but independent of biological fact, because he claims, according
to The Jerusalem Post that he "has two younger siblings who are half African-American."
[1]
On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by
28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, a
suburb of St. Louis, leading to extensive rioting . After the death of
Michael Brown, Lee got involved with the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, and was
arrested on two occasions and, in his words, "locked up." After getting fired from his job as
cab driver, Lee became a full-time, but little known activist. In 2015, Lee noticed that
statues started coming down in St. Louis, largely because of agitation on the part of St. Louis
Jews. At some point during this period, Lee made contact with Ben Paremba, an Israeli
restauranteur who was "passionate" about promoting Israel and other Jewish causes. At this
point Paremba was as little known to locals as Lee, but all of that changed after the Jewish
press took notice of their petition to remove the statue of St. Louis and began promoting them
as social justice crusaders, if you'll pardon the term.
In a series of tweets, Lee tried to establish his position as an aggrieved Muslim, bringing
up the Crusades as the cause of his grievance, but the underlying source of his complaint was
inspired by a group of Jews, who were incensed that the city where they had come to study had
erected a statue in honor of a king who had burned the Talmud.
Once Lee mentioned the term "anti-Semitism," the Jewish press began carrying stories which
lionized Lee as a crusader for Jewish rights. Because of his philo-Semitism, Lee soon found
himself lionized in the Jewish press. Writing for the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Ben Sales
described Lee as "a local activist who started the petition and also took part in a
successful drive to remove a nearby Confederate monument in 2017. Lee, Sales continued, "is
not Jewish but started the petition because of Louis IX's anti-Semitism." [2] Because Lee's
petition called St. Louis a "rabid anti-Semite" who "inspired Nazi Germany," it began "drawing
Jewish support" from St. Louis Jews like Rabbi Susan Talve, "the founding rabbi of the city's
Central Reform Congregation, who said taking it down would help advance racial justice in the
United States." According to Talve, St. Louis Jews have "been talking about that statue for a
long time." Talve then added that removing the statue would be "a very important part of
reclaiming history, reclaiming the stories that have created the institutionalized racism that
we are trying to unravel today. If we're not honest about our history we will never be able to
dismantle the systems of oppression that we are living under."
"Susan Talve hated Cardinal Burke," according to one Catholic familiar with the local scene.
He went on to say that Burke told him that Talve had "an animosity toward me for reasons that I
don't understand." Blinded by over 50 years of the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish
dialogue, his eminence was evidently incapable of seeing that Talve's animosity toward him was
based on her ancestral animosity toward the Catholic Church, which he led in St. Louis at the
time. Unsurprisingly, Rabbi Talve's animosity toward the Catholic Church has turned her into an
advocate of Lee's attack on the statue.
St. Louis Catholics were determined to ignore the ethnic animosity behind the struggle.
America Needs Fatima, a front group for the Brazilian cult Tradition, Family, and Property
joined the fray, criticizing "limp-wristed politicians" who were giving in to "revolutionary
extremists." ANF Protest Coordinator Jose Ferraz, claimed that "American Catholics" who were
"strong in their faith" were being "pushed around by anarchist revolutionaries," but without
identifying any of the actual players in the dispute.
After local activist Jim Hoft announced that a group of Catholics associated with his
website Gateway Pundit was going to defend the statue, Lee issued a statement describing what
he clearly knew to be a group of Catholics as "White Nationalists" along with "those on the
alt-right such as those who held the infamous and tragic rally in Charlottesville."
Hoft then responded by claiming that Lee deliberately misrepresented the Gateway Pundit
rosary group as white racists: "We are Christians and Christian allies who believe we still
have the freedom to practice our religion in America. We are organizing a prayer rally with
Catholic and Christian men. And now we are being threatened -- In America. We will not
apologize for our Christianity. Not in St. Louis."
The leader of a local rosary group, taken in by Lee's propaganda, began to suspect that
local Catholic activists at the rosary protest "might be backed by white supremacists" and
warned his group off. He then retracted his first tweet after he learned that the Rosary rally
was being sponsored by local activist Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit and TFP-America Needs Fatima.
Neither group talked about the Jews. As a result, neither group was able to discuss the
conflict's most significant player. Both groups as a result became proxy warriors in an
exercise in street theater which kept the true dynamics of the conflict hidden.
In his article, Sales found a local Catholic who made a valiant attempt to defend the city's
eponymous saint, only to be shot down later by Talve, who opined that "Asserting that your way
is the only way I think is always wrong" with no sense that this was precisely the gist of what
the local Jews and their Muslim front man were imposing on the citizens of St. Louis.
Hoft called Lee's claim that "those on the alt-right such as those who held the infamous and
tragic rally in Charlottesville," were responsible for the demonstration defending the statue
"a lie," and added "There is no one from the Charlottesville rally or linked to the
Charlottesville rally or who promoted the Charlottesville rally who will be at the prayer rally
(that we know about)."
Lee's determination to turn the statue battle into a racial conflict began to generate
opposition from the Black community on Twitter, inspiring one observer to write "Fuck Umar
Lee's Bitch ass. He got fired for taking a company video to start racial tension. He's white.
Not Black. Sorry POS."
Activist, Author and Ex-Cabbie Umar Lee
By now it was obvious that the Black population of St. Louis, in spite of being dragged into
Lee's ad hoc coalition, had no dog in this fight. St. Louis, it turns out, never owned slaves.
Once the racial element disappeared from the conflict, its religious dimensions began to
emerge. The battle over the statue was a religious war between Catholics and Jews, in which
both sides were eager to cover over the conflict's true ethnic configuration. Both Lee and Hoft
were determined to obscure the identity of their opponents as well as the identity of their
backers. As one local observer put it, "Jews end up being in a win-win situation. Either Lee
succeeds in toppling the statue or Hoft succeeds and becomes the gay-married, pro-Zionist hero
to the local bishopless Catholics who are too fearful to organize on their own. Nowhere do
Catholics, or Blacks, or Muslims get a win out of this. Being pro-Zionist on some level
probably gives Hoft permission to misbehave sexually, since Jews are the authors of gay rights
as a movement. It's his way of paying them back, even though he is deeply conservative, like a
typical Iowa farm boy, raised Catholic, in all other areas."
Even after the Catholic-Jewish nature of the conflict became apparent, Lee continued to
portray the pro-statue crowd as white racists. In the days leading up to the Saturday rally,
Lee tweeted a picture of the blonde-haired Hoft with this text by way of explanation. "This is
the guy behind the White Nationalist rally on Saturday at noon on Art Hill. This is why it's
important for us to show up at eleven. . . . Jim Hoft and the Gateway Pundit were absurdly
wrong." [3]
A few hours later, Lee tweeted: "I will never allow Nazis, racists, and White Nationalists
to hold rallies in St. Louis without a response even if it's just me." [4] Hours later, Christine
Eidson Christlieb tried to set the record straight when she tweeted "The people praying the
rosary every night at the statue aren't white nationalists. That's just false. They are
Catholics." [5]
Ignoring Christlieb's tweet, Lee continued to promote identity theft, tweeting on June 24
that "White Christian Nationalists and the alt-right have announced a rally on Saturday at the
Louis IX statue. Please RT and share. We need to counter. Calling all Catholic and Christian
Men and their Allies." The bogus request for Catholic support when Lee knew it was Catholics
who were on the other side of the protest saying their rosaries exposed the hidden grammar of
Lee's strategy, which involved denying his opponents their actual identity and turning them
instead into "white nationalists," a group which could then be deprived of their constitutional
right to free speech and assembly. I discussed this ploy in my article comparing the Arbaeen
march in Dearborn, which was considered legitimate because of its religious sponsorship, and
the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, which was illegitimate precisely because the
protesters were "white," a designation which deprived them of any constitutional protection.
Lee knew he was dealing with Catholics, but he insisted on calling them white supremacists
because that was the category that would demonize them.
Lee's tweets throughout the period leading up to the June 27 protest gave a clear indication
that his real animus was against St. Louis's Catholics, not white supremacists or nationalists.
Lee tweeted "Mel Gibson is probably the most prominent traditional Catholic and critic of the
modern church known to most Americans. He is also a raging anti-Semite who beat his wife. The
Twitter army defending Louis IX I'm sure are huge fans of his."
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-6&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1275341953585090561&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fejones%2Ficonoclasm-in-st-louis%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=500px
Umar Lee Leading a Protest at the St. Louis Statue
Umar Lee is not your typical Muslim. He said nothing about the plight of the Palestinians
who were about to lose control over the West Bank. He failed to mention the connection between
the knee hold which presumably killed George Floyd and ADL sponsored seminars which introduced
Minneapolis police officers to Israeli instructors in Chicago in 2012. Instead he claimed that
"Bringing down the Louis IX statue won't be the [first] time Muslims and Jews coordinated in
St. Louis to stamp out evil." Then combining two contradictory tropes, Lee described his
opponents as "alt-right Catholic fascists," whose "favorite hobbies" were "burning and looting
Jews and impaling heretics." Instead of defending the statue of St. Louis IX, Lee felt that his
Catholic foes could better spend their time studying Jewish history and volunteering "to help
the many thousands of sex crimes victims in the church."
Statues are a sign of hegemony. They help you identify the ruler, and if not the real ruler,
the man those in power would like to have as their ruler. In a revolutionary era, the statues
of the former ruling class must come down. The most striking instance of this was the statue of
Stalin in Prague, which came down as soon as Communism collapsed in the period from 1989 to
1990. The removal of Stalin's statue left an empty pedestal in its place, but just as nature
abhors a vacuum, so pedestals will not remain empty. The first occupant of the empty Stalin
pedestal was a statue of Michael Jackson, who brought his own statue to Prague when he played a
concert there. He was the hegemon of the 1990s. The last time I was in Prague that pedestal was
occupied by a weird crane-liked gnomon which moved in sync with some unheard rhythm of the
spheres, making it seem like a metronome keeping time to an unknown melody.
The battle in Charlottesville in 2017 was ultimately a conflict over a statue, in this case
a statue of Robert E. Lee, which celebrated the "redemption" of the South which occurred a
generation after the Civil War, when the South drove the last remnant of Yankee soldiers from
their soil. The Lee statue was erected, as were many others celebrating Confederate soldiers,
to celebrate the new regime.
During the revolutionary spring of 2020, numerous statues were deposed. Not surprisingly,
the statue of Lenin in Seattle escaped the mayhem which visited that city unscathed, as did the
most recent addition to statuary in South Bend, Indiana, the statue of Rev. Theodore Hesburgh,
CSC, president of Notre Dame University and civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. The
latter statue expresses better than any other the system of control which it symbolizes. The
short-hand explanation of that system of control is the civil rights movement, which celebrates
breaking laws with some higher purpose in mind. A recent article noted that 60 percent of
people in their 20s believe it is okay to break the law for a good cause. Of course, who gets
to determine whether the cause is good did not get mentioned in that article. That is why the
Hesburgh-King statue is important. It was based on a photo taken in Chicago in 1966 (most often
erroneously stated as 1964). When Martin Luther King arrived in Marquette Park, one of
Chicago's many ethnic neighborhoods, the Lithuanians living there greeted him with a hail of
rocks and bottles, one of which staggered King as he got out of his car. Needing help to
prosecute the ethnic cleansing of Catholic neighborhoods in Chicago, King gave Hesburgh a call
and together the two icons sang "We shall overcome" at a rally at Soldier Field that
summer.
The statue is, in other words, a celebration of two of American history's most famous proxy
warriors. As a pawn of Jewish money and Quaker organizing, King obliterated the traditional
Black power structure in Chicago, symbolized by Bronzeville, which was the Black ethnic
neighborhood. As a pawn of the Rockefellers, Hesburgh betrayed fellow Catholics in Chicago in
order to get funding from their foundations, especially the Population Council run by John D.
Rockefeller, 3rd. So the South Bend statue is in no danger of coming down because the
descendants of the oligarchs which turned King and Hesburgh into political icons have found a
new set of proxy warriors in Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who have arrogated the civil rights
mantle to themselves in a bid to stamp out the last remnants of representative government in
the United States. Pedestals will not remain empty. Prepare yourself for a Jeff Bezos statue.
Just as King and Hesburgh were proxy warriors of the oligarchs in collaboration with each
other, so Lee and Hoft are proxy warriors of the oligarchs in opposition to each other.
In the spring of 2015, the iconoclasts of St. Louis succeeded in getting the Jesuit-run St.
Louis University to remove its statue of Pere Pierre-Jean De Smet, a Belgian Catholic priest
who worked as a missionary to the Indians in the Mid-West and western sections of the United
States of America. [6] The Jesuits caved in to
pressure from "a cohort of students and faculty" who complained that the De Smet sculpture
"symbolized white supremacy, racism, and colonialism," [7] at least according to
this news account, which and alumnus disputes, claiming:
Saint Louis University did not get rid of the statue of Father DeSmet. They moved it to the
newly renovated Saint Louis University Museum of Art (SLUMA). There, the statue is prominently
shown quite beautifully along with other artifacts and artwork from the early founding of St
Louis and its Catholic heritage. One could argue that they removed it from its outside area
because of the pressure that the university faced to remove it, but there was never a "cohort
of faculty and students to remove it." During my four years as a student from 2006 to 2009, I
never heard one comment about the statue. I attended the university with a lot of people from
various ethnicities who never mentioned it once. We would also pass it by on a daily basis. I
personally think that this "cohort" was made up and that no one ever had a problem with it,
whether liberal or not. It was made into a problem by those who would like to destroy
Catholicism. The Jesuits should have left it where it was but at least they had enough sense to
keep it and showcase it prominently in their museum, which I will repeat, is
beautiful.
Protestors Argue at the Statue of St. Louis
Two years later, St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson caved in to the same sort of pressure when she
removed a Confederate statue from the same Forest Park neighborhood where the statue to St.
Louis is located. [8] The statue of Columbus
was also removed in 2017, largely at the behest of Rachel Sender, a graduate student in
biological anthropology at Washington University who claimed that Columbus "represents racism,
colonialism, slavery and white supremacy and should not be given any honorable remembrance or
be a symbol of Tower Grove Park." [9] In attempt to give some
background on Lee and his petition, local Catholic activist Jim Hoft described Rachel Sender as
"some idiot . . . from New Jersey." Sender, however, was much more forthcoming than Hoft in
describing both her identity and motivation in wrecking that city's statues. Buoyed by the
iconoclasts' success in removing the Columbus statue, Sender jumped on the bandwagon to remove
the St. Louis statue, tweeting that "St. Louis was a crusader known for persecuting Jews. This
is also the only city I've experienced [sic] blatant anti-Semitism. His legacy should not be
honored! Lyda Kewson, City of St. Louis, Change the name of St. Louis. Sign the petition."
[10]
Lee was lionized in the Jewish press because even though Lee calls himself a Muslim, he not
only talks like a Jew, he also got the idea of tearing down the St. Louis statue from Jews. In
a recent interview, Lee told The Jerusalem Post "that he became aware of the statue's
history when Rabbi Hershey Novack of the Chabad on the Campus at St. Louis University held a
Tisha B'Av gathering by the Louis IX statue to remember the atrocities he wrought on Jews in
France." [11] Lee was in effect
only doing what he was told, after Novack and local Israeli restauranteur Ben Parembo said,
"Hey, that statue needs to come down. Jewish kids going out with their parents to [park's]
[sic] art museum don't need to be looking at this anti-Semite."
Lee may be the only Muslim in the world who is not upset about the United States moving its
embassy to Jerusalem, thereby making it the capital of Israel. In fact he's planning a trip to
Jerusalem, where he plans to "do a little dance. . . to commemorate the fact that loser [i.e.,
St. Louis IX] never made it to Jerusalem." In the meantime, Lee "will be drafting a letter to
@Pontifex asking for the decanonization of King Louis IX." On June 21, Lee informed his twitter
followers that he was "working on Lindbergh too. Must go. No Nazi named streets in St. Louis
Couny [sic]!" In addition to being a descendant of Robert E. Lee, Umar Lee did time for some
unspecified crime. It was during his stay in prison that he became aware of Jewish history and
the fact that St. Louis "burned Talmuds and embarked upon two crusades." He also learned that
St. Louis was "a Catholic town," a fact which led him to embark on a career as a reformer of
the Catholic Church, forcing him to oppose "some hateful pre-Vatican II trends that are being
repopularized." At some point during his study of Jewish history, Lee discovered that "a group
of Jewish students from Washington University and a rabbi gathered at the statue [of St. Louis]
on Tisha B'av" [or this ninth of Av, the day on which the temple was destroyed]. [12] From
reading the article, Lee also learned that King Louis "organized the burning of 12,000 Jewish
manuscripts in Paris, reasoning that the Jewish manuscripts might corrupt his good Christian
soldiers." [13] The book burning was
small potatoes compared to the destruction of the Temple, but the statue gave local Jews a
reason to feel aggrieved and test the local political waters to see how much clout they had.
Lee discovered that Jewish clout had increased considerably over the past 11 years, and that,
during the revolutionary spring of 2020, the time was ripe to press the issue.
Knowing that the Jews were itching for a battle with that city's Catholics, Lee engaged in
identity theft by claiming that the Catholic protesters were white because religion was a
category which still afforded constitutional protection. Recognizing that any conflict between
Catholics and Jews, with Muslims and Blacks playing minor roles, was unwinnable, Lee attempted
to drag the mayor into a fight against "white nationalists" knowing full well that enlisting
her in a battle against that city's Catholics, a group which made up 26 percent of the
population would have meant political suicide. Hence, Lee's persistent efforts to turn the
rally into something which it was not, as when he wrote: "Does St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson
have a problem with alt-right White Nationalists having a protest at the Louis IX statue on Art
Hill this Saturday?" Lee's tendentious formulation of the issue bespoke a combination of
identity theft and moral blackmail. The two issues are, of course, related and the link was
America's Civic Religion, otherwise known as the Civil Rights Movement, otherwise known as the
Black-Jewish alliance. Anyone who had the Black-Jewish alliance on his side occupied the high
moral ground and was on his way to winning the argument by default, because his opponents
lacked a moral leg to stand on. Because of Hollywood and public education, support for the
Civil Rights movement had replaced the ten commandments in America's mind as the source of
moral guidance.
But, as Anne Hendershott pointed out in her book The Politics of Deviance , deviance
is constant. That means that for every precept of the moral law you subtract from your
behavior, you have to add a precept of political correctness by way of compensation. Sexual sin
is the usual motivation for subtracting precepts of the moral law from your conscience. The
public school system in America as well as higher education has as one of its main goals the
sexual corruption of every student unfortunate enough to enter its doors. The moral vacuum that
education creates is filled by tales of the Civil Rights Movement, which proposes Martin Luther
King and Rosa Parks as role models. The sense of grievance and contempt for the positive law
which King and Parks stoked found fulfillment in the homosexual movement which invoked their
name to stoke contempt for the natural law.
So one way to calm your conscience because of the abortion you had is by becoming a
fanatical member of Antifa or a supporter of Black Lives Matter. The Civil Rights Movement of
the '60s was in many ways moral compensation for the adoption of contraception among Protestant
sects. Unsurprisingly, 1964 was the year of both the pill and the Civil Rights Act. This is not
a coincidence.
The battle over the statue served as an update on the Triple Melting Pot. Protestants were
nowhere to be found in this conflict. Their place had been taken by Muslims, who were still
negligible in terms of political power or cultural presence, but they could become significant
if they allied themselves with the Jews, the part of the Triple Melting Pot which was still
negligible in terms of numbers but whose cultural and political power had increased enormously
over the past half century. St. Louis is the home to 60,000 Bosnian Muslims, who harbor animus
against Jews that is now common in the Islamic world, largely because of how Israel has treated
Palestinians. Umar Lee is the exception that proves the rule. Thanks to the state of Israel,
Muslim antipathy to Jews is a widespread phenomenon, but it is not the case in the drama
surrounding the state of St. Louis. If Umar had come out in favor of the Boycott Divestment and
Sanction movement holding Israel accountable for its crimes against Palestinians, he'd still be
driving a cab.
What began as an exercise in identity politics soon devolved into a case of identity theft.
After Lee called the Catholics white nationalists, local Catholic activist Jim Hoft responded
by calling Lee's Jewish coalition "Marxists." When it came to the battle of the St. Louis
statue, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was missing in action. Archbishop Robert Carlson,
ordinary of the archdiocese of St. Louis, defended the statue, but his comments had little
effect on public opinion because he is on his way out the door. His appointed successor,
auxiliary bishop Mitchell Rozanski of Springfield, Massachusetts, had nothing to say on the
issue. As a result, Hoft became defensor fidei by default, in spite of the fact that Jim
Hoft's relationship with Catholicism is even more troubled that Umar Lee's relationship with
Islam.
Hoft was born and raised in Iowa, but he got his start in local politics in St. Louis after
he established a national internet presence by founding the Gateway Pundit website, which took
the typically conservative line on issues as other websites began to engage in liberal
waffling. Conservative, at this moment in time, had less to do with the Republican populism of
St. Louis native Phyllis Schlafly, and more to do with the Neoconservatives who took over both
the party and the movement over the course of the 1990s. Specifically, that meant that Hoft was
rabidly pro-Israel, even to the point of posting a picture of him and Bibi Netanyahu on the
Gateway Pundit masthead, and disallowing any criticism of Israel or Jews from its combox.
Hoft's loyalty to Israel has earned him Jewish friends, such as film producer Michael Rudin,
who featured Hoft in a 2019 episode of the TV Series The Conspiracy File s and who is
also featured in Hoft's masthead.
In keeping with an even more recent trend in Republican-style conservatism, Hoft announced
that he was a homosexual after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando because he "just had
to." Not long after coming out of the closet, Hoft married a gay Filipino in what purported to
be a Catholic ceremony at the rebel St. Stanislaus Church in St. Louis. Not content to keep his
sodomy private, Hoft took out an elaborate wedding announcement complete with picture of him
and the boy, who is about a foot shorter than Hoft.
Hoft's Gateway Pundit has gone on to become a fact-checker's dream, with article after
article in mainstream outlets like the Washington Post describing Hoft and his website
as retailers of conspiracy theories and fake news, but Hoft continues in his role as the Jews'
favorite dumb goy. Hoft's fanatical, pro-Israel chest-thumping Catholicism is a compensation
for homosexuality, and a manifestation of what we might call the Michael Voris syndrome. In
addition to being useful to the Jews whenever they need someone to make the Catholic Church in
St. Louis look ridiculous, Hoft has become defensor fidei by default because in St.
Louis, as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum. Archbishop Robert Carlson's defense of the statue
was weakened by his status as a lame duck. [14] The Archdiocese
issued a statement defending St. Louis as "an example of an imperfect man who strived to live a
life modeled after the life of Jesus Christ" and a "model for how we should care for our fellow
citizen." His defense was further weakened by the fact that he did not identify the group
responsible for wanting the statue removed. Catholics, as a result, were once more engaged in
cultural shadow boxing against enemies they could not identify.
That means that the fate of the statue rests in the hands of Carlson's successor,
Archbishop-elect Mitchell Rozanski, who will be installed as St. Louis's new ordinary on August
25, which is, not coincidentally, the feast of St. Louis IX. The fate of the statue rests of
Mayor Lyda Krewson, who is both a Catholic and a liberal Democrat, which means she is pulled in
two opposite directions. She has come out in favor of retaining the statue, but some Catholics
are not sure she can withstand the political pressure pulling her in the opposite direction,
since she has already presided over other acts of public iconoclasm. As a Catholic mayor
presiding over the fate of the statue of a Catholic saint in a city with a large Catholic
population, Krewson finds herself confronted with a revolutionary situation during an
interregnum. The driving force behind that revolution is the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
Because of that fact, the impending arrival of Mitchell Rozanski is not cause for optimism.
Rozanski grew up in Baltimore and is a protégé of Cardinal Keeler, who is the
patron saint of Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the United States and author of a document on
Catholic-Jewish relations that was so heretical that even the notoriously philosemitic United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops refused to publish it. On June 18, 2009, the USCCB took
the unprecedented step of condemning its own document on Catholic-Jewish relations, warning
unsuspecting readers that Keeler's "Reflections on Covenant and Mission should not be taken as
an authoritative presentation of the teaching of the Catholic Church. In order to avoid any
confusion, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious
Affairs have decided to point out some of these ambiguities and to offer corresponding
clarifications." [15]
Archbishop-Elect
Mitchell Rozanski
In an interview with Rozanski which appeared in the National Catholic Reporter ,
Keeler was described as "a legend in the field of Jewish-Catholic dialogue" and "one of
Rozanski's mentors." [16] Eventually Rozanski
succeeded Keeler as moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations. On February 24, 2017, Rozanski
wrote a response to the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in his capacity as
U.S. Bishops' Chairman on Interreligious Affairs, expressing "deep sympathy, solidarity, and
support to our Jewish brothers and sisters who have experienced once again a surge of
anti-Semitic actions in the United States. I wish to offer our deepest concern, as well as our
unequivocal rejection of these hateful actions. The Catholic Church stands in love with the
Jewish community in the current face of anti-Semitism." [17]
In an article which appeared in the Springfield, Massachusetts Republican , Rozanski
was quoted as saying, "I fear that the current level of demonizing anyone of a different
opinion sadly will only lead to even more levels of violence and affronts to our fellow human
beings, created in the likeness and image of God." [18] The article went on
to say that the suspected shooter in the attack referred to Jews as "children of Satan," which
the paper described as an "anti-Semitic social media posting" with no indication that the term
came from Jesus Christ in a confrontation with the Jews portrayed in the Gospel of St. John. I
make the claim that there is a historical continuity between that confrontation in the Gospel
and 2,000 years of revolutionary ferment on the part of the Jews in my book The Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit.
Unlike Justin Rigali and Raymond Burke, "whose legacies remain divisive," Rozanski plans to
deal with the polarized situation in St. Louis by promoting "more dialogue, more understanding,
more study of the way that police deal with different situations. And what happened to George
Floyd in Minneapolis was totally, totally unacceptable, totally beyond the pale of whatever
should be done to anyone who is being taken into police custody."
There are, of course, Catholics in St. Louis who can provide a cogent defense of retaining
the statue, but they are currently in hiding, fearing repercussions from Rozanski, whom one
"local Catholic in a very sensitive position that requires him to remain anonymous" described
as their "new super-ecumenical and politically correct Archbishop." As I have said many times
before, the Church can have good relations with the Jews, or she can have unity, but she can't
have both. Rozanski's good relations with the Jews is a sign that local Catholics are in for a
hard time if they try to contest the anti-Semitism label which has been imposed on them by Umar
Lee and his Jewish backers in their defense of the statue. One such Catholic provided the
following defense of the statue, while at the same time declining to give his name:
Saint Louis IX was a devout follower of Jesus, who was scrupulously honest, humble, a
generous and unfailing lover and benefactor of the poor, and a peacemaker and unifier of
factions within his kingdom. It is for these and other virtues that he was canonized by the
Church. Just as we don't eliminate the name and statues of Martin Luther King because he was
a womanizer and a plagiarist, nor should we dishonor St. Louis because of his policies toward
Jews and his crusading ventures. These need to be understood in their historical context of
medieval Christendom – very different from today's secularized world. We're told his
statue is "offensive" to Jews and Muslims. Tearing it down would be deeply offensive to
hundreds of thousands of Catholics in this area, and to quite a few others as well.
As the intensity of the conflict surrounding the rosary vigils increased, the author of the
above statement began to wonder if it had been strong enough in stating the case for St. Louis.
When a local priest attempted to debate with the protestors, a shouting match ensued with no
conclusive outcome. The author then brought up the issue of the Crusades by contexualizing it
with a discussion of Zionism:
It's a pity the priest leading the rosary and the other Catholics there didn't defend St.
Louis from the charge of being "genocidal" and a "murderer." The Crusades were basically a
defensive movement against constant Muslim encroachment on the west and Christendom, which
they vowed to conquer and destroy, and to regain the Holy Places in Palestine which they had
seized after the Holy Land had been under Christian control for over three centuries before
the Muslim invasions of the 7th century. What prompted King Louis to embark on a crusade was
that in 1244 Muslim forces invaded Jerusalem, massacred many Christians there and desecrated
churches and holy places. So it wasn't "Islamophobic" or "genocidal" for a Christian king to
want to defend them! How can Jews condemn Christians for seeking to reclaim lands formerly
under Christian control when they themselves (or at least the great majority, who are
Zionists) justified their takeover of Palestine in 1948 for the same reason, namely, that it
belonged to their ancestors until foreigners (the Romans) conquered it and dispersed
them?
He then addressed the issue of burning the Talmud:
St. Louis was following the precepts of Lateran Council IV and the popes of his time in
having copies of the Talmud banned and burned after it was found out that this volume (only
then recently translated from Hebrew) contained repulsive blasphemies against Jesus and the
Blessed Mother. Regarding Mary, "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played
the harlot with carpenters" (Sanhedrin, 106a). As regards Our Lord himself, he is said to be
now in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement" (Gittin, 57a). Why? "Jesus the Nazarene . . .
and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, [and] led Jews astray into idolatry"
(Sanhedrin, 43a). "He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone. . . was cut off from
the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent" (Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah, 47a). He
"learned witchcraft in Egypt" (Shabbos, 104b). [19]
Jonathan Greenblatt
Missing from this discussion is the role Jews play in getting people they don't like
de-platformed from social media, which is the modern day equivalent of burning the Talmud. On
the same Saturday as the protests at the St. Louis statue, all of my books were removed from
Amazon at the behest of the ADL, the main organization promoting Jewish censorship of the
media. Unlike the ADL, the Inquisition gave the books it burned a fair hearing. Now, because of
Jewish concepts like "hate speech," anyone can lose his livelihood without trial or explanation
at the hands of the same people who take umbrage at burning the Talmud. The only thing
necessary is mention of the magic word "anti-Semitism," which ends all discussion and leaves
the accused person guilty without any possibility of clearing his name. St. Louis, according to
our author:
was no "anti-Semite" (which properly speaking is a racial prejudice, like that of
Hitler); but he was indeed anti-Jewish, i.e., against Judaism as a religion, for the reason
that Jews bitterly hated Christianity (as the Talmud demonstrated) and often worked to
undermine the faith of Louis' Christian subjects, whose eternal salvation he sought to
protect. The consistent position taken by the medieval popes was the Jews were not to be
molested, and their worship was to be tolerated, provided they didn't work to oppose or
undermine the faith of the Christian majority. When punitive measures were implemented or
authorized by the Church, it was because the Church judged that Jews were not abiding by that
condition.
As his final point, our author points out that if the Jews had power over Christians to
implement the Talmud which St. Louis ordered burned, Christians would have died. That's because
Jews only believe in tolerance when they are a powerless minority, and they believe in it only
as a strategy to undermine the coherence and unity of the dominant culture until they get the
upper hand, at which point they become ruthless persecutors of those who are weaker than they
are. Israeli treatment of Palestinians is a good indication of how Jews act when they get the
upper hand. Bolshevism in Russia is another example. Once the Bolsheviks seized power in
Russia, the Jews who controlled that movement turned the instruments of state power against the
Russian Christians whom they saw as their ancestral foes by creating instruments of terror like
the Cheka, which was invariably a Jewish-run operation because Russians were reluctant to
torture and murder other Russians, whereas the Jews who made up the majority of that
organization had no such compunction. "St. Louis's medieval methods," our author continues:
were not such as we would find acceptable today, when a much greater degree of religious
toleration and emphasis on individual rights has been a part of Western culture now for
centuries; but we have to understand St. Louis and other great figures of Christendom and
U.S. history in their own historical context. The idea of a religiously "neutral" or secular
state was unheard of anywhere in the world until after the French and American Revolutions
more than 500 years after St. Louis lived. No religion in those days gave much
emphasis to religious toleration. The Jews themselves (never mind the Muslims!) would have
been very oppressive to Christians if they had been in power, as the Jewish laws set out in
the Babylonian Talmud make clear, even though most of them couldn't be implemented. For
instance, "If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed" (Sanhedrin, 58b); "When a Jew
murders a gentile there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may
keep" (Sanhedrin, 57a). Indeed, gentiles are dehumanized: "All gentile children are animals"
(Yebamoth 98a); "Gentile girls are in a state of niddah [filth] from birth" (Abodah
Zarah, 36b). If this, and the vitriolic Talmud slurs against Jesus and Mary cited above, are
not "hate speech," what is?"
As some indication of the parlous state which Catholic-Jewish dialogue has created in the
Catholic Church, America Magazine turned to a Jewish Lesbian convert to Catholicism, who
explained the situation in St. Louis to its readers in the following way: "King Louis IX, whom
Catholics know as St. Louis, ordered the burning [of the Talmud] after a rigged 'disputation'
in which a Jewish convert to Christianity debated a rabbi about whether the Talmud was
blasphemous." [20] So are the above
passages blasphemous? Are they in the Talmud? If the answer to those questions is yes, in what
sense was the disputation rigged? Eve Tushnet, who is the author of this article as well as the
author of Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith,
never gets around to answering that question. Nor does she tell us whether the statue should be
taken down or left in place, nor does she tell us in what sense someone who describes herself
as a Jewish lesbian has converted to the Catholic faith.
The fact that the author of this eloquent defense of St. Louis chose to remain anonymous out
of fear of retaliation from that city's incoming bishop is a good indication that the violence
will increase. America is now in the middle of a full-blown revolution because largely Jewish
revolutionaries broke the Motion Picture Production Code in 1965 and inundated the country with
pornography and other forms of sexual subversion, which left subsequent generations weakened,
demoralized, and incapable of sustaining their own culture and institutions. The year 1965
inaugurated the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue as well. More than anything
else, the sort of Catholic-Jewish dialogue which the incoming bishop learned at the knee of his
mentor Cardinal Keeler crippled the Catholic Church's ability to defend the moral order in
American society. Repurposed as our "elder brothers" and friends, Jews qua Jews became
the unopposed sponsors of virtually every subversive movement in American culture from abortion
to gay marriage, from race-baiting political correctness to family destroying feminism, from
warmongering neo-Conservatism to brutal shoot-the-protesters-in-the-back Zionism, alienating
people who should have been America's friends because of Israel's barbarous behavior. The Jews
have never abandoned their ancestral commitment to revolution, and now revolution has arrived
at the gates of the Gateway, as the Black revolutionaries who have always been the Jews' proxy
warriors, from the founding of the NAACP to the infusion of George Soros money into the coffers
of Black Lives Matter, broke down the entrance to a gated community two blocks from the St.
Louis statue and continued the march which began after George Floyd died. Threatened by what
looked like a home invasion and abandoned by the local police, who had been told to stand down
by that city's feminist mayor, Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey stood their ground on the front porch of
their house brandishing the weapons that they were forced to exhibit because the cops refused
to come to their assistance when called.
The rally at the statue ended up being much more violent than anticipated as brass-knuckled
Black Lives Matter thugs beat up elderly Catholics who had come to say the Rosary. [21] Some of
the Black Lives Matter demonstrators arrived with firearms. All of the Catholic demonstrators
were unarmed. According to various reports, Black Lives Matter protesters attacked Catholics
praying near the Apotheosis of St. Louis statue in St. Louis. And why did they do this? Were
the Black thugs who took the cane away from a 60-year-old Catholic praying the Rosary and beat
him with it upset about Louis IX burning the Talmud or his position on Albigensianism? I doubt
it. You can view that attack at the link in this footnote. [22] Umar Lee's portrayal
of Catholics as white supremacists, fresh from Charlottesville, is responsible for that
Catholic's injuries. Lee is guilty of incitement. If he and the man who carried out the attack
go unpunished, we can expect more violence.
In reaction to the violence at the statue on Sunday, the Islamic Foundation of Greater St.
Louis issued a stunning rebuke to Umar Lee in a statement on Tuesday, June 31, saying that
removing the statue of St. Louis "will not erase history." The Islamic group went on to say
that they remained "committed to work on interfaith relationships based on honest dialogue and
mutual respect." It did not recommend taking down the statue of St. Louis. Instead it was
saying there were voices of reason in the Islamic community in St. Louis and that Lee's
campaign had no support among the people who did speak for Islam in that city. As one local
Catholic put it after reading the Islamic group's report, "The Jews have overplayed their
hand."
Mr. Greenblatt's attempt to use the ADL to resurrect the Black/Jewish alliance has created
problems of its own. With Israel's annexation of the West Bank looming, the ADL is concerned
that the backlash that the annexation is sure to cause, might spread to its proxy warriors in
Black Lives Matter, as in fact did happen in England [23] :
The "stakeholders analysis memo," which was issued by the ADL's Government Relations,
Advocacy, and Community Engagement department and marked as a draft, warns that the group
will need to find a way to defend Israel from criticism without alienating other civil rights
organizations, elected officials of color, and Black Lives Matter activists and supporters.
The memo suggests that the group hopes to avoid appearing openly hostile to public criticism
of annexation while it works to block legislation that harshly censures Israel or leads to
material consequences, such as conditioning United States military support. [24]
The ADL was not the only Jewish organization supporting Black Lives Matter. According to a a
report in the Jewish Telegraph Agency, "More than 400 Jewish organizations and synagogues in
the United States have signed on to a letter that asserts 'unequivocally: Black Lives Matter.'"
[25] Those groups
represented a broad spectrum "of religious, political, gender, and racial identities. The list
of signatories -- from small congregations to major Jewish organizations -- represents millions
of Jewish people in the United States, the organizers," according to the statement.
The problem in cities like Seattle, Chicago, and St. Louis can be laid at the feet of those
cities' lesbian and feminist public officials, a group which is incapable of enforcing the law
because they see the law as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression. This encourages anarchy
because it allows Jewish-funded thugs like Antifa and Black Lives Matter to act with impunity.
It also encourages political opportunists like Umar Lee to mount assaults on the social order
because they can blackmail those officials because of the guilty conscience which arises from
abortion and sexual perversion. The Church is complicit as well when it appoints bishops who
are known for their skill in appeasing Christ's enemies.
The video of Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey's confrontation in St. Louis garnered over 16 million
views in less than 24 hours, not because violence ensued, but because violence was averted, at
least for the time being. [26] But the assault on
the McCloskeys continues as a signature petition to disbar them is wending its way to the
Jewish head of the local lawyer's disciplinary board. Planning to fight fire with fire, the
McCloskeys have hired a Jewish lawyer to defend them.
As of this writing, St. Louis Circuit attorney Kim Gardner is considering filing charges
against the McCloskey's for defending their home. Gardner was elected in 2017, with the help of
George Soros money. [27] In addition to
supporting Gardner, Soros also funded the Ferguson riots. [28] During Gardner's
tenure as Circuit Attorney, felony prosecutions dropped dramatically. Of the 7,045 felony cases
which the St. Louis Police Department brought before the circuit attorney in 2019, only 1641
were prosecuted, despite claims of significant evidence to prosecute presented by the police
union. [29] After reducing the
cash bond for numerous offences, or removing it altogether, Gardner announced that she was no
longer going to prosecute "low-level" marijuana possession cases. At this point, Gardner
declared war on the State of Missouri. In February 2018, Gardner indicted Missouri Governor
Eric Greitens. [30] Three months later,
the governor's office filed a suit against William Don Tisaby, the ex-FBI agent Gardner had
hired to investigate Greitens. Gardner then went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court to
block the appointment of a special prosecute to investigate her handling of the Greitens
investigation but lost. That grand jury also brought charges of misconduct against Gardner but
ultimately failed to hand down any indictments.
In 2019 Gardner pleaded guilty to repeated campaign finance violations dating back to her
time as a Missouri State Legislator, but avoided conviction by reaching "an agreement with the
Missouri Ethics Commission to pay a settlement of $6,314 in lieu of a $63,009 fine." [31]
In January 2020, Gardner filed a civil rights lawsuit against St. Louis City and St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department on the basis of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment,
and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1865 alleging a racist conspiracy. The City of St. Louis called the
case "meritless," and Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association called it "the
last act of a desperate woman." [32]
On June 3, 2020, Gardner released all 36 of the rioters who had been arrested in the wake of
the George Floyd protests. [33] Gardner is
sympathetic St. Louis's revolutionaries because ever since her election, she has been involved
in her own attempt to overthrow the government. The fate of the McCloskeys, who have been told
that the rioters are planning to return to their house, now rests in the hand of this woman and
the police force she has beaten into submission with the help of George Soros.
Whether violence prevails in the future, no one can say at this point, but the best
indication of its likelihood can be found in the fate of the statue which represents that
city's patron saint, and the fighting spirit it inspires in those who are determined to resist
the Jewish revolutionary spirit, as St. Louis did in Paris eight centuries ago.
[19] The last three
Talmud citations here were accessed 6/26/20 on the Jewish website http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm, where they are quoted
with approval in an article arguing Jesus was a "false prophet".
Great article, I had no idea of the background behind these various incidents. I saw each
clip on various media channels, but never knew that they were all connected.
Couple of comments:
1) Jewish-Catholic dialogue appears to be a one way shouting match. I have yet to hear of
Jews altering the Talmud to remove the anti-gentile and anti-Christian passages from that
turgid tome.
2) "nor does she tell us in what sense someone who describes herself as a Jewish lesbian
has converted to the Catholic faith." She's obviously an infiltrator, like several of the
major participants in Vatican II. I'm no Catholic, so I'm not about to lecture anyone on
Church history, but there are a few volumes out there on the founding of the Jesuit order and
how gentiles and jews battled for control of it over subsequent decades. Infiltration of
Christian churches is as much of a Jewish tradition as Purim.
3) It was from your work that I finally gained a better understanding of Jesus and his
criticism of the Pharisees. Shame to see it disappear from Amazon, but I fear anything that
even remotely offends Jewish sensibilities is going to be hard to find in future. I believe
they even banned Jewish historian Leni Brenner's book on the transfer agreement.
Interesting to know about the fake-negro and fake-Muslim Umar Lee or Talcum XX. There's
already a fake-negro from KY who's known as Talcum X. He's the one who is stationed at
Haaaavaaahd who collects 20K a pop for speeches advocating that all non-black portrayals of
Christ and Mary be destroyed and churches burned. His BLM followers seem to have been busy in
the past week. Perhaps E. Michael Jones should do a follow-up on this noxious clown. This was
a very informative article with a lot of insightful background provided.
Interesting to note that the first ones to show any resistance to this atrocity were some
Brazilian Traditionalist Catholics. Most of the ones from Murika are too busy fellating the
BLM (Black Looming Monster) created and funded by nice folks like George Soros, who isn't
even a fake Nazi but an actual Nazi employee who (along with his father) aided the famous
Adolf Eichmann in the asset-looting of Hungarian Jews in the wake of the Nazi overthrow of
Admiral Horthy's regime.
Horthy's government refused to send the local Jews to Hitler even though they were allied
with the Germans in fighting the USSR. Isn't there a special division of the Juctice Dept.
devoted to hunting down folks who were involved even slightly with the Hitler regime?? Guess
when you buy citizenship in the Rotten Banana Empire (Soros' was via a special act of
Congress – the finest money can buy), the fearless Nazi-hunters shy away.
One of the worst things Giuliani did was bring back urban revival. If DEATH-WISH-style NY
had continued, America would have been far more conservative.
All that urban renewal and wealth made the city slickers more cosmo and snotty.
The USA is now so wracked with immorality, perversion and identity politics – its
difficult to see that it has a future.
And having read about Lee and Holt, Talve and Gardner I was instantly reminded of the thread
from yesterday. 'Who Should be Shot?'.
With the infestation of pure evil which is ripping apart the society and internal peace of
the American people – are there no patriots left .?
When there is no law, no protection for decency, fairness and justice – the time must
come when citizens need to defend themselves.
Obviously in St Louis that time has come ..
But the brainwashing now is so deep seated, so professional and so ugly but well financed
– it seems to me that the USA will be consumed from within, without the white
population even turning off their TV sets until the killing, raping and looting hits their
actual front doors.
And it will.
The barbarians are no longer at the gates – they are destroying and 'cleansing' all the
concept of history and any 'American dream'from inside the very heart of the country.
Karma – perhaps.
Since E. Michael Jones endorses Christianity, it is appropriate to remind him that
Christians destroyed the holy places of their rivals, destroying statues and libraries of
antiquity, bringing down holy oaks of Germanic tribes etc..
And you Americans did it in Germany not too long ago, even destroying completely
unpolitical statues of Arno Breker and other artists.
So it is all a bit hypocritical.
Nota bene: I don't endorse this destruction in America, and I even lament this, because I
see it as a sign of weakness of the White race, and I identify as a White man, and I see
those who are bringing those statues down as my enemies. But a bit more self-reflection would
certainly be appropriate, if you want someone to sympathize with you.
I guess it surprises me less that Jesus Christ is still being persecuted by the old Jewish
remnant than that the remnant has found so many allies at this point in our history. I'm
equally unsurprised that a much more effective coalition is thereby being formed to oppose
the remnant. Satan, being a liar from the beginning, always makes the same mistakes. He/She
turns a series of small victories, like rampant pornography and an army of weak, duped
Christian leaders like Hesburgh, into a conflagration that demands a response from God, like
the Resurrection.
"But the brainwashing now is so deep seated, so professional and so ugly but well financed
– it seems to me that the USA will be consumed from within, without the white
population even turning off their TV sets until the killing, raping and looting hits their
actual front doors."
I see no evidence that you are wrong. And Trump fiddles while America burns.
And you Americans did it in Germany not too long ago, even destroying completely
unpolitical statues of Arno Breker and other artists.
Breker was artist to the Third Reich, which was a political movement and hostile to
Christianity. While Jones thoroughly condemns all aspects of Nazism he does believe the rise
of Hitler and the Third Reich is attributable to Bolshevism.
Fortunately the cultural record of the 20th century is quite full and easy to access. And what
I see is, until the 60s, Catholics getting along just fine.
The Motion Picture Production Code, before that the Hays Code, certainly pre-Lambeth, when
Protestants and Catholics worked together, America was a paradise, compared to today's
Godforsaken mess.
They could have kept things that way. But the Jews gained game-changing power after WWII. And
since you couldnt name them, you couldnt fight them. And since you couldnt fight them, you lost.
Father
Coughlin , says: July 14, 2020 at 2:42 pm
GMT
appropriate to remind him that Christians destroyed the holy places of their rivals,
destroying statues and libraries of antiquity, bringing down holy oaks of Germanic tribes
etc..
Nope. They Christianized them. Pulled out of them what was true, noble and beautiful and
modified what was error.
Jul 12, 2020 Tyrants HATE This 500 Year Old Trick for Ending Tyranny
The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, the 16th century treatise on tyranny and obedience by
Étienne de La Boétie. James and Keith highlight some of the book's key insights
and detail how they apply every much to our situation today as they did when they were
written.
Jun 29, 2020 Armed Couple Facing BLM Mob SPEAK OUT "We Were In FEAR OF OUR LIVES The
Agitators WERE WHITE"!!!
When an angry and unruly BLM mob trespassed onto private property homeowners Mark and
Patricia McCloskey armed themselves to protect their lives and their property after the mob
uttered threats that they would kill them.
August 22, 2017 The racist origin of gun control laws
Congress demolished these racist laws. The Freedmen's Bureau Bill of 1865, Civil Rights Act
of 1866, and Civil Rights Act of 1870 each guaranteed all persons equal rights of self-defense.
Most importantly, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, made the Second Amendment applicable to
the states.
@Chu N – In a
letter to the American people, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew today announced plans for the
new $20, $10 and $5 notes, with the portrait of Harriet Tubman to be featured on the front of
the new $20.
Secretary Lew also announced plans for the reverse of the new $10 to feature an image of the
historic march for suffrage that ended on the steps of the Treasury Department and honor the
leaders of the suffrage movement -- Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. The front of the new $10 note will maintain the portrait of
Alexander Hamilton.
This is a very stupid and uneducated reply. There is so much evidence of wholesale
destruction of "pagan" heritage by Christians. No serious Christian scholar denies this. Read a
bit on the topic.
It is amazing to me how adding that X-factor to the equation seemingly always makes the
incomplete picture make perfect sense. Tucker led his show with the McCloskey story last night,
but he can't say outright many of the hidden variables. He does a better job than anyone in the
MSM by far at leading the horse to water, but will they drink?
though it should be remembered that our Republic was founded upon people saying no to unjust
laws and compacts, hence the Declaration of Independence!
Thus Martin Luther King Jr promotion of non-violent opposition to injustice should not be
condemned, for it is part of the greater important tradition in this country, and it was
precisely the fork-saluting weather underground marxist maoist thugs abetted by funding through
the Ford Foundation, etc to Soros of this day, that wanted to stop King, through murder, to
launch violence and race war as that strategy of divide and conquer is now being deployed once
again.
For it should be remembered that King, like Trump today, was calling out against the Vietnam
war, as Trump was the only antiwar candidate in 2016 against the Obama Bin Bush Bin Clinton Bin
Bush perpetual war machine, where the call for Trump's assassination is by those who want to
stay in Afghanistan, saw nothing wrong with destroying the African nation of Libya by a black
President Obama, the destruction of Syria, etc and are hell bent on stopping cooperation for
world development upon the McKinley American System Model which the Belt and Road and New Silk
Road initiatives were modeled.
Trump unfortunately is in bed with some very poisonous elements, but some of those elements
even understand that no one will survive a nuclear war very much on the table and being
provoked by various elements .
A n open
letter published by Harper's magazine, and signed by dozens of prominent writers
and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new
"cancel culture."
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky
and Matt Karp, centrists such as J. K. Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as
David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defense of free speech.
Although the letter doesn't explicitly use the term "cancel culture," it is clearly what is
meant in the complaint about a "stifling" cultural climate that is imposing "ideological
conformity" and weakening "norms of open debate and toleration of differences."
It is easy to agree with the letter's generalized argument for tolerance and free and fair
debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown
precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their
professed goal: they want to stifle free speech, not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinize the
motives , rather than the substance, of the letter.
A New 'Illiberalism'
"Cancel culture" started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to
have said offensive things. But of late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible,
as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak at a public venue or
to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of "illiberalism":
"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it
is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived
transgressions of speech and thought.
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged
inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are
investigated for quoting works of literature in class; The result has been to steadily narrow
the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the
price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their
livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in
agreement."
Tricky Identity Politics
David Frum in 2013. (Policy Exchange, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more
just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George
W. Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former U.S. State Department official – would be
facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting
"interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free
speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different
reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free
speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" that rationalized the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss,
a New York Times columnist, signed because they have found their lives getting
tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while
advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and
predictions have turned out to be so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the
backlash on university campuses and social media.
Ian Buruma, at right, with the writer Martin Amis at 2007 New Yorker Festival. (CC BY-SA
2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder
to navigate the tricky terrain of identity politics without tripping up. The reputational
damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of The New York Review of Books two years
ago after after he published and defended an article that
violated the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the mistake of thinking her
followers would be as fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by
her Harry Potter books.
'Fake News, Russian Trolls'
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be
paid in the new, more culturally sensitive climate does not mean that they are all equally
interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all , because he correctly
understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who
challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests
in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their
political opponents, then any restrictions will soon be turned against them. The Establishment
will always tolerate the hate speech of U.S. President Donald Trump or Brazilian President Jair
Bolsonaro over the justice speech of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, the former
leader of the Labour Party in the U.K.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the right-wingers and the
centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them .
They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating
the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few
years ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little.
The center and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who
seriously challenges the neoliberal status quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is
promoting "fake news" or is a "Russian troll." This updating of the charge of being
"un-American" embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social Media Accountability
In other words, apart from the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special
pleading – for a return to the status quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky
might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees with the
letter's vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their
self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel. And as Israel's critics know only too well,
advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before
the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously
critiquing this small, highly militarized state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was
implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the global
economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing
the letter have now seen the error of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is
simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel culture they have
always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the "cancel culture" because of two recent developments: a rapid
growth in identity politics among liberals and leftists, and a new popular demand for
"accountability" spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel's Critics
Former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn at campaign rally in Glasgow, December 2019. (Jeremy
Corbyn, Flickr)
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those
signing the letter have been intensifying their own contribution to cancel culture in relation
to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing
as Israel has more obviously become a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace
talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realize long-harbored plans
to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow "robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters" on Israel,
Israel's supporters have preferred the tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of
free speech: "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech
and thought."
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party who was reviled, along with
his supporters, as an anti-Semite – one of the worst smears imaginable – by several
people on the Harper's list, including Rowling and Weiss
. Such claims were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an
antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott
of Israel (BDS), modelled on the one that helped push South Africa's leaders into renouncing
apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as anti-Semites – and Weiss again has been
a prime
offender .
Pro-Israel counter demonstration against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions demonstration
outside School of Oriental and African Studies in London, April 2017. (Philafrenzy, CC BY-SA
4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The incidents highlighted in the Harper's letter in which individuals have
supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the cancelling of a major political party and
of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that
leftists -- including many Jewish anti-Zionists -- have been pilloried as anti-Semites to
prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel's behavior and its abuses of Palestinian
rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of anti-Semitism, by the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that has been rapidly gaining ground in Western
countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritising the
safety of Israel from being criticised before the safety of Jews from being vilified and
attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come to
regret .
Why has none of this "cancel culture" provoked an open letter to Harper's from
these champions of free speech?
Double-Edge Sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but
their right to continue dominating the public square – and their right to do so without
being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at The Wall Street Journal and then The New
York Times , spent her student years trying to get Muslim professors
fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of
Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner of "academic freedom," claiming pro-Israel
students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was
the real threat to academic freedom. This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last
year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors as a formative
experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools
they used for so long to stifle the free speech of others have now been turned against them.
Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for example
– are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of
race, sex and gender.
[Weiss just
quit her post at The New York Times , citing an illiberal environment. As part of
her full statement
she writes, "Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its
ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the
paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told
in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read
about the world and then draw their own conclusions."]
Narcissistic Concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers
and intellectuals, and how blind they are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the
case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left British newspaper
The Guardian . Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very
much aligned with the centrists among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article
published in The Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the "cancel culture" campaign against the Labour Party
referenced above. He was one of the key figures in Britain's Jewish community who breathed life
into the anti-Semitism
smears against Corbyn and his supporters.
Jonathan Freedland in 2013. (Chatham House, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland's voice can be heard cracking as he explains
how he has been a victim of the cancel culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered
verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel's most extreme apologists – those who
are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a "kapo," the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi
concentration camps, and a "sonderkommando," the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews
killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse "burrows under your skin" and "hurts
tremendously."
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being
cancelled by a section of his own community, Freedland has been at the forefront of the
campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as anti-Semites on the
flimsiest of evidence.
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture – unless it
applies to himself . His concern is purely narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of
those who signed the letter.
Conducting a Monologue
The letter's main conceit is the pretence that "illiberalism" is a new phenomenon, that free
speech is under threat, and that the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a
name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when
newspapers and websites did not have a talkback section, when blogs were few in number and
rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account "the
great and the good."
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a
monologue in which they revealed their opinions to the rest of us as if they were Moses
bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And
that was because only those who held approved opinions were ever given a media platform from
which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the
billionaire owners of the corporate media, all you could do was print your own primitive
newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly
obscure writers quickly found they could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no
help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and social
media.
Silencing the Left
Occupy Wall Street protesters engaging in the "human microphone," Sept. 30 2011. (David
Shankbone, CC BY 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper's . Under
cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility by Chomsky's name, a proportion of those
signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the
part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They
are against the small cancel culture – the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media
environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held to
account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of
these writers and public figures are using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they
don't like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of "cancel culture" are really about prioritizing "responsible" speech,
defined as speech shared by centrists and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a
return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a manufactured
consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy
– had no real voice.
The new attacks on "cancel culture" echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders' supporters, who were
framed as "Bernie Bros" – the evidence-free allegation that he attracted a rabble of
aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Bernie Sanders' 2020 Campaign Co-chair Nina Turner at Los Angeles City Hall rally, March
2019. (Sara Mossman, Flickr)
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders' policies, so the center and the right now
want to discredit the left more generally by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully
everyone else into silence and submission through their "cancel culture."
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily
have added his name to the letter alongside Chomsky's. Trump used his recent Independence Day
speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper's letter. He at
least was explicit in equating "cancel culture" with what he called "far-left fascism":
"One of [the left's] political weapons is 'Cancel Culture' -- driving people from their
jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is
the very definition of totalitarianism This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty,
must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly."
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper's letter, in all its
cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new "cancel culture" are simply another front
– alongside supposed concerns about "fake news" and "Russian trolls" – in the
establishment's efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention Redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some
of them even Russian. Rather, it is to point out that our attention is being redirected, and
our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has
been mostly a problem of the right. And the worst examples of fake news – and the most
influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of The
Wall Street Journal and The New York Times .
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivalled the lies justifying the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled by a political elite and their stenographers in the
corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths, turned millions
more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic
extremism whose effects we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified
U.S. interference in Syria and Venezuela, or rationalized war crimes against Iran, or approved
the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can only be
understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely
find a platform outside of social media.
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics
rather than class politics. I say it also as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture
– whether it is the old-style, "liberal" cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow
"consensus" politics (the Overton window), or the new "leftwing" cancel culture that too often
prefers to focus on easy cultural targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of
western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky's name is attached should
beware. Just as "fake news" has provided the pretext for Google and social media platforms to
change their algorithms to vanish leftwingers from searches and threads, just as "antisemitism"
has been redefined to demonise the left, so too the supposed threat of "cancel culture" will be
exploited to silence the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying leftwing "mob" – a mob that that
claims a right to challenge their views on Israel or trans issues – will become the new
rallying cry from the Establishment for action against "irresponsible" or
"intimidating" speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on
identity politics, or because they fear being labelled an antisemite, or because they
mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that they are
the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
Noam Chomsky. (Duncan Rawlinson)
You don't criticize Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from
a left perspective – without expecting a whirlwind of opposition from those who believe
he can never do any wrong.
But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defense is just plain
wrong-headed, so I want to quickly address it. Here's one my followers expressing the point
succinctly:
"The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or
histories of some of the signatories, nor their future plans."
The problem, as I'm sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter
fails not just because of the other people who signed it but on its merit too . And
that's because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established forms
of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, Establishment-backed
cancel culture, distorts our understanding of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly Establishment stooges skew our perceptions
of free speech problems so that we side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can
be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky
sign this letter. And rather than address their points individually, let me try another way of
explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furor over "fake news," even though there is
some fake news on social media? Why has he not endorsed the "Bernie Bros" narrative, even
though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media? Why has he not
supported the campaign claiming the Labour Party has an anti-Semitism problem, even though
there are some anti-Semites in the Labour Party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn't joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he
understands how power works, and that on the left you hit up, not down. You certainly don't
cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is setting it out in
relation to Iran:
"Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in
fortifying those who want to carry out policies I don't agree with, like bombing."
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his
support would be used for nefarious ends – he shouldn't have joined this campaign. He
made a mistake. He's fallible.
Also, this isn't about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn't be the issue. The
issue should be that a bunch of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to
reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork for further curbs on
its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now
buying into that narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That's why Chomsky's role
cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
Apologies for yet another update. I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left
might find to justify this letter.
Here's the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in
future be used to protect free speech by the left when we are threatened with being
"cancelled" – as, for example, with the anti-Semitism smears that were used against
anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the Labour Party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how
power works in our societies: who gets to decide what words mean and how principles are
applied. This letter won't help the left because "cancel culture" is being framed – by
this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a "loony left" problem. It is a new iteration of
the "politically correct gone mad" discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won't help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticized Israel's
killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended
the party's record on being anti-racist.
The "cancel culture" furor isn't interested in the fact that they were "cancelled." Worse
still, this moral panic turns the whole idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and
Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of
cancelling Israel and Jews.
Israel's supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel
"cancels" that country ("wipes it off the map"), "cancels" Israel's Jewish population ("drives
them into the sea"), and "cancels" Jews more generally ("denies a central component of modern
Jewish identity").
Greater awareness of "cancel culture" would not have saved Corbyn from the anti-Semitism
smears because the kind of cancel culture that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as
"cancelling."
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist
Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often – to the power dynamics of the "cancel
culture" discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything
Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour's
anti-Zionists. He doesn't see that witch-hunt as "cancel culture," and neither will anyone else
with a large platform like his to protect:
"... The cancel culture -- the phenomenon of removing or canceling people, brands or shows from the public domain because of offensive statements or ideologies -- is not a threat to the ruling class. Hundreds of corporations, nearly all in the hands of white executives and white board members, enthusiastically pumped out messages on social media condemning racism and demanding justice after George Floyd was choked to death by police in Minneapolis. ..."
The cancel culture -- the phenomenon of removing or canceling people, brands or shows from the public domain because of offensive
statements or ideologies -- is not a threat to the ruling class. Hundreds of corporations, nearly all in the hands of white executives
and white board members, enthusiastically pumped out messages on social media condemning racism and demanding justice after George
Floyd was choked to death by police in Minneapolis. Police, which along with the prison system are one of the primary instruments
of social control over the poor, have taken the knee, along with Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of the
serially criminal JPMorgan Chase , where
only 4 percent of the top executives are black . Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world whose corporation, Amazon, paid no
federal income taxes last year and who fires workers that attempt to unionize and tracks warehouse laborers as if they were prisoners,
put a "Black Lives Matter" banner on Amazon's home page.
The rush by the ruling elites to profess solidarity with the protestors and denounce racist rhetoric and racist symbols, supporting
the toppling of Confederate statues and banning the Confederate flag, are symbolic assaults on white supremacy. Alone, these gestures
will do nothing to reverse the institutional racism that is baked into the DNA of American society. The elites will discuss race.
They will not discuss class.
We must be wary of allowing those wielding the toxic charge of racism, no matter how well intentioned their motives, to decide
who has a voice and who does not. Public shaming and denunciation, as any student of the Russian, French or Chinese revolutions knows,
is one that leads to absurdism and finally despotism. Virulent racists, such as Richard Spencer, exist. They are dangerous. But racism
will not end until we dismantle a class system that was created to empower oligarchic oppression and white supremacy. Racism will
not end until we defund the police and abolish the world's largest system of mass incarceration. Racism will not end until we invest
in people rather than systems of control. This means reparations for African-Americans, the unionization of workers, massive government
jobs programs, breaking up and nationalizing the big banks along with the for-profit health services, transportation sector, the
internet, privatized utilities and the fossil fuel industry, as well as a Green New Deal and the slashing of our war expenditures
by 75 percent.
Occupy Wall Street Sept. 25, 2011. (David Shankbone via Flickr)
Politically correct speech and symbols of inclusiveness, without a concerted assault on corporate power, will do nothing to change
a system that by design casts the poor and working poor, often people of color, aside -- Karl Marx called them surplus labor -- and
forces them into a life of misery and a brutal criminal caste system.
The cancel culture, with its public shaming on social media, is the boutique activism of the liberal elites. It allows faux student
radicals to hound and attack those deemed to be racist or transphobic, before these "radicals" graduate to work for corporations
such as Goldman Sachs, which last year paid $9 million in fines to settle federal allegations of racial and gender pay bias. Self-styled
Marxists in the academy have been pushed out of economic departments and been reborn as irrelevant cultural and literary critics,
employing jargon so obscure as to be unreadable. These "radical" theorists invest their energy in linguistic acrobatics and multiculturalism,
with branches such as feminism studies, queer studies and African-American studies. The inclusion of voices often left out of the
traditional academic canon certainly enriches the university. But multiculturalism, moral absolutism and the public denunciations
of apostates, by themselves, too often offer escape routes from critiquing and attacking the class structures and systems of economic
oppression that exclude and impoverish the poor and the marginal.
The hedge fund managers, oligarchs and corporate CEOs on college trustee boards don't care about Marxist critiques of Joseph Conrad.
They do care if students are being taught to dissect the lies of the neoliberal ideology used as a cover to orchestrate the largest
transference of wealth upwards in American history.
The cancel culture, shorn of class politics, is the parlor game of the overeducated. If we do not examine, as Theodor Adorno wrote,
the "societal play of forces that operate beneath the surface of political forms," we will be continually cursed with a more ruthless
and sophisticated form of corporate control, albeit one that is linguistically sensitive and politically correct.
"Stripped of a radical idiom, robbed of a utopian hope, liberals and leftists retreat in the name of progress to celebrate diversity,"
historian Russell Jacoby writes. "With few ideas on how a future should be shaped, they embrace all ideas. Pluralism becomes a catchall,
the alpha and omega of political thinking. Dressed up as multicultural, it has become the opium of disillusioned intellectuals, the
ideology of an era without an ideology."
The cudgel of racism, as I have experienced, is an effective tool to shut down debate. Students for Justice in Palestine organizations,
which almost always include Jewish students, are being banned on college campuses in the name of fighting racism. Activists in these
outlawed groups are often barred from holding any student leadership positions on campus. Professors that dare to counter the Zionist
narrative, such as the Palestinian American scholar Steven Salaita, have had job offers rescinded, been fired or denied tenure and
dismissed. Norman Finkelstein, one of the most important scholars on the Israel-Palestine conflict, has been ruthlessly targeted
by the Israel lobby throughout his career, making it impossible for him to get tenure or academic appointments. Never mind, that
he is not only Jewish but the son of Holocaust survivors. Jews, in this game, are branded as racists, and actual racists, such as
Donald Trump, because they back Israel's refusal to recognize Palestinian rights, are held up as friends of the Jewish people.
May Day 2015 demonstration at Union Square, New York City. (All-Nite Images, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
I have long been a target of the Israeli lobby. The lobby, usually working through Hillel Houses on college campuses, which function
as little more than outposts of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), does not attempt to address my enumeration of the
war crimes committed by Israel, many of which I witnessed, the egregious flouting by Israel of international law, exacerbated by
the plans to annex up to 30 percent of the West Bank, or the historical record ignored and distorted by the lobby to justify Jewish
occupation of a country that from the 7 th century until 1948 was Muslim. The lobby prefers not to deal in the world of
facts. It misuses the trope of anti-Semitism to ensure that those who speak up for Palestinian rights and denounce Israeli occupation
are not invited to events on Israel-Palestine conflict, or are disinvited to speak after invitations have been sent out, as happened
to me at the University of Pennsylvania, among other venues.
It does not matter that I spent seven years in the Middle East, or that I was the Middle East Bureau Chief for The New York
Times , living for weeks at a time in the Israel-occupied territories. It does not matter that I speak Arabic. My voice and the
voices of those, especially Palestinians, who document the violations of Palestinian civil rights are canceled out by the mendacious
charge that we are racists. I doubt most of the college administrators who agree to block our appearances believe we are racists,
but they don't also want the controversy. Zionism is the cancel culture on steroids.
The Israel lobby, whose interference in our electoral process dwarfs that of any other country, including Russia, is now attempting
to criminalize the activities of those, such as myself, who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The lobby,
with its huge financial clout, is pushing state legislatures, in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, to use anti-boycott laws and
executive orders to punish companies and individuals that promote BDS. Twenty-seven states have so far enacted laws or policies that
penalize businesses, organizations and individuals for supporting BDS.
AIPAC gathering. (Wikimedia Commons)
The debate about the excesses of cancel culture was most recently ignited by a letter signed by 153 prominent and largely privileged
writers and intellectuals in Harper's Magazine
, a publication for educated, white liberals. Critics of the letter
argue , correctly, that "nowhere
in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing."
These critics also point out, correctly, that signatories include those, such as The New York Times columnist David Brooks
and Malcolm Gladwell, with access to huge media platforms and who face no danger of being silenced. They finally
note that a few of the signatories
are the most vicious proponents of the Zionist cancel culture, including The New York Times editor Bari Weiss, who
led campaigns while at Columbia University to destroy the careers of Arab professors ; literary scholar Cary Nelson,
who was one of those who denounced the Palestinian American scholar Salaita as a racist; and political scientist Yascha Mounk,
who has attacked
Rep. Ilhan Omar as an anti-Semite.
I find the cancel culture and its public denunciations as distasteful as those who signed the letter. But these critics are battling
a monster of their own creation. The institutional and professional power of those targeted by the Harper's letter is insignificant,
especially when set against that of the signatories or the Israel lobby. Those singled out for attack pose little threat to the systems
of entrenched power, which the signatories ironically represent, and indeed are more often its victims. I suspect this is the reason
for the widespread ire the letter provoked.
The most ominous threats to free speech and public debate do not come from the cancel culture of the left, which rarely succeeds
in removing its targets from power, despite a few high profile
firings
such as James Bennet , who oversaw a series of tone-deaf editorial decisions as the opinion page editor at The New York Times.
These corporate forces, which assure us that Black Lives Matter, understand that the left's witch hunts are a harmless diversion.
Corporations have seized control of the news industry and turned it into burlesque. They have corrupted academic scholarship.
They make war on science and the rule of law. They have used their wealth to destroy our democracy and replace it with a system of
legalized bribery. They have created a world of masters and serfs who struggle at subsistence level and endure crippling debt peonage.
The commodification of the natural world by corporations has triggered an ecocide that is pushing the human species closer and closer
towards extinction. Anyone who attempts to state these truths and fight back was long ago driven from the mainstream and relegated
to the margins of the internet by Silicon Valley algorithms. As cancel culture goes, corporate power makes the Israel lobby look
like amateurs.
The current obsession with moral purity, devoid of a political vision and incubated by self-referential academics and educated
elites, is easily co-opted by the ruling class who will say anything, as long as the mechanisms of corporate control remain untouched.
We have enemies. They run Silicon Valley and sit on corporate boards. They make up the two ruling political parties. They manage
the war industry. They chatter endlessly on corporate-owned airwaves about trivia and celebrity gossip. Our enemies are now showering
us with politically correct messages. But until they are overthrown, until we wrest power back from our corporate masters, the most
insidious forms of racism in America will continue to flourish.
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times
, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for
The Dallas Morning News , The Christian Science Monitor and NPR. He wrote a weekly column for the progressive website
Truthdig for 14 years until he was fired along with all of the editorial staff in March 2020. [Hedges and the staff had gone
on strike earlier in the month to protest the publisher's attempt to fire the Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer, demand an end to a series
of unfair labor practices and the right to form a union.] He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show "On Contact."
:::stands up slowly::: :::starts a slow clap::: Reading Chris Hedges is like dancing with the truth. Well done, sir.
Chumpsky , July 14, 2020 at 19:34
Cancel culture comes across as more of a form of woke guerilla marketing than as a phenomenon supported by the economically
exploited. Ex. all the FAANG companies that are essentially propping up the stock market – see how quickly they've embraced this
"culture" when they realized it was excellent for business.
IMO, such is a trend, and it too, will pass -- when folks realize that the powers that be have hijacked their ideas for profit.
Lesson learned: when fringe goes mainstream it's all over – 1960's redux.
Litchfield , July 14, 2020 at 17:04
"I find the cancel culture and its public denunciations as distasteful as those who signed the letter. But these critics are
battling a monster of their own creation. The institutional and professional power of those targeted by the Harper's letter is
insignificant, especially when set against that of the signatories or the Israel lobby. Those singled out for attack pose little
threat to the systems of entrenched power, which the signatories ironically represent, and indeed are more often its victims.
I suspect this is the reason for the widespread ire the letter provoked."
Basically I agree with Hedges. But I cannot follwo what he is saying in this graf.
Also this:
"As cancel culture goes, corporate power makes the Israel lobby look like amateurs."
What? I thought the beginning portion of the piece was about the power of AIPAC and other Israel Lobby entities to shape narrative
and cancel out those who defend Palestinian rights.
IMO and for my understanding t he essay wanders toward the end until I am not sure who Hedges thinks is doing the actual canceling
and who is actually powerful: Israel lobby? corporate interests? Misguided young people?
Andrew Thomas , July 14, 2020 at 15:43
A beautifully written argument. Cheers to Chris Hedges and Robert Scheer and Consortium News.
Great article as always from Chris Hedges. Jonathan Cook also has an excellent article published today at Global Research regarding
the open letter from Harper's. Censorship is never the answer.
firstpersoninfinite , July 14, 2020 at 13:51
Chris Hedges and Cornel West are always worth listening to and/or reading. Very pleased to have the actual situation with "cancel
culture" brought into light with such clarity. We are living in the rarefied air of late-stage capitalism, in which an identifying
feature is more important than our collective humanity. When someone argues over their right to their particular piece of pie
while arguing against sharing the whole pie, I can't tell if they're an academic or a billionaire. All I hear is the ca-ching
of people protecting the last scraps thrown to them by an inhuman system.
DW Bartoo , July 14, 2020 at 13:34
Chris Hedges, in this article, lays out substantial portions of the many corruptions people of conscience and actual principle
must confront if a sane, humane, and sustainable global human society is to be established.
He briefly suggests that, in academia in particular, there are to be found very few articulated visions of what that society
could, should, and must be premised upon, how it might function, and what forms of critically necessary participatory democracy,
guiding such a society, would look, and feel, like.
He makes very clear that symbolic "progress" is simply a rhetorical deceit employed to ensure that the currently destructive,
and fully corrupt, "system" may prevail, even as many are lulled into believing that "things" are "improving", that semantic fiddling
will keep the fire, next time, harmlessly contained and its energy bent and dissipated into meaningless gesture.
As Hedges points out, were universities, indeed, all of education, dedicated to developing critical thinking, rather than to
breathlessly proclaiming the sandbox "politics" of childish bullies as being highly evolved example of social competence, or of
praising private equity as proof that vulture capitalism is the "end of history", or of touting Panglossian pronouncements of
U$ian virtue and exceptionalism as inevitably placing all of humankind in the pinker regions of a rose-colored present, then the
young might, intentionally, be provided with the tools of actually comprehending the massive fraud and corruption which controls
and curtails the lives of most human beings on this planet, to the immense benefit of approximately two thousand kakistocratic
elites.
In other articles, over the years, Hedges has stressed, time and again, that there is no guarantee of success in the struggle
which must be undertaken if humanity is to have any future at all.
Some may regard such sober assessment as "negative" or even "defeatist".
However, considering what we are up against, beyond the relatively "easy" target of symbols, it is the deeper recognition that
Hedges provides, which is the first real step toward understanding what must be changed and why.
And, unless, there is a clearly articulated destination, a coherent idea of where we wish to arrive, of the pathways, maps,
and a developed sense of the terrain that must be crossed, fraught, as it will be, with pitfalls and land mines of distraction,
and of being maliciously led astray, with "movements" being absorbed into dead end detours and dissipation, then a very real risk
of going nowhere, of becoming disoriented and fatally lost, is more than likely.
We may not envision defeat, yet it is foolhardy to assume success.
As there are, quite literally, no existing forums for such discussions and considerations as we must enjoin, it is to be hoped
that "education" will be understood as a group effort which, of necessity, involves listening quite as much as talking.
Frankly, we are not even to square #1, yet.
Getting there will not be easy.
And that, rather than toppling symbols, is only the beginning.
Clear strategy must evolve, which cannot happen until organization with the intent of engaging a coherent sense of collective
plight is first undertaken.
This process is not about saviors or awaiting some "one" who will magically provide a guaranteed plan of success.
Rather, it is about the hard slog of getting from the untenable moment of increasing precarity, to an shared awareness of individual
competence and wholeness, among the many.
That is the basis of the power and energy which we must bring into being.
We must find it in each of our selves and then encourage it in each other.
That may well sound both trite and obvious.
Yet it leads to a beginning, not of following, but of becoming.
James Whitney , July 14, 2020 at 13:13
Thanks to Chris Hedges for this informative article.
"Twenty-seven states have so far enacted laws or policies that penalize businesses, organizations and individuals for supporting
BDS."
BDS is also illegal in France since 2015 (not the fault of the dreadful president Macron, it was the "socialist" Hollande president
at that time). A reference is
which seems now to be no longer available, but the link indicates the content.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , July 14, 2020 at 11:39
Yes, Chris Hedges has it exactly right.
But look at so very much of American society – especially the young – involved in the almost game-like empty battles about
slogans on t-shirts.
Social media could almost have been a security services invention.
I don't know whose words can reach those people.
I'm afraid a great many have little more grasp of the realities of history and the shaping of their society than Trump has.
And in a sense, I think it is a continuation of a politics that rarely struggles with anything important. Too much invested
in wealth and serving wealth, as with the empire.
150 prominent intellectuals and Ivy League academics of leftish persuasion have signed a letter in
Harper's protesting the breakdown in civilized debate and imposition of ideological
conformity.
The signatories made the obligatory bow to denouncing Trump as "a real threat to democracy"
and called for "greater equality and inclusion across our society."
But this wasn't enough to save them from denunciation for stating these truthful facts:
" The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily
becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right,
censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing
views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy
issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic
counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and
severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are
delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are
fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity;
journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for
quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed
academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy
mistakes.
Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily
narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already
paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear
for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in
agreement."
The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by. Free speech is
no longer a value. Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against
Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.
The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with
wokeness in its place. Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.
The signatories do not understand that today there is only one side. In place of debate
there is denunciation, the purpose of which is to impose ideological conformity. It is
pointless to search for truth when truth has been revealed: Western civilization and all its
works are a white racist construct and must be destroyed. There is nothing to debate.
To make clear that in these revolutionary times not even prominent people of accomplishment
such as Noam Chomsky are entitled to a voice different from woke-imposed conformity, the letter
was answered by a condescending statement signed by a long list of woke journalists of no
distinction or achievement , people no one has ever heard of.
Noam Chomsky and the other prominent signatories were dismissed as irrelevant just as the
prominent historians were who took exception to the New York Times 1619 project, a packet of
lies and anti-white propaganda. The famous historians found that they weren't relevant. The New
York Times has an agenda that is independent of the facts.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The message is clear: shutup "white, wealthy" people and you also Thomas Chatterton
Williams, a black person with a white name. Your voices of oppression have been cancelled.
The "oppressed" and "marginalized" voices of woke revolutionaries, who have imposed tyranny
in universities, the work place, and via social media, are the ones that now control
explanations. No one is permitted to disagree with them.
Lining up on the woke side are
CNN , New York Times ,
Los
Angeles Times , Slate ,
and other presstitute organizations desperately trying to remain relevant. Everyone of these
institutions quickly took the side of the woke revolution against facts and free speech.
The revolution is over unless the guillotine is next. Academic freedom no longer exists.
Free speech no longer exists. The media is a propaganda ministry. Without free speech there can
be no answer to denunciation. White people are guilty. Period.
The transcript from the body camera worn by J. Alexander Kueng shows clear evidence that
George Floyd was suffering respiratory distress before police laid hands on him. He died from a
Fentanyl overdose, not from being choked out by Minneapolis police. This news will not bring
joy to the crazed, leftist mob screaming to lop off the heads of the Minneapolis police
officers who stand accused of "murdering" George Floyd and little attention has been paid to
the transcript since its release on July 7. I hope to correct that oversight.
First a note about Officer J. Alexander Kueng. He also is a black man. He was adopted
shortly after birth by a white woman and single mother. Can't have that story out there. Simply
does not promote the meme that white Americans are inherently and irredeemably racist. How can
a racist white woman be a loving mother to a black child? Racists don't do that.
Officer Kueng and George Floyd
Once you read the transcript you will understand why the Minnesota Attorney General withheld
the video evidence from the public and why the defense attorneys are trying to get the
information out--it exonerates the police.
I don't think Chauvin will be exonerated, but there is no question advocates of the racist
police brutality narrative are ignoring facts.
The conclusion of the private autopsy requested by the family was wrong. They didn't know
the results of the toxicology report. One of the experts hired by the family, who kept making
television appearances (including on Hannity), didn't even look at the body. To the best of
my knowledge, this man only saw the video and ruled it a homicide on that basis alone.
Another expert hired by the family saw the body, but again she didn't see the toxicology
report. The lawyer for the family, Ben Crump, is an ass for calling the toxicology report a
red herring.
The fact is when the store clerks called the cops, they said Floyd appeared drunk. He was
clearly inebriated or intoxicated. The fact he handed off an obviously fake $20 bill suggests
he wasn't all there. There is no denying the toxicology report which does prove he was
intoxicated. And the police were right to apprehend him. This Floyd was inebriated or
intoxicated while sitting behind the wheel of a car, so he clearly represented a danger if he
began to drive.
With all that being said, despite the fact he had trouble breathing beforehand doesn't
exclude that the manner he was being detained had contributed to his death. The second
autopsy (I'm not talking the private one, but the official second autopsy) officially did
rule his death a homicide because the manner he was held down was deemed a contributing
factor in his death.
In my personal opinion, I think there is a case to be made that Chauvin did recognize
Floyd and deliberately kept Floyd on his stomach, with his face pointed downward, so that
Floyd wouldn't recognize Chauvin. Maybe Chauvin was also trying to pass Floyd out or induce
Floyd to vomit something he may have swallowed to hide from the police, who knows, but the
manner Floyd was held down, even if it is considered accepted albeit rare procedure, will not
hold in front of a jury. Procedures aside, there has to be common sense.
May good ideas about the level of suppression of "free thought" in US universities.
But this Red Guard persecution are really bizarre and contradict all moral norms.
Notable quotes:
"... One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened "public" political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. ..."
"... Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that's aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. ..."
"... My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into "mainstream" discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. ..."
"... Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a "professionalization" culture that depicts political engagement as "biased," "unprofessional," and "unacceptable." Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic "professional" norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there's been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. ..."
"... The reactionary "professionalization" that's celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don't get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they've secured an academic job. ..."
"... I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses – the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world – in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. ..."
"... There's little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it's difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn't dream of receiving in the first place. ..."
"... I won't shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. ..."
"... U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. ..."
Harper's Magazine's July 7 th " Letter on Justice and Open
Debate " is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the "PC"
"cancel culture" we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter
protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American
discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints.
The Harper's letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent
conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean
Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the
supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no
interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I
think it's warranted to focus on the ways in which "free speech" is being weaponized in this
case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the
façade of a free exploration of ideas.
The ideas established in the Harper's letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined
in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of "open debate" and "toleration of differences," and
opposition to "dogma[s]," "coercion," and "intolerant climate[s]" that stifle open exploration
of competing views. The letter's supporters celebrate "the free exchange of information and
ideas," which they deem "the lifeblood of a liberal society," contrary to a rising "vogue for
public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding
moral certainty." The letter elaborates :
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response
to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional
leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate
punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial
pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing
on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a
researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of
organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments
around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of
what can be said without the threat of reprisal."
Appealing to Americans' commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper's
letter warns, "restriction of debate" "invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone
less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument,
and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the
severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise
of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened "public" political
discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of
the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls
flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse
under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic
elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.
Numerous passages in the Harper's letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse
is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter
includes
:
A lament that the emerging "cancel culture" threatens to "weaken our norms of open
debate and toleration."
The claim that the "free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal
society, is daily becoming more constricted."
The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that "uphold the
value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters."
The call "to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire
professional consequences."
All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that
progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from "mainstream"
political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic
institutions.
The "let's engage in a diversity of competing views" position sounds great until one
realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live
in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in
which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth,
to the benefit of all. But we don't really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture,
which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society,
views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that
are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that's
aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views
that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other
minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or
even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their
views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in
higher educational institutions.
I don't draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is
based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know.
Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into "mainstream" discourse because of
the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this
marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight
record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender
and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the
rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American
politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the
American right.
Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence
reveals the opposite. As I've
documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling
questions on Americans' political and economic values, there's virtually no empirical evidence
to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of
holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is
obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly
reactionary American university: there's very little commitment to progressive or leftist
values in the modern corporate collegiate "experience"-oriented schooling system.
Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as
public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a "professionalization"
culture that depicts political engagement as "biased," "unprofessional," and "unacceptable."
Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago
with the rise of corporatized academic "professional" norms. Scholars are now primarily
concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no
one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a
discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there's been
a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an
ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.
The reactionary "professionalization" that's celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly
promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in
the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the
process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don't get with the program are
filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging
professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain
tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide
their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their
scholarship once they've secured an academic job.
In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there's no such thing as a fair hearing
for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own
research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses – the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world – in making space for openly leftist frameworks
of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I
do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any
of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of
research.
Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake
news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of
requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues
of our time. But this isn't at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in
terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world.
There's little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in
the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it's
difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians
like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week
who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars
couldn't dream of receiving in the first place.
I won't shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources
for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology
actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The
reality of the matter is that there's no First Amendment "free speech" right to be invited to
numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security
resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large
student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.
We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC "cancel culture" from the
right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries
have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within
the media and higher ed.
They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical
inquiry in the rhetoric of "free speech." But U.S. media and educational institutions have
never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who
question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and
open exchange of ideas, the better.
Anthony DiMaggio is Associate Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He earned
his PhD from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and is the author of 9 books, including most
recently: Political Power in
America (SUNY Press, 2019) and
Rebellion in America (Routledge, 2020). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
Are you ready for this week's absurdity? Here's our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous
stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity and on
occasion, inspiring poetic justice.
2 + 2 = imperialism
Making its rounds on Twitter is a Tweet stating: "Nope the idea of 2 + 2 equalling 4 is
cultural, and because of western imperialism/colonization, we think of it as the only way of
knowing."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_823449589 NOW
PLAYING
Nutritionists Say You Should Never Drink Coffee On An Empty Stomach
The Coronavirus Pandemic Is Throwing A Wrench Into The Lives Of High School Juniors
How Some People End Up With Brewery Inside Their Bodies
Amazon Ditches $2-An-Hour Raise For Essential Workers
Having A Few Drinks A Week Is Good For Your Brain
Unsold Guinness Used To Fertilize Christmas Trees
Harvard and MIT Sue Trump Administration Over Foreign Student Visa Rule
California Suing Trump Admin Over New Visa Rule For International Students
You might think this is a troll, intentionally causing controversy while remaining
anonymous. No one could seriously believe this, right?
But this is an actual PhD student specializing in mathematics education. She is even listed
on Rutgers' PhD student directory,
In fact, she already has a Master's Degree in architecture but I'm not sure you would want
to go into any buildings she has designed, just in case she thinks structural integrity is
another imperialist lie.
This is how far the Bolshevik worldview has reached. You'd expect this from an
underwater-basket-weaving major. After all, colleges are the bastion of the Marxists.
But this is math. And she is part of the next generation of instructors and educators.
Maybe it's time to start rethinking the value of a degree.
British man convicted for drinking carrot juice from a beer can
A British man was angry about open container laws in his town, so he filled a beer can with
carrot juice, and walked around downtown.
As expected, he was cited by police, and given a ticket for drinking alcohol in public.
But challenging the ticket in court, the case was dismissed since he hadn't actually been
caught with alcohol in public.
You'd think it would end there. Man hassles town, town hassles man, and we're done.
But the town decided this case was important enough to appeal the court's decision.
After going back to court and arguing why drinking carrot juice out of a beer can should be
enough for an open container ticket, the defiant man lost the case. He will be forced to pay
the fine.
This was a two year legal battle at the taxpayers' expense, for drinking carrot juice out of
a beer can.
Clearly the man was just trying to troll the town government.
But who is more ridiculous– one guy with a bone to pick, or a town that spent two
years prosecuting a man for drinking carrot juice, just to prove who's really in charge?
How you could Double Your Money with an asset
That Has a 5,000 Year History of Prosperity
Why gold could potentially DOUBLE, and why silver could increase by up to 5
TIMES
The 5 smartest, safest and most lucrative ways to own gold and silver (and one way
you should definitely avoid)
Why gold is the ultimate anti-currency and insurance policy against the systematic
destruction of the US dollar (that everyone should at least consider owning)
Why ETFs are a lurking timebomb and why you want to avoid them like the
plague
And everything else you need to know about buying, owning, storing and investing
in precious metals
This 50-page report is brand new and absolutely free.
"... "People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets," ..."
"... "held accountable" ..."
"... "an entire TV network" ..."
"... "stoking hatred" ..."
"... "white supremacist [with] a popular network show" ..."
"... "in dangerous ways," ..."
"... You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it. https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku ..."
"... "fired from their jobs and have their livelihoods threatened." ..."
"... There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter user. ..."
"... Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive remarks. ..."
"... An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the letter. ..."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has denied the existence of cancel culture, suggesting it is an
invention of privileged moaners who can't handle criticism. Her thesis prompted speculation
that the powerful lawmaker has no self-awareness. The rookie New York congresswoman, whose
'woke' Twitter takes have made her a hero to many on the Left, attempted to debunk the concept
of cancel culture in a series of profound posts.
"People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in
major outlets," she argued , adding that the whiners who
complain about being 'cancelled' are actually just entitled and hate being "held
accountable" or "unliked."
To prove her point, she claimed that "an entire TV network" is dedicated to
"stoking hatred" of her, and that a "white supremacist [with] a popular network
show" regularly misrepresents her "in dangerous ways," but that she never
complains about it. (The congresswoman may be referring to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is
white and undoubtedly not a fan of hers.)
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the people who "actually" get cancelled are
anti-capitalists and even abolitionists – apparently a hat-tip to activists who
campaigned to end slavery, which was formally abolished in the United States in 1865 with the
ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Her airtight dissertation received poor marks from many on social media, however. Countless
comments accused her of being part of the very movement which she claims doesn't exist.
"You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim.
Now you're being hoist by your own petard," quipped actor James Woods.
You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a
whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and
falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it.
https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku
Others argued that AOC was technically correct. Instead of having their views broadcast by
mainstream outlets, 'cancelled' individuals are often "fired from their jobs and have their
livelihoods threatened."
Correct. Instead, they are often fired from their jobs, harassed by twitter mobs, &
have their livelihoods threatened. And so since they cannot speak up, we who have a platform
choose to use our power responsibly to speak up on their behalf. You should do the same. Join
us, AOC https://t.co/lQ5yiuKFq6
There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being
maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a
United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter
user.
However, her remarks also garnered applause from social media users, who dismissed cancel
culture as a right-wing talking point.
Cancel culture is fake. It's a right wing framing of social accountability and people need
to stop giving the term any credence.
Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has
ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no
power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive
remarks.
An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public
shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring
spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They
explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the
letter.
Under pressure from the NAACP, this one is also being exiled.
I have always liked this one because it is a very accurate depiction of an Army of Northern
Virginia rifleman just as they embarked on the Gettysburg Campaign in 1863.
On the pediment is inscribed "Leesburg to her sons who fought for constitutional
government."
The revolution continues. The tactics never change.
Catholic philosopher Ed Feser (professor, Pasadena City College, CA) has an amazing blog
post "The popes against the revolution" where he cites papal encyclicals from late 19th and
early 20th centuries condemning every aspect of this revolution we're currently seeing in
America. From the destruction of cultural artifacts being a common tactic of communists to
how police protection and punishment of criminals is necessary for social order to how
socialism and communism are intrinsically evil.
The Church condemns anarchism and socialist revolution
[A] deadly plague is creeping into the very fibres of human society and leading it on to
the verge of destruction We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost
barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all
the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek
the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day,
strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all
civil society whatsoever. (Pope Leo XIII, Quod Apostolici Muneris 1)
[T]he most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of
the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the
community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in
their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they
fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are
working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which,
because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error... (Pope Leo XIII, Graves de
Communi Re 21, 25)
'Slavery is not mentioned'. It would not matter if it was, because the current era Red
Guards do not care about slavery or about rewriting history.
Like all socialists or useful idiots they have only an eye on the great and glorious future,
or as the delightful Kshama Sawant concisely states .. 'a world based instead on solidarity,
genuine democracy, and equality – a socialist world.' To that end the falling statues
have included those of emancipationists and Liberals, purely for the purpose of demonstrating
the relative powerlessness of stood down law enforcement, rubbing their own willpower in the
face of the middle class, and pushing the psychological boundary of normality.
The latter is of great significance to them. After the statues, place names, particular words
and designated reactionary organisations are neutralised, they can then begin to enact
legislation, in activist Democrat enclaves, once seen as absurd but lately seen as expected
and deserving of acquiescence. Have a listen to AOC's thoughts on the matter of this never
ending revolution (which we know does end like all revolutions, after various stages of
chaos). https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1275633659291136001
'We will not stop'(and then we're going to keep pushing anyway).
We have a similar Rifleman statue in Charlottesville and the pediment has an inscription
"Confederate Soldiers, defenders of States' Rights". Although in downtown Charlottesville's
Court Square, it's on Albemarle County property and not subject to Charlottesville's City
Council whims.
Is that the one that has "Love makes memory eternal?" inscribed on the base? A French Army
friend visiting with his wife read that and wept saying we have nothing like this. At
Gettysburg he told his wife on Cemetery Ridge "Le General de Brigade Armistead etait blesse a
mort just ici avec sa main sur la bouche d'un cannon." (Brigadier General Armistead was
mortally wounded here with his hand on the muzzle of a cannon.)
after 40 years of the long march through the institutions (look it up) the education
system is producing what the marxists who took it over want it to produce. If we can ever
start it will be a long road back.
Loudin County Va,Leesburg,is the birth place of my Great,Great grandfather,William Henry
Andrews born in 1811.He married Elizabeth Goff and they moved to Monticello ,Jefferson County
Florida in 1833 when it was a territoty.............Both the city and county name was in
honor of Thomas Jefferson.............William Henry's first son,my great grandfather,John
Slicer Andrews, enlisted in the 50 th Ga Regiment "The Santlla Rangers" in 1862.........This
regiment eventually was assigned to the ANV under Lt General James Longstreet.They were
involved in the battle of Gettysburg and on July 4th 1863 John Slicer Andrews was captured at
Cashtown PA.He spent about 19 months in Union prisons .He died years later of "consumption"
which his doctor said was a result of his prison stay..........One of John Andrew's son was
responsible for the Florida Legislature to pass a bill giving Confederate widows a
penson.
Diana, would that long road back start at the door of the Education Secretary, an
appointment currently held by Betsy deVos ? Although the powers of that appointment are
limited by the US Constitution, it would seem to be the ideal coordinating office for the
redress of the decline that you describe.
Betsy DeVos herself does not seem up to that task, and those who appointed her would not seem
to have that intent. She seems a lovely and comfortable sort, devoid of any need to overwhelm
those who would at least be ideological opponents.
I see in the Richmond Times Dispatch today that the wokies now running the commonwealth
have decided that the way to get the bronze Lee down is to cut him in three pieces.
George Santayana's aphorism; "Only the dead have seen the end of war" seems inadequate for
a time in which the effigies of soldiers are mutilated. For me, the wokies' lack of respect
for the dead betrays their faux concern for the living.
One month after the killing of George Floyd, the mass multi-racial demonstrations against
police violence are in danger of being hijacked and misdirected by reactionary political forces
who are attempting to promote racial divisions, sabotage the unity of working people and youth,
and undermine the development of the class struggle against capitalism. This campaign is
now concentrated on desecrating and destroying the statues of figures who led the American
Revolution and the Civil War.
It is difficult to find words that adequately express the sense of revulsion produced by the
monstrous attacks on memorials that honor the memory of Abraham Lincoln, the United States'
greatest president, who led the country during the Second American Revolution that destroyed
the Slave Power and emancipated millions of enslaved African Americans.
On the evening of April 14, 1865, less than a week after the surrender of the main
Confederate army, which brought the four-year Civil War to an end, Lincoln was shot in the head
by the pro-slavery actor John Wilkes Booth. Nine hours later, at 7:22 on the morning of April
15, Lincoln died of the wound inflicted by the assassin. Standing beside Lincoln's death bed,
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton famously declared: "Now he belongs to the ages."
Lincoln's martyrdom produced an outpouring of grief throughout the United States and the
world. The working class recognized that it had lost a great champion of democracy and human
equality. Karl Marx, writing on behalf of the International Working Men's Association, wrote in
the days after Lincoln's assassination that he was "one of the rare men who succeed in becoming
great, without ceasing to be good."
Abraham Lincoln was an extraordinarily complex man, whose life and politics reflected the
contradictions of his time. He could not, as he once stated, "escape history." Determined to
save the Union, he was driven by the logic of the bloody civil war to resort to revolutionary
measures. In the course of the brutal struggle, Lincoln gave expression to the
revolutionary-democratic aspirations that inspired hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight
and sacrifice their lives for a "new birth of freedom."
Every period of political upsurge in the United States has drawn inspiration from Lincoln's
life. Since its opening in 1922, the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC has been the site of
some of the most important moments in the struggle against racial oppression and for equality.
In 1939, when Hitler's Nazis were on the march in Europe and fascism had many sympathizers
among the American ruling elite, the famous African American contralto Marian Anderson was
denied the right to sing at Constitution Hall. So instead she sang on the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial before a crowd of 75,000.
In 1963, at the March on Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr. stood at the same location as
he delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech, calling for equality and racial integration before a
crowd of 250,000. Later in that decade, tens of thousands of youth protesting the Vietnam War
assembled at the monument.
It is not coincidental that the working-class upsurge of the 1930s was associated with many
great artistic depictions of Lincoln, including the films Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) and
Abe Lincoln in Illinois (1940). Aaron Copland's beloved orchestral-narrative
masterpiece, Lincoln Portrait (1942), concludes with the declaration that the
sixteenth president of the United States "is ever-lasting in the memory of his countrymen."
But now, 155 years after the tragedy at Ford's Theater, Lincoln is the subject of a second
assassination. This one must not succeed.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington DC's nonvoting delegate to Congress, said she will
introduce a bill to remove the famous Emancipation Monument from the Lincoln Park in
Washington, DC. The race-fixated protesters have declared their intention to tear down the
monument, which was paid for by former slaves and movingly dedicated by black abolitionist
Frederick Douglass in 1876.
"The designers of the Emancipation Statue in Lincoln Park in DC didn't take into account the
views of African Americans," Norton stated in a Tweet. Democrats assert that the statue demeans
"the black community" because it depicts Lincoln freeing a slave crouched in a runner's pose,
which the sculptor intended to symbolize the liberation of the Civil War.
Norton's reactionary effort is being supported by Democratic Party officials in Boston, who
will hold hearings in the coming weeks to entertain demands for the removal of a replica of the
Emancipation Memorial in that city.
Lincoln is not the only leader of the anti-Confederate forces to be targeted. In San
Francisco last week, a statue of Ulysses S. Grant, the great general of the victorious Union
army and later president of the United States, was torn down.
An even filthier example of the racialist campaign is the desecration of the Boston monument
honoring the legendary 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment. The 54th Massachusetts,
led by abolitionist Robert Gould Shaw, was the second all-black regiment organized in the Civil
War. Protesters object to the fact that the 54th, famously depicted in the film Glory
(1989), was commanded by a white officer, Shaw. Holland Cotter, the New York Times'
co-chief art critic, slandered the monument as a "white supremacist" visual for its depiction
of Shaw leading his African American battalion.
Another Union monument, a statue of abolitionist Hans Christian Heg (1829–1863), was
pulled down Tuesday night in Madison, Wisconsin. The statue was beheaded before being thrown
into a nearby lake.
A Norwegian immigrant, Heg led the 15th Wisconsin regiment, known as the Scandinavian
Regiment, against the Confederacy. Prior to the war, Heg, a member of the Free Soil Party,
fiercely opposed slavery and headed an anti-slave catcher militia in Wisconsin. He was killed
at the age of 33 at the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863.
The Socialist Equality Party rejects all the lame liberal excuses and justifications that
are offered to legitimize the desecration of these memorials. Actions, whatever the motivations
ascribed to them, have objective significance and very real political consequences.
The assault on Lincoln monuments and other memorials honoring the leaders of the American
Revolution and Civil War are political provocations aimed at whipping up racial animosities.
Such provocations are well-known forms of communalist politics, which resemble the burning down
of Muslim mosques by Hindu fanatics or Hindu temples by Muslim fanatics. Here in the United
States, the statues are being attacked as examples of "white" rule.
The attacks on the statues are the outcome of a campaign by the two capitalist parties and
various reactionary elements in the upper-middle class to racialize and communalize American
politics. The growing intensity of this campaign is a response to the upsurge of working-class
militancy, which is seen as a threat to capitalism. Far from welcoming the interracial unity
displayed in the demonstrations against police brutality, the ruling elites and most affluent
sections of the middle class are terrified by its political implications.
In the promotion of racial politics, there is a division of labor between the Democratic and
Republican parties. Trump and the Republicans pitch their appeal to the most politically
disoriented elements in American society, manipulating their economic insecurities in a manner
intended to incite racial antagonism and deflect social anger away from the capitalist
system.
The Democratic Party employs another variant of communalist politics, evaluating and
explaining all social problems and conflicts in racial terms. Whatever the particular issue may
be -- poverty, police brutality, unemployment, low wages, deaths caused by the pandemic -- it
is almost exclusively defined in racial terms. In this racialized fantasy world, "whites" are
endowed with an innate "privilege" that exempts them from all hardship.
This grotesque distortion of present-day reality requires a no less grotesque distortion of
the past. For contemporary America to be portrayed as a land of relentless racial warfare, it
is necessary to create a historical narrative in the same terms. In place of the class
struggle, the entire history of the United States is presented as the story of perpetual racial
conflict.
Even before the outbreak of the pandemic, efforts to create racial foundations for
contemporary communalist politics were well underway. The New York Times , the
principal voice of corporate and financial patrons of the Democratic Party, concocted the
insidious 1619 Project, the central purpose of which was to promote a racial narrative. The
main argument of this project, which was unveiled in August 2019, was that the American
Revolution was undertaken to protect North American slavery and that the Civil War, led by the
racist Abraham Lincoln, had nothing to do with the ending of slavery. The slaves, so the new
story went, liberated themselves.
The purpose of lies about history, as Trotsky explained, is to conceal real social
contradictions. In this case, the contradictions are those embedded in the staggering levels of
social inequality produced by capitalism. These contradictions can be resolved on a progressive
basis only through the methods of class struggle, in which the working class fights consciously
to put an end to capitalism and replaces it with socialism. Efforts to divert and sabotage that
struggle by dissolving class identity into the miasma of racial identity lead inexorably in the
direction of fascism.
Through the promotion of a racial version of communalism, all factions of the ruling class
seek to divide the working class so as to better exploit it and ward off the threat of
revolution. It is no coincidence that when American society is straining under the weight of
the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 120,000 people and sparked an economic crisis
on the scale of the Great Depression, the Democrats are ever-more ferociously seeking to make
race the fundamental issue.
The alternative to the politics of racial communalism is the socialist politics of
working-class unity. This is the program of the Socialist Equality Party, and those who agree
with this perspective should join our party.
This is an excellent piece. I in no way consider myself a socialist, but I do believe that
politicians and the media and all around bad people have bastardized and driven a wedge
between what could be.
Great article.
"An even filthier example of the racialist campaign is the desecration of the Boston monument
honoring the legendary 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment. The 54th
Massachusetts, led by abolitionist Robert Gould Shaw, was the second all-black regiment
organized in the Civil War."
This attack demonstrates the utterly anti-historical, politically relativist nature of the
current "protests". These protesters hate reality, & wish nothing less than to bend
history to their own short-term, selfish & impulsive demands. They do NOT represent
working people, the 99%.
"The attacks on the statues are the outcome of a campaign by the two capitalist parties and
various reactionary elements in the upper-middle class to racialize and communalize American
politics. The growing intensity of this campaign is a response to the upsurge of
working-class militancy, which is seen as a threat to capitalism. "
Absolutely correct. Dozens of multi-billion dollar corporations are jumping on this racialist
bandwagon. Their presence should arouse the suspicion of even the most stupid of "useful
idiots".
"The assault on Lincoln monuments and other memorials honoring the leaders of the American
Revolution and Civil War are political provocations aimed at whipping up racial
animosities."
when i read Lincoln, and when i read Trotsky these days, i know in my heart that that they
consciously spoke to future generations as much as they did to their contemporaries -- they
knew the struggle to be fierce and long, and so the imperative to speak to future generations
-- when i read Lincoln and Trotsky, i am not reading a history book, i am listening to a man
speak directly to me about the times i live -- they want to tell us what they learned, they
want to guide us and strengthen our spine for the battles ahead ! a hundred, a hundred-fifty
years since they lived ? they understood that, the length of the struggle, and this is why
they speak so clearly to us, like a hammer ringing on a blacksmith's anvil ! they live in our
hearts and continue to lead us, they are beloved of the workers in this world
Obama's second term was seared by civil unrest over the multiple murders of young black
men by racist cops... but no 'rainbow CIA color revolution' against Obama was required at
that point so the carnage was glossed over and the protests suppressed. This year however the
CIA Democrats need to harness identity politics to destabilise Trump's regime in time for
November (to get war with Russia back on track); furthermore American oligarchs are petrified
at a class uprising after Lockdown so have instructed their mass media to seize on the the
George Floyd killing, lionise the spontaneous protests, and spin them (with
billionaire-funded NGOs like Black Lives Matter) to create a largely state-sponsored
worldwide 'reaction'... to channel real class anger into the deadend of racial division.
Not sure how others see it but I see the mass protests that erupted (that saw democrats
and trump both attacking, the former attacking the multiracial character especially) as a
different thing to what is taking place now at the sites of these statues of Lincoln, Grant
etc. I believe the media are trying to treat them as part of the same thing while even
admitting there is only the tiniest fraction of the numbers at the statues I mentioned above
compared to the numbers demonstration before. The latter is about shifting everything into
race where there was a real fear of class gaining expression in the mass demonstrations.
When the unions know, and the transnational corporations more than know, and the workers
of the world all know and how that tens of thousands of workers are infected with the
Corvid-19 virus and thousands upon thousands are dead or in the process of dying of it
under
a forced labor pogrom, but the American people aren't told and the workers are bullied and
threatened not to bring it up, evidently, and lied to about the figures, thereby take to
manipulating and degrading the Black Lives Matter banner and movement by using them like
Trojan horses bloated with divisive racialist and identity politic of the Democratic Party--
the capitalist antebellum slaver class potty and the complicit Nationalistic anti-labor
unions whom we got the skinny on and know of here and now-- in order to divide, confuse,
isolate and decimate the working classes and swallow up what's left of the middle class
medium and small indie businesses -- while, in tandem, the Republican Potty mops up the rest.
WORKERS LIVES MATTER!
I agree that the goal of the government and media is to delimit, or kettel, the substance
of these demonstrations to race...by submerging the multilpicity of issues at stake under an
incessant, obsessive racial narrative. They know its about much more than that and so do the
people in the streets.
Lincoln was an advocate of slavery as long as it wasn't expanded, he wanted to make the US
a whites only country like Edmon Barton of Australia later did with his constitutionally
connected self governing colony, and Lincoln while "freeing slaves" continued enslaving and
murdering Native Americans. I hold no anger to those who wants to target his monuments and
remove them.
Can you put this into the context of what the article is about, namely that the racialist
narratives being promoted seek to divide the working class today?
Western culture (which includes America) is built on a foundation of so many lies and half
truths that any objective critical examination causes it ti crumble like a house of cards.
Hero worship and symbolism die hard in the minds of the "symbol minded" (Carlin).
spot on comrade and Rest in power to George Carlin along with Bill Hicks and Frank Zappa
one of the finest dissident artist, truthtellers and mythbusters. Carlin was the Miles Davis
and Picasso of stand up comedy, the older he got, the better :)
haha! your against tearing down monuments that glorify and engage in half truths and
propaganda and instead of engaging in dialogue you want the censorship? wonderful!
If it's propaganda, like your comment about Lincoln being a white supremacist, yes, in my
humble opinion but than again I actually studied history most my life so I'm not going to
make up things to justify why the world is the way it is today. That's why the SEP is a
principal party based upon scientific Socialism unlike you who uses his emotions as
facts.
He is on record as saying he did not agree with blacks and whites as equals and living in
close quarters. He said that the white race was superior to the black race. It is on
record.
You are a historical falsifier. You are taking certain incidents out of their context, and
ignore the process of history. Your worldview is superficial and reactionary.
I'm what you call an inconvenient truthteller and mythbuster much like this outlet, and
its ok to not always agree with authors and what I said about Lincoln is historical fact,
sticks and stones Comrade.
Why is it that we want our designated heroes to be two dimensional? Lincoln like most of
the Founding Fathers by his own admission was a White Supremacist in the strictest sense.
They all believed and expressed in their writings that the White race was superior to the
rest of humanity (Blacks, Asians, Natives, Hispanic....).
If Lincoln was a white supremacist, what would you call John Wilkes Booth? As for the
founders expressing superiority in their writings, I'd like for you to prove that it against
"Hispanics", seeing the term was created in the 1970's. You don't even know what you're
talking about yet you try to revise history. Read a book and you might learn something.
Nice try at misdirection, but the Founding fathers have openly expressed many times in
multiple correspondences that they believed that the White Race was naturally superior to all
other races on the face of this planet. It's not hard to find and they were not shy about
saying it out loud so I suggest you take your own snarky advice and read a few books
yourself. Also, I used the term "Hispanic" which is now Latinx (?) to include peoples in
their time who were a mixture of Spanish and Native who actually did exist in their time.
Note that the term "White Supremacist didn't exist in those days as well but the Fumbling
Fathers clearly fit the description.
You still didn't provide any correspondence because they don't exist so who's really
misdirecting. Also I was responding to your misinformation about "Lincoln, by his own
admission was a White Supremacist in the strictest sense", and I said prove it but you can't
because you only know how to read NYT propaganda. The Hispanic part of your comment is the
most ridiculous. I guess the fumbling fathers, pathetic and infantile insult, must of had a
time machine to travel to the future and oppress people that were just called Mexicans back
during their time. I'd tell you to grow up but grownups don't troll.
Lincoln didn't believe that. His placing into law the right for black people and freedmen
to vote showed he no longer held even a whiff of prejudice and Douglass said as much. Lincoln
was not a racist and certainly not a White Supremacist which was the ideology of the
confederacy. He was a heroic revolutionary who stood firm while others folded.
First of all Lincoln was a man not a two dimensional heroic fictional caricature like you
put forth. In many correspondences he like most White men of his time saw the Negro and
Natives as inferior. As far as being exceptional I say John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison and
the Quakers fit that description. They could rise above convention and see humanity
objectively.
No, what WSWS and anybody reasonable wants is for people to study history and describe and
quote people accurately, not repeat absurd slanders or recite carefully edited quotations.
(Always the same ones)
Blatant falsehoods like "Lincoln was an advocate of slavery.." or pulling down a statue of
Lincoln are exactly the kinds of stupid, self-destructive act that agents provocateurs lead
movements and dupes like Eleanor Holmes Norton into doing.
The deepest point of the attack, why it is so crucial for these Bad Guys to attack Lincoln
et al is because:
(a) Lincoln was on our side. He was on the side of the slaves, the downtrodden, the
working class, black or white. and
(b) Lincoln was a rare, great and heroic leader. He - and we - succeeded in the real
world . Most others - say Garrison, by his own admission - would have failed.
It's easy to spout the correct slogans and positions. Infinitely harder to put them into
practice, to lead a whole country into saying them. Lincoln did. Lenin did. No matter where
or when, such leaders are the supreme target of the pro-slavery forces, who do anything to
blacken their name and falsify their memory, who endlessly work to split us.
Their supreme aim by this is to demoralize us and convince us that we have NEVER succeeded
once, that we cannot win. No, if one studies Lincoln and the Civil War we can learn - we did
win then. So we can win now.
Should all critics of the website's prevailing wisdom be lumped into one category? You use
the term "Bad Guys" to describe people who question convention (a term Dick Cheney & the
"Intelligence Community" frequently deploys) or as you put it "attack Lincoln." As an atheist
I have no Messiahs and very few heroes. Lincoln was a human being like you and I.
The North won the Civil War because A.) they had more fighting men. B.) they had a greater
manufacturing capacity to make weapons of war. If the circumstances had been reversed the
South would have won. Trial by combat where good always conquers evil only happens in the
movies. Personally, I am not pro-human slavery be it ancient Egypt, Rome or America, but I am
pro-facts; even if said facts don't neatly fit into one's heroic narrative.
Should all critics of the website's prevailing wisdom be lumped into one
category?
I did not and did not intend to. By "Bad Guys" I meant the ruling class and their agents
provocateurs. I was not including you or anyone else here necessarily in that category. But
people who spread blatant lies or contrive to get statues of Lincoln or abolitionists pulled
down for malicious purposes.
I was trying to explain why there are so many peddlers of crap history about Lincoln etc.,
explain their ultimate aims and how this is an effective tool of oppression. And noting that
they have seriously misled, divided and damaged left/liberal/progressive forces. They appear
to have fooled you and Youri in this thread.
As for Garrison, whose objectivity you praise, what was his objective, final estimate of
the living Lincoln? A few days before the assassination Garrison gave a rousing speech to
tumultuous applause - briefly mentioned above - where he repeatedly said "I will not hear a
word said against Abraham Lincoln" . Garrison said that Lincoln showed himself a wiser
strategist and better abolitionist than he, Garrison, because he had succeeded at the
enormously difficult and absolutely necessary task of leading public opinion - to win the
war, to eliminate slavery everywhere in the South. Garrison before the war had sometimes
merely aimed at eliminating slavery in the USA by - Northern seccession. As Garrison
knew, Garrison could preach to the converted. But Lincoln didn't have that luxury - but still
succeeded.
So my point is again that the anti-Lincoln narrative is the one that doesn't fit "the
facts", that requires prejudice and contorted arguments and politically edited revisionist
history. Not the "heroic narrative" - which the facts, warts and all, happen to fit far more
neatly into.
What you refer to as a "anti-Lincoln narrative is just people like me pointing out that
bases on Lincoln's own words he was a White Supremacist. The question seems to be is it
possible for a confessed White Supremacist to fight a war and strategically free the slaves?
Yes.
We'll get this before the people, and
then tell the people all, and, while we are at it, ask
the working class if those who don't
mind at all might take some time off to recall the Union
Army as our Second Amendment is now
half empty as we're needing to finish ,for once and for all, Reconstruction restarting
from where Lincoln's murder left off!
" The purpose of lies about history, as Trotsky explained, is to conceal real social
contradictions."
False consciousness, as Engels wrote to Mehring, is the underclass thinking and acting a role
written by the ruler. Such is racialism.
Hi! Thanks so much for writing this! I totally agree that we can't let anything divide the
working class – we've got to stay united if we want to win this fight. Thanks for
advocating for us. I'm a little confused about where the author wants that unity to come
from, though. Is the author saying that we should ignore all of the things that specifically
black folks have faced (namely, slavery, explicitly racist torture at the hands of vigilante
groups and the state, subtler practices like redlining that were still clearly predicated on
race rather than just class) and expect them to join us in the fight? Isn't it our job, as a
class and as a movement, to make sure we are advocating for ALL working class (and poor)
folks? Don't we want to unite all people against the ruling class? Isn't that where our power
comes from? I guess I'm just not sure why Black folks would want to join the movement if we
don't address the inequality they've disproportionately faced – if they join, and we
don't address these things, and we win, then the socialist society that comes after is still
full of folks who have benefited from racism, and internalized the subtleties of white
supremacy (I am not saying that anyone in our group is a racist. Just that our society was
built by white folks to cater to their own needs, while Black folks were enslaved, and our
systems still live in that legacy. White folks consider majority-white spaces the norm. We
turn a blind eye to the over-policing of Black neighborhoods because it is easy to buy into
the idea – one that our ancestors passed down to us – that Black folks are
inherently more likely to be criminals. But Black folks are dying at much higher rates that
while folks. We don't notice it because it feels normal to us. But Black folks do. Don't take
it from me, though- are there Black folks within the movement that could potentially speak to
this?). I am wondering why it is not our job to advocate specifically for justice for Black
folks – if our goal is equity, and the Black working class has less of it than the
white working class, why does fighting for that equity undermine the movement? Isn't justice
for all what we're fighting for? Why would anyone join us if we are not paying attention to
the specifics of their struggle? Any clarity you have would be so helpful – thank you
in advance!
Racism was invented to divide the working class. Social equality cannot be achieved under
capitalism--that is an oxymoron. Reforms addressing racial issues will not do away with this
underlying contradiction under capitalism. Marxism needs to be taken into the working class
to all workers. Workers need to understand they are part of the historical process. You said,
"our society was built by white folks to cater to their own needs, while Black folks were
enslaved". This is a wide generality; "white folks" obscures the class nature of society. All
workers are still enslaved. To paraphrase Engels, the difference between chattel slavery and
wage slavery is that the slave is sold to a master all at once and is his individual
property; the wage slave must sell himself piecemeal, by the hour etc. and not to an
individual but to the ruling class as a whole. Thus wage slaves cannot get free until they do
away with the class structure.
Actually, two remarkable events happened before I fled the responsibility of party
building before your parents were born. The predecessors of this party circa 1974 when the
working class wave , now gathering , ebbed. Mind you graduate school and profiitable careers
were available, unlike now. Until then, I answered a lot questions like your , just before
Feminism gathered force and Black Nationalism turned into Black Capitalism. You know, mayors,
policemen, nasty capitalists. That red hot revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver opened a Better Get
a Gun fashion outlet in Beverly Hills no less. There are shameless opportunists who
discovered their race as their most important contribution now beside you on the streets.
One more things, just as all the comrades left for grad school , the Trostkyists of SEP
built a socialist youth movement among black youths in New York for which a comrade was
murdered. Not only that, but SEP as Workers League relocated to Detroit where it had a base
in the black working class among auto workers. One thing though, we are not all alike and
should just get together. It took rivers of Trotskyist blood to drill that in, and every
attempt to ignore it met with disaster.I am a supporter. Join.
You make it sound like there's no black workers already in the socialist movement. These
advocates of racialism are not your average black working class, some instances they're not
even black. What they are primarily drawn from are upper middle class, privileged layers
despite all their yarns about white privilege, who advocate this stuff precisely to block
class unity and class consciousness. And when you get down to our level, there really ain't
that much difference. Plenty of enough white workers getting harassed and murdered by the
State. I say don't let the upper middle class speak for workers
Just that. The guys I work with who happen to have varying shades of skin color and we all
discuss from serious matters to the inane and joke together, it's all the same stuff. Same
worries, same troubles, same concerns. We all know there's racism, each of us whatever our
background take offense to it because we know it's an attack on all of us at the end of the
day. Plus we all know Obama was a fraud, that it doesn't change anything for us putting more
black people in boardrooms or the police - we all still get attacked and screwed around. And
we all take offense when these self appointed representatives of race start telling us that
our real enemy is each other rather than those destroying our livelihoods with job cuts,
speed ups, austerity, attacks on rights and war.
White workers, black workers, Latino workers, male, female, straight, gay whatever - can be
won to socialism without having to resort to adapting to the middle class advocates of
identity - in fact, if that's what the wsws and SEP were to adapt to, it wouldn't win over
any workers; it might win over very reactionary elements of the middle class though who would
use this as platform to get more privileged positions.
My mistake - did not mean to imply that Black folks are not part of the movement. Now that
you mention it, though, my experience within the movement has been with mostly white men - do
you happen to know if the party has significant Black membership? Not rhetorical, seriously
wondering!! If you have the time, I'd also love to know more about these proponents of
racialism - in my experience, many of the activists leading the charge in the current moment
Black folks from working class or poor backgrounds (pointing to some of the national and
local organizations who are doing work right now - naarpr/caarpr, for example, a lot of local
youth-led orgs leading the charge in Chicago). Would you be able to send me more information
about the upper middle class background of this movement? Thanks!
Yes, there is significant black membership in the SEP and the ICFI. Always has been since
before I became a part of it. A major section of the ICFI is in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankans
are South Asian and yet they are a part of the Trotskyist movement and have a long history
within it. True socialists have never been racists. Also see:
https://www.wsws.org/en/art...
Kaline below has given some links, I would also suggest searching for as much background
information as possible from the wsws on the efforts of the ruling class, media and academics
to racialise matters. In fact I would suggest the book on pseudo left and the Frankfurt
school and postmodernism. This isn't just about racialising but the whole effort of
postmodernism to deny the working class the tools to study history and formulate a class
perspective.
On that score I won't say no black worker can't get caught up in racialism, just as no white
worker can't get pulled behind white supremacists - great efforts are made to subordinate
different sections of the working class to various middle class organisations, perspectives
etc. But what I'm trying to convey is these things we're seeing (not the mass protests but
pulling down statues of historically progressive figures), while they may involve worker
elements, are formulated and given full vocalisation first and foremost by the upper middle
class. These are not spontaneous attitudes that the mythical black community just pops out
with (and it is mythical: Obama, Powell, Beyonce etc are not part of what George Floyd,
Trevon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Gardner etc are). Where the socialist movement has been
attacked, pushed back and betrayed by so called socialist forces (who incidentally began
spouting the same identity politics and attacking class conceptions) obviously sections of
the working class have come under middle class influence. But to tackle that one has to
ruthlessly expose this identity politics and be somewhat bold in it recognising and having
confidence that identity politics isn't some bottom up, natural expression or reflection of
the real state of affairs. That's revealed very quickly when engaging in discussion with
other workers of all different stripes. Of course the first stage is understanding where
identity politics comes from, how we got to be here and what identity politics expresses.
Apologies I'm replying quickly between shifts.
aristocracy. Our party is a part of the same milieu, not of the basic exploited masses of
whom the Negroes are the most exploited. The fact that our party until now has not turned to
the Negro question is a very disquieting symptom. If the workers' aristocracy is the basis of
opportunism, one of the sources of adaptation to capitalist society, then the most oppressed
and discriminated are the most dynamic milieu of the working class..
Always liked how the politics of racialism is the first to silence and attack black
workers and deny their existence within the socialist movement, just as feminists silence
women workers and Zionists silence workers of Jewish descent.
Are you a member of the socialist equality party?
An historically important perspective. I would like to extend my most profound thanks to
David and Niles, and the editorial staff of the WSWS as a whole, for the incredible work they
have done in preparing the ground for the struggle against these aptly called "lame
liberals."
The attacks on the Great Emancipator remind me of Goya's painting of Saturn eating his
children at birth on the off chance they might overthrow him.
Two paragraphs in this article strike me as being worthy of serious study:
"The purpose of lies about history, as Trotsky explained, is to conceal real social
contradictions. In this case, the contradictions are those embedded in the staggering levels
of social inequality produced by capitalism. These contradictions can be resolved on a
progressive basis only through the methods of class struggle, in which the working class
fights consciously to put an end to capitalism and replaces it with socialism. Efforts to
divert and sabotage that struggle by dissolving class identity into the miasma of racial
identity lead inexorably in the direction of fascism.
Through the promotion of a racial version of communalism, all factions of the ruling class
seek to divide the working class so as to better exploit it and ward off the threat of
revolution. It is no coincidence that when American society is straining under the weight of
the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 120,000 people and sparked an economic
crisis on the scale of the Great Depression, the Democrats are ever-more ferociously seeking
to make race the fundamental issue."
One of the most revolting things about contemporary liberalism is how incredibly fascistic
it is. It seems impossible for the Democrats to mention anything without turning to the
fetishistic zoological Idealism of Race with a capital R. While liberals might not (yet) be
fascists, they certainly think like fascists.
In November, the state-sanctioned choice - and by extension the only choice presented to
the American people by the state mouthpieces in the corporate media - will be between a
military junta under the "auspices" of the CIA Democrats/latter day Maoists or a
quasi-fascist regime under Trump. Democracy in America - specifically bourgeois "democracy" -
is on its last legs. Only the intervention of the working class, led by a genuine socialist
leadership, can avert a catastrophe that will threaten all of humanity.
"The designers of the Emancipation Statue in Lincoln Park in DC didn't take into account
the views of African Americans. It shows. Blacks too fought to end enslavement."
First, the statue was funded by donations from freedmen, gathered by members of the
Western Sanitary Society, an abolitionist-run organization. The impetus for the monument came
from a freedwoman named Charlotte Scott, who declared in the wake of Lincoln's
assassination:
"Colored people had lost their best friend on earth I will give five dollars of my wages
towards erecting a monument to his memory."
At least $16,000 was raised, including from African American Union soldiers who had fought
at some of the key fronts in the Civil War.
A description of the artist's design for the monument states: "In the original the
kneeling slave is represented as perfectly passive, receiving the boon of freedom from the
hand of the great liberator. But the artist has justly changed all this by making the
emancipated slave an agent in his own deliverance. He is represented as exerting his own
strength, with strained muscles, in breaking the chain which had bound him."
As the WSWS states, the reactionary interests of those bound up with the destruction of
these monuments today must, by definition "require a no less grotesque distortion of the
past."
This monument was created in 1876, at the height of the revolutionary-democratic upswell
known as Reconstruction. In attacking this monument, representatives of the ruling class
today, including its nominally "liberal" representatives, are seeking to topple the legacy of
a genuine multi-racial upsurge of the population against racial hatred and discrimination. In
today's case, it is to fundamentally hide the fact that the root cause of racial oppression
and racism lies in the depths of poverty and social inequality, and militarism on a massive
scale, that happens to characterize capitalism today.
In tearing down this statue, they will attempt to complete what the remnants of the slave
masters failed to do in the time of Reconstruction. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest would be
proud.
Trotsky: I believe that the first question is the attitude of the Socialist Workers Party
toward the Negroes. It is very disquieting to find that until now the party has done almost
nothing in this field. It has not published a book, a pamphlet, leaflets, nor even any
articles in the New International. Two comrades who compiled a book on the question, a
serious work, remained isolated. That book is not published, nor are even quotations from it
published. It is not a good sign. It is a bad sign. The characteristic thing about the
American workers' parties, trade-union organizations, and so on, was their aristocratic
character. It is the basis of opportunism. The skilled workers who feel set in the capitalist
society help the bourgeois class to hold the Negroes and the unskilled workers down to a very
low scale. Our party is not safe from degeneration if it remains a place for intellectuals,
semi-intellectuals, skilled workers and Jewish workers who build almost isolated from the
genuine mass. Under these condition our party cannot develop -- it will degenerate.
We must have this great danger before our eyes. Many times I have proposed that every member
of the party, especially the intellectuals and semi-intellectuals, who, during a period of
say six months, cannot each win a worker-member for the party, should be demoted to the
position of sympathizer. We can say the same in the Negro question. The old organizations,
beginning with the AFL, are the organizations of the workers' aristocracy. Our party is a
part of the same milieu, not of the basic exploited masses of whom the Negroes are the most
exploited. The fact that our party until now has not turned to the Negro question is a very
disquieting symptom. If the workers' aristocracy is the basis of opportunism, one of the
sources of adaptation to capitalist society, then the most oppressed and discriminated are
the most dynamic milieu of the working class.
Trotsky was writing as always to to align the subjective consciousness of the working
class with objective reality. The words you quote were written in April, 1939, when support
for mixed marriages was in the low single digits, when the experiences of integration in the
wars just about to begin had not yet occurred, when less than a quarter of the Great
Migration had concluded and thus few blacks and whites had yet had the opportunity to sort
out common cause in the great industrial struggles, as had already been illustrated in the
Flint sit-down strike where workers chose their only black fellow worker, Roscoe Van Zandt,
to lead them out of the occupied plants in a victory parade. Gallup would not even poll to
measure acceptability of a black presidential candidate for another 19 years, when the number
was a mere 38%.
That's the objective reality at the time with which Trotsky was seeking to align the
subjective consciousness of the working class to forge a political instrument.
Are you maintaining that the objective reality is unchanged today?
No that is not what I'm suggesting at all. Obviously much has changed since 1939.. we no
longer have sharecroppers and it's no longer the case where a major section of blacks work as
servants.. but it also easy to think that 1939 was "so long ago" and that these words no
longer hold any relevance. The black working class remains even today one of the most
oppressed sections of the working class and today large sections of this population are
entering into the class struggle. I think the party should consider the best way under TODAYS
CONDITIONS to recruit and educate those workers. Bring them under the banner of the 4th
international. Immigrant workers are a very similar case, and similar conditions exist for
unskilled workers compared to the various "professionals" and skilled labor. This era was
birthed from the yoke of the last. The working class is much more unified along race lines as
you have pointed out. That means we as revolutionaries we are in an even more favorable
situation to this work. It does not mean that the work is unneeded. This article states the
growing movements are under danger of being hijacked by reactionary petite bourgeois forces
and that is true but only as true as the revolutionary proletariats failure to bring these
working elements entering struggle under our banner. I do not suggest we adopt any program
from the 30s and 40s. I do however think the party could benefit from Trotsky's suggestion of
a 6 month worker recruitment rule.
Though not a party member I recommend George Breitman's writings on American Black
nationalism--as distinct from the narrow cultural nationalism of too many Black Panthers, the
New Black Panthers especially--expounding on and integrating pertinent thoughts of Malcom X
and Trotsky. Recently Vladimir Zhirinovsky suggested Blacks be assigned three states
bordering Canada as a homeland and/or go to Liberia. Needless to say such sweet revenge
dreams of Russian elites for the very real dismembering of their lands by Washington's ethnic
cleansing pot stirring a la Yugoslavia/Syria ad nauseam coming home to roost may approach
reality as the US rich find it hard to bottle their race genie.
"Before exhausting or drowning mankind in blood, capitalism befouls the world atmosphere
with the poisonous vapors of national and race hatred...
An uncompromising disclosure of the roots of race prejudice and all forms and shades of
national arrogance and chauvinism, particularly anti Semitism, should become part of the
daily work of all sections of the Fourth International, as the most important part of the
struggle against imperialism and war. Our basic slogan remains: Workers of the World
Unite!"
This article is critical in countering the dangerous communalist agenda of the social
layers seeking to prop up the Democratic Party and prevent the working class from achieving
its political independence. This is part of a trend that's taking place on every continent.
Our movement is leading the way in opposing this attempt to derail the emerging revolutionary
movement of the international working class.
The toppling of statues of progressive figures such as Lincoln is part of a broader attack
on rational thought. At stake is the entire progressive heritage of the Enlightenment and the
centuries-long struggle for social equality that, since the birth of scientific socialism in
the 19th century, has been embodied in the Marxist movement -- -today the Trotskyist
movement.
What do the forces who toppled the Lincoln statue have to say on pressing contemporary
issues such as imperialist war, climate destruction, extreme social inequality, etc. that
cannot be understood through racial theory.
Why is it that Abraham Lincoln was a symbol of the fight for equality and social justice
across the world? Why, during the American civil war, did workers' display such heroic
solidarity in enduring the cotton famine -- -which paralysed much of the cotton industry due
to the collapse in trade? Why did workers' in 19th century Manchester in northern England
collect the money to build a statue of Lincoln in their city? This article explains this:
How the British workers' movement helped end slavery in America .
In Britain, the IYSSE (UK) saw that identity politics and the historical falsification
associated with it was a direct attack on Marxism and workers' class consciousness that had
to be countered. We polemicise against the pseudo-left in their attempts to promote a
postmodernist re-writing of history motivated by the defence of their social privilege
against the long-term interests of the working class.
We attacked the "Decolonise Education" movement, which is raising its head again today in
the article
The racialist agenda of the "Decolonise Education" movement . We explained their slogan
"Why is My Curriculum White?" as follows: "The classification of philosophers based on their
skin colour, rather than their place in the historical development of human thought, is
combined with an attack on the entire progressive tradition of the Enlightenment."
I strongly encourage all class-conscious workers and young people to take up an active
study of history and the theory of Marxism which is essential to orient oneself in today's
complex and rapidly-changing world political situation
The campaign by the Stalinists against their opponents, Leon Trotsky constituting their
greatest enemy, involved the greatest wholesale destruction of history ever seen. The banning
of books, the murder of an entire generation of genuine Marxists and the greatest crime, the
assassination of Trotsky in 1940. Photos that included Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev--pretty
much anyone who fell afoul of Stalin and the bureaucratic interests he defended--were
airbrushed out history with the intent to obliterate their role in the October revolution.
Their books were destroyed, any positive mention of them were eliminated and they were
slandered as "fascists", "Mensheviks", "counter-revolutionaries". No lie was too outrageous
in defaming Stalin's victims.
Vadim Ragovin, the great Russian historian once said that the "Russian people did not only
not know their future, they did not know their past." This falsification of history went far
in eliminating the Trotskyist alternative to Stalinism and enshrining Stalin--the gravedigger
of the revolution, the antithesis of Lenin--as the supposed incarnation of Bolshevik/Leninist
resoluteness.
The present campaign against Lincoln, Grant and others, is remarkable for the fact that
they are targeting revolutionaries. Bourgeois revolutionaries, but none-the-less,
revolutionaries. Those revolutionists carried out the greatest destruction of wealth,
slavery, to that point in history. No monuments to capital, such as the infamous Charging
Bull in front of Wall Street, (my city has a stack of oversized coins as a monument to
capital) have been the target of such vilification, vandalism or destruction by the
instigators of racialist politics. They indeed know what class they are oriented to.
My favorite Lincoln story took place shortly before his assassiation when the great
liberation army had captured the confederate capital of Richmond. Lincoln visited the city
shortly thereafter and walked around to have a look. An older Black man recognized him on the
street and ran up to him declaiming "The Messiah has come" and bowed down. Lincoln asked the
man to stand up saying: "Get up man. As long as I am president you don't need to bow to
anyone but God."
Yup. That one and and another one on the same trip.
In reference to you, colored people, let me say God has made you free. Although you have
been deprived of your God-given rights by your so-called masters, you are now as free as I
am, and if those that claim to be your superiors do not know that you are free, take the
sword and bayonet and teach them that you are ...
This is the man that malicious deluders contrive into an enemy of freedom and black people
and capitalist pawn. And there are dupes aplenty pulling down statues and presenting the same
old predigested delusional arguments, prepared for them by capitalist slavocrats, even
here.
Division does not have to be sewn into the working class. It is there as it has been for
centuries. "The color line" remains the border of divide between white workers and those of
color. What is most important is that millions of white workers have joined the struggle.
I too condemn the desecration of the statues and yes the identitarians and the Democrats
are riding the tide, attempting to bring the ships into the the harbor of electoral politics,
however equating this movement as "racial- communalist" is just as dangerous. The cops are
doubling down and people of color will remain the usual suspects. I have to think that the
32% of Trump supporters who supported the burning down of the police precinct in Minneapolis
were from it's working class wing. That is way significant.
Participation in the movement should always be critical but using the "racial-
communalist" term not good
The Democrats and the pseudo-left seek to undermine the legacy of the Civil War and the
related abolitionist and Underground railroad conductors precisely because it shows
workers (and middle class) collaborating across racial and ethnic "lines" towards positive
change, which helps solidify, rather than break up, an increasingly militant and working
class, which is increasingly coming into conflict with the whole capitalist system, which the
Democrats and pseudo-left rabidly defend. Workers of all races are shown daily working
together in protests against the police violence of the capitalist state, exploding daily the
myth of the "racist white working class". It is the duty of the socialist to oppose these
racial-communalist attempts to divide the working class by the bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois.
What's gonna happen as the economy continues to go down? It seems the ruling class did all
it could to send the working class down various blind alleys....now it's gonna come back,
through reactionary methods, to haunt everyone.
This is what I have to say about it all.....we asked the capitalist ruling class nicely to
make meaningful changes, the ruling class said they would. Nothing changed because they
lied.
So now, the working class is taking the matter into its own hands.....and it ain't gonna
look pretty. Heads are gonna roll.
Vast amounts of the working class have, over their lifetime, been manipulated by the
capitalist class.....so the working class is mostly confused and is in the process of lashing
out in all directions.
As hard as the wsws tried to fight against the liberal classes 1619 disinformation
project, many in the working class were not reached. That is the strength of anti working
class propaganda. And what Socialists are constantly fighting against.
As with the ethos of Capitalist Realism , it's easier to see the end of the world than to
see the end of capitalism.
This is an enormously important statement that deserves the widest possible international
readership. Particularly important is the section explaining the division of labor between
the capitalist parties. The fascistic filth emanating from the White House, scripted by
Stephen Miller and similar elements, is being "answered" by equally reactionary communalist
backwardness. The New York Times is the most consistent and determined purveyor of this, and
there seems to be no limit to how low they are prepared to go.
Another passage in this article that should get special attention is the timing of the
current campaign against Lincoln and others, "It is no coincidence that when American society
is straining under the weight of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 120,000
people and sparked an economic crisis on the scale of the Great Depression, the Democrats are
ever-more ferociously seeking to make race the fundamental issue."
They are desperately working to divert the progressive but limited response to police
murders into the Democratic Party. They need to whip up as much tension and confusion within
the working class as they possibly can, precisely because they know what is coming over the
next few months, as millions confront additional mass layoffs, evictions and other attacks.
The more that workers and youth are fixated on "race" the less they are able to unite against
these threats of the pandemic, economic devastation and the threat of dictatorship.
Targeting "anti-Confederate" forces is just what you'd expect from the party of slavery,
Jim Crow, and now the no less despicable identity politics, not to mention it being the
oldest capitalist party in the world.
I can understand (but certainly not sympathize with) the twisted logic used against
statues of Grant and Lincoln but why Heg? Was it because he was white? I recall one of the
funeral rants of the Reverend Al Charleton about racism as "the DNA" in the American
character revealing the dangerous influence of the 1619 Project that may soon become
mandatory in colleges and schools.
Regrettably, there are otherwise sane people who genuinely argue that any statue depicting
any person who had white skin and a penis has to be taken down.
What a fantastic writing! The fight against communalism takes center stage for socialists.
The SEP is the the only genuine socialist tendency, defending historic gains as an
indispensable part of building a new working class counteroffensive. Please share this
document widely! Perspective is critical! Not one inch to the "lame liberals" and no
adaptation to racialist politics!
On the subject of "building a new working class counteroffensive", if I may:
The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained
violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent
protests -- Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters
dressed uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police
cars, burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of
Twitter and other social media to coordinate "hit-and-run" swarming strikes of protest mobs
is evident.
What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of
primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what
is unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution
that toppled Milosevic in 2000.
America's Own Color Revolution
By F. William Engdahl
Region: Europe, USA
Theme: History, Intelligence, Police State & Civil Rights
Niles and David, as you note, "Whatever the particular issue may be -- poverty, police
brutality, unemployment, low wages, deaths caused by the pandemics -- it is almost
exclusively defined in racial terms."
And as you note of Trotsky, " The purpose of lies about history, as Trotsky explained, is
to conceal real social contradictions."
Which is exactly why this meta-causal cancer of the under-diagnosed Disguised Global Crony
Capitalist Empire must be fully exposed, expunged, and/or surgically and peacefully 'excised'
in a Third American "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin du Rivage] by 'we the American
people' firing a; loud, public, sustained, 'in-the-streets', but totally non-violent "SHOUT
(not shot) heard round the world" to ignite a Third American people's peaceful and complete
"Political/economic & socialist Revolution Against Empire" to lead the world toward
socialist democracy as our first one did in 1776 and our second one did in 1861 -- but
without the muskets.
One can only react with disgust and hatred for those in and around the Democratic Party,
who hiding behind the phrase "fight racism" are doing the exact opposite. The article is spot
on in exposing the sinister motives behind the attempt to erase from historical memory any
vestiges of this country's revolutionary past. As workers are risking their lives in the
assembly plants and warehouses, it is obvious whose interests are served by these outrageous
acts and proposals. Young people must reject those who spurn history. You must draw a line in
the streets against those who would do these things, and instead break out of the straight
jacket imposed by both capitalist parties and the media to keep these protests fixated on the
questions of "race".
Fellow Comrades the liberal bourgeois establishment in America are intentionally using
racial Communalist politics in order to divert the public from the growing class antagonisms.
Now one group is using ultra nationalism and authoritarianism as the only way forward while
the other one is using race and gender ideas as part of their orientation in this upcoming
elections. Basically they are both seeking to divide the working class along reactionary
slogans and agendas.
They are both working together to perpetuate the system and divide the people. They know
what they are doing. They are diverting any thought about changing the laws that allow the
oppression to begin with, here and abroad. We are doomed because the majority of people are
under their spell and have no desire to think critically.
This is a moving and brilliant defense of the revolutionary democratic foundations of the
United States, which provide an impulse today for the working class to carry out the third
American Revolution--the socialist revolution to put an end to capitalism as part of the
world socialist revolution. The American bourgeoisie very long ago repudiated the
revolutionary democratic ideals that inspired the American Revolution and the struggle of
Lincoln and the North in the Civil War. That repudiation finds expression today in the
denigration and attack on those revolutions and the figures who led them. As the Perspective
explains, there is a division of labor in this assault between Trump/Republicans and the
Democrats, but both have in common the fact that they utilize racialism to do its traditional
dirty work of seeking to divide the working class and undermine the class struggle against
capitalism.
Of particular importance, as noted by other commentors, is the following observation:
"This grotesque distortion of present-day reality required a no less grotesque distortion
of the past. For contemporary American to be protrayed as a land of relentless racial
warfare, it is necessary to create a historical narrative in the same terms. In place of the
class struggle, the entire history of the United States is presented as the story of
perpetual racial conflict."
Further down, the statement asserts: "Efforts to divert and sabotage that struggle by
dissolving class identity into the miasma of racial identity lead inexorably in the direction
of fascism."
In that connection, there is a parallel between the struggle being led by the SEP, WSWS
and ICFI against the promotion of racial-communalist politics and accompanying falsification
of history in the US and the struggle our movement has been and continues to wage in Germany
against the rehabilitation of Hitler and the Nazis by the ruling class and the falsification
of German and world history to declare the source of all the evils and catastrophes of the
20th century to be the October Revolution and establishment of the Soviet Union.
BG, the form in which these mass eruptions take in the states is, and has to be, different
than that of European and other countries.
Statutes have been desecrated and toppled elsewhere. Some deservedly without doubt.
For the mass of youth whose knowledge of historical events is one of great distortion and one
sidedness.
In their eyes, statues in major squares and other prominent places represent powerful and
powering pillars of the establishment. Hence the "senseless" vandalism.
Only those divorced from and hostile to the revolutionary aspirations of today's youth
fail to perceive and grasp that.
Thank you Niles and David for this excellent perspective. As you explain, a section of the
ruling class is attempting to hijack what is a progressive multi-racial movement opposing
police brutality and other forms of social injustice to promote reactionary racial and
communal politics in a desperate attempt to maintain the capitalist order. I strongly
encourage all of our readers to carefully study the material produced by the WSWS on the 1619
project. Understanding this history is critical in orienting ourselves to answer these new
racial attacks. Permit me to quote from the end of our analysis of the NY Times reply
defending the project to five historians, "As Marxists, we understand and have settled
accounts with the limitations of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th
centuries. We know very well the difference between ideological rationalizations and
historically determined realities. But those who are not inspired by the world-historical and
universal ideals proclaimed by Jefferson's immortal Declaration and Lincoln's Gettysburg
Address are neither socialists nor revolutionaries. Those who glibly surrender positions won
through the shedding of blood in the past will never conquer new ones."
"The uncompromising defense of the progressive heritage of the first two American
revolutions is necessary for resisting intellectual retrogression and political reaction,
educating the working class, and, on that basis, building a powerful American and
international socialist movement."
What a wonderful article about our surreal times. I keep dreaming that I'm in a movie
theatre again and again which is strange because we can't go there anymore, at least not at
the time being. These times are so strange. For a memorial of Abraham Lincoln to be under
attack... this is something I could have never imagined a few years ago. Thank you Niles
Niemuth and David North for providing historical background about the statue, even a little
bit of history is such a profound thing and of course history is repurposed time and time
again to serve anyone's political agenda. Rage is not a particularly rational thing and takes
on incomprehensible forms.
"The Democratic Party employs another variant of communalist politics, evaluating and
explaining all social problems and conflicts in racial terms. Whatever the particular issue
may be -- poverty, police brutality, unemployment, low wages, deaths caused by the pandemics
-- it is almost exclusively defined in racial terms. In this racialized fantasy world,
"whites" are endowed with an innate "privilege" that exempts them from all hardship."
I think this is wrong. The Trump movement is defined by prejudice (banning muslims,
scapegoating immigrants, anti-black racism etc.) so for us to have a president right now, a
con artist (I'll emphasize the black community) who began his entire campaign by saying the
first Black president was not born in America, talking about how a black lives matter
protester attacked at his rally "should have been roughed up" in 2015, playing footsies with
the KKK, called Africa a "shit hole", Mike Pence comparing Donald Trump to Martin Luther King
Jr. etc. all of this snowballing into today of course people of color and anyone who
empathizes is outraged. Every day of this has been a dangerous embarrassment for the black
community.
Yesterday:
Fired Wilmington cop: "We are just going to go out and start slaughtering them f -- -- ni
-- –. I can't wait. God, I can't wait."
This kind of thing is going on all over the country. The most tangible issue is certainly
class in the sense I think it's the most practical thing for us to focus on, at least it's
all we can focus on because there's no rational way to end the racism that exists between
people, but at the same time, to think that any amount of money, healthcare, or well-being
for this person and his family would stop him from being prejudiced doesn't make sense. There
is a long history of racism and we are at a moment where America is undergoing a radical
shift in its diversity.
"In this racialized fantasy world, "whites" are endowed with an innate "privilege" that
exempts them from all hardship."
There have been 44 white male presidents.
Again, of course amongst white men class supersedes the identity group, but that being
said certainly there is such a thing as white privilege, in so many different ways, this
country was built to revolve around property owning white men. Donald Trump's presidency is
defined by this. If President Obama had done even one of the things Trump does on a daily
basis he would have never been president. That is white male supremacy. We went from
Republicans being critical of Michelle Obama for showing her shoulders as first lady to
having an ex-centerfold as first lady. The double standard couldn't be more apparent.
We have a republican party who yes have constituents who have suffered under the aegis of
neoliberalism but not disproportionately in comparison to the people who vote blue. Their
political movement is defined by prejudice. This is not a "racialized fantasy world" people
are under attack.
I agree that class is the salient issue but also at the same time as we're seeing with the
trump movement prejudice can be used to get people to vote blatantly against their own
interests in supporting a con artist. So how can class be addressed without first
acknowledging racism? I don't have the answers for this question, no one does. Hatred is a
bulwark which swaddles capitalism.
If you think class warfare is wrong, you are in the wrong website and have missed the
point of the article. When class war is initiated by the working class, liberation is on the
agenda.
Every time I think I cannot be more disgusted with the Democrats, I am wrong. There is a
certain slime that is all over the Democratic Party that eeven the Republicans cannot match.
I guess it never occurs to any of the protesters that destroying your history is creating a
form of collective amnesia. No notice is taken that what is happening witht this wonton
destruction of history sure looks a lot like what happened in Iraq during the U.S. Invasion
when many historical treasures of what was the cradle of civilization were either destroyed
or looted. Just a complete erasure of history and, of course, if you do not know who you are
because your memories, your history, have been erased, then how will you move forward? You
are a tabula rasa at that point so the future can only be met unprepared and with
trepidation.
That, as today's perspective explains, is exactly the point. Figures like Jefferson, Grant
and Lincoln (Lincoln!!!!) are shat upon and denigrated. No effort is made to understand them
as historical figures in the context of their epoch and the giants they are in world history.
What can we learn from them and other historical figures and do right where they went wrong?
I guess if history's destroyers have their way we'll not be able to learn anything at all.
Just as intended. I say let the statues be and down with the CCOOTs (Criminal Capitalists Of
Our Times)!
''This grotesque distortion of present-day reality requires a no less grotesque distortion
of the past. For contemporary America to be portrayed as a land of relentless racial warfare,
it is necessary to create a historical narrative in the same terms. In place of the class
struggle, the entire history of the United States is presented as the story of perpetual
racial conflict.''
A very profound encapsulation of what we are seeing going on now. As others have commented
, history does not travel on some moral straight line. Lincoln could not escape the powerful
contradictions of his time, he could only guide the progressive forces where he could.
It is not for us to idealise Lincoln, nor for those who do so in the negative. When push
comes to shove the reactionary essence of the racialists is that they offer no way out for
black or white . The ''purity of their outrage'' is nothing but a case of bad wind, and it is
not an accident that it comes from those orbiting the Democrats.
Good point about racialists offering no way forward for the whole working class,
nationally and internationally. How could the constricted racialist narrative, by dividing as
opposed to uniting, have anything to lend to progressive change, which can only be
accomplished through the unity of the working class and socialist revolution? How can the
legacy of racial oppression and discrimination, effecting most acutely the black masses as
opposed to the affluent African American layer, be overcome with this regressive co-option of
a progressive mass struggle that erupted in the past month?
Unmentioned in this critical call to arms by David and Niles is the role of the pseudoleft
in actively promoting this racialist campaign of vile and reactionary iconoclasm.
The pseudo-Trotskyist "Left Voice", co-thinkers of the Argentinian Morenoites, is
spearheading an attack from within the New York DSA against "class reductionism" purportedly
represented by Jacobin Magazine. This attack recently led to the cancellation of a live
streaming event featuring African American scholar, Adolph Reed. Reed, one of the scholars
interviewed by the WSWS in the campaign against the 1619 Project, was charged with "class
reductionism". The identity politics sensitive DSA, a club within the Democratic Party,
capitulated to the internal attacks and cancelled the event just as it was to begin.
Another pseudo-Trotskyist Facebook page yesterday attacked the WSWS and the SEP for its
"Hands off the Monuments" call. The Trotsky's Armored Train and rolling Pizzeria (?) Facebook
page, featured a screen shot of the WSWS with a warning to "Please stay away from the WSWS
and the SEP!" Site members followed with a lengthy thread of scurrilous attacks on both the
WSWS and the statues, especially the Jefferson Memorials. Jefferson is dismissed as a rapist
for his inter-racial relationship with the slave, Sally Hemings. This writer fought a rear
guard action on this site to combat the slander of the WSWS and to set the historical record
straight. Obviously these poseurs are very much afraid of the class perspective of the
WSWS.
Very interesting, especially concerning the "Left Voice" intervention in the New York DSA
and the DSA response. Well, Dr. Reed likely wouldn't have been much appreciated by that bunch
anyway, though he was
(along with all the learned, honest historians who came forward to conflict with the 1619
Project) greatly appreciated by WSWS readers. However, it would have been good if any
leftward moving workers and youth in attendance had some exposure to real history, including
a class based perspective. But, of course, the pseudo-socialst Dem club wouldn't want that!
By the way, my wife and I really found your contribution to the discussion of the previous
related Perspective by Tom and Niles of a few days ago quite enlightening on the plight and
response of the European indentured servants (slaves in all but name) on the Tidewater
tobacco plantations.
Yes, the "Jefferson was a rapist" trope is the common thread of the pseudo-left, fitting
right in with their support for MeToo and hostility to Julian Assange.
My goodness, not Moreno. So they are still about wouldn't have thought. He was, of all
things for Che Guevera, but not Castro, and led many youths to the early grave. Actually, the
Pabloists were big on Castro but not old Moreno who thought that Castro had Che killed and
the famous picture of Che's corpse on his ill-fated adventure doctored. Castro was not amused
and the Pabloists stopped dropping by/ He was allied with a dude called Posadas who
eventually got obsessed with inter-galacting communication from Bolsheviks in Outer Space. I
actually read article defending that nonsense in the Jacobin. The obscurantist have again
pushed themselves to the front.
I find at least Posadas was amusing in his somewhat more innovative ideas about
intergalactic travel and talking with dolphins. At least it follows a historical materialist
line which would say that productive forces can not be unleashed to their full potential
until the constraints of private mode of production, classes are abolished. Aliens,
theoretically and scientifically would and could exist given our own existence. Intergalactic
travel would be surely one of the most pressing issues of a worldwide socialist republic
after addressing earthly needs.
During the Russian Revolution peasants took to burning down the huge houses of the local
rich landowners.
The Bolsheviks had to intervene and patiently explain that these were now the property of the
working masses.
The peasants were of course almost universally illiterate.
It is probably more true to state that those that are desecrating and destroying statues
of Lincoln and others are miseducated.
This article is one of a series published by WSWS attempting to rectify these backward
destructive measures.
I don`t want to be annoying. It was bitter opponents of Lenin and the Bolsheviks , the
Social Revolutionaries, SR who led the peasants. The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with the
burning of mansions, and had no intention to stop the burning of mansions and seizure of
land. They formed strategically the worker-peasant alliance, but had insignificant influence
and numbers at this first stage of the revolution.. There were lot of troubles with the
SR`s-- and the peasants after.
I was not aware of suggesting the Bolsheviks had anything to do with the burnings. My
comment, bad grammar included, stated the Bolsheviks intervened to stop the arsonists.
The vast majority of peasants knew nothing of Bolshevism at the time.
It was the Bolsheviks agrarian program, which none of the bourgeois parties -- Cadets, SR --
could match in any shape or form, won the multimillioned peasantry to Socialist Revolution
under Lenin and Trotsky.
The vast majority of demonstrators across the global have not heard of WSWS or even the ICF,
yet alone be aware of its program. Dissemination of our program is a precursor to proletarian
revolution.
You miss the point. They are not so much miseducated as representing a definite social
layer. They reject the class basis of this racialist campaign, which is led by the New York
Times and Democratic Party to divide the working class. These forces seek to turn the
democratic sentiments and anger of young people in a reactionary form.
Note that they don't put forward any social demands, against the ravages of the lives of all
working class people created by the Pandemic and the economic crisis of the past decades.
Let us all get this article around as widely as possible, to wage a struggle against this
communalist attempt.
BLM demonstrators are heterogeneous in terms of race ethnicity, religion, age, but
undoubtedly predominantly youth. Every photograph has elucidated that.
I do not think I miss the point.
The pent up frustrations and anger following years of police violence, austerity, insecure
jobs, poor education and opportunities for youth is expressed in every street disturbance --
what the bourgeoise press calls senseless violence.
Undoubtedly elements amongst them are conscious of their actions, but for many the
opportunity to fight all that is perceived to be "part of the repressive state" cannot be
missed.
Being part of millions strong demonstrations has its own momentum. That scares the ruling
elite.
Destruction of statues is not just a US phenomenon, it is global.
It's not pretty, but it could be the opening shots of World Socialist Revolution.
We cannot impose our own values upon the masses.
What this and previous articles have set out to achieve, I believe, is to educate these
millions not to be mislead. Learn the lessons of history, lessons that capitalist education
has denied them.
WSWS has to intervene and direct these revolutionary stirrings away from identity politics
and to advance under the banner of the ICFI.
decades of undermining of class politics by Social democracy, trade unionism, Stalinism make
this a difficult task; difficult but not impossible.
That social layer is also well-organized and well-funded in varied salaried political
formations , including Black Lives Matter and those who would "occupy" space. They come out
of nowhere, disorient and as quickly disappear into profitable progressive Democratic Party
beds. Mayakovsky called them in a failing Russian Revolution under Stalin--" Bedbugs". Great
play..And so they are.
Please read this article and share widely. There is developing a tendency by the
Democratic party and Republican Party, for a fascist movement, in the US, and elsewhere
around the world. Only the working class can stop this rot, lead by the ICFI, SEP and
wsws.org .
This is one of the most direct and important WSWS perspectives I have ever read. It is
both a historical corrective and an impassioned warning to the working class in defense of
history, equality and any kind of democratic rule.
The freed slave depicted by Thomas Ball's statue "Lincoln the Emancipator" has the
likeness of Archer Alexander, a real slave who never actually met Lincoln, but freed himself
and was separated from his family in order to warn Union troops of Confederate sabotage. His
act of courage, and the hundreds of thousands of slaves who risked their lives during the
war, are also memorialized by this statue. It was commissioned based upon donations by
liberated slaves. Some of Alexander's descendants today oppose tearing down this statue,
whose complex history also reflects the struggles of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the
Civil War.
Within privileged layers of academia, the distortion of history and misrepresentation of
contemporary suffering by the global working class has become a major industry. Some
students, including those with genuine democratic intentions, are being seriously miseducated
and encouraged to participate in racially divisive politics. Students and workers need to
study history now more than ever, and it is no accident that America's leading historians of
the American Revolution and Civil War have sided with the WSWS in its defense of historical
truth (see the WSWS's writings on the 1619 project). The political perspective needed to end
police brutality and economic injustice requires an accurate appraisal of past struggles for
democratic rights, and today a unified struggle by not just the American but also the global
working class. Students and workers should take note.
"... Paul Craig Roberts is aware of false flags/staged events as he has written a number of articles about the 9/11 false flag. For some reason he has bought in to this George Floyd hoax ..."
"... "Peoples with a history of mutual distrust – i.e. mutual fear – have to take a real risk in order to even begin the process of growing mutual trust. Great discipline is required by all people on both sides for mutual trust to become possible. Mutual trust would need great discipline in perpetuity in order to be sustained. The harmful effect of instances of unworthiness of trust would need to be deeply understood." ..."
Floyd was collapsing before he even got out of his car, and I have seen video of Floyd
being uncooperative/complaining as the cops try to put him in the back of a squad car.
He overdosed on drugs–either out of panic or stupidity. When it comes down to it,
I've always said, ol' George his heart was just too darned big. That's what did him
in–his gigantic heart.
Excellent article, Dr. Roberts. Unless a mind has been trained to fully understand a
science, it likely lacks the cognitive thought to see clearly. Almost all people see the
world with a jumble of emotions and pseudo logic. They've never experienced the rigor of
theorem-based proofs, deductions, and the struggle to comprehend high-level thought. Almost
all adults live in a shallow world of mind drift, reacting to their emotions.
Paul Craig Roberts is aware of false flags/staged events as he has written a number of
articles about the 9/11 false flag. For some reason he has bought in to this George Floyd
hoax. The evidence is overwhelming that Floyd didn't die. They used a dummy with no legs, as
well as at least two different actors to play George Floyd. There is other evidence but that
should be enough. I'm disappointed in PCR.
"Peoples with a history of mutual distrust – i.e. mutual fear – have to take a
real risk in order to even begin the process of growing mutual trust. Great discipline is
required by all people on both sides for mutual trust to become possible. Mutual trust would
need great discipline in perpetuity in order to be sustained. The harmful effect of instances
of unworthiness of trust would need to be deeply understood."
Apparently, this comment was fished out of a time capsule from 1860.
@FB y
respiratory COVID-19 virus
– Autopsy results stating he died of cardio pulminary issues, not from being restrained
What do we have when putting all these points together?
The conclusion that the issues causing Floyd's death were present before excessive
restraint (he was firstly handcuffed) and that something prexisting was likely to blame.
Signs of a heart attack, that even a bystander remarked on, seem to highlight it was likely
that George Floyd was already in the process of dying as the police arrested him, not because
the police were arresting him.
If you are going to trust the word or investigations of anyone in the law enforcement
world, and that includes the coroners – just watch how the Ms Maxwell's case -- is
handled. The cop is guilty of manslaughter – just like you or I would be – had
you done this to Floyd.
@FB In
the previous 'article' we had the FALSE INFORMATION that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner
supposedly did not rule the death a homicide, when in fact he did only this is, as per
standard procedure, included in the death certificate, not the autopsy report
The autopsy was carried out on 26 May 2020 and signed 1 June 2020 by Dr Baker. He certifies
that there are no life-threatening injuries. So it cannot be used as the basis for an
allegation for homicide. This was released with the approval of Floyd's family. There has been
no second autopsy to contradict this, as shown by Dr Roberts.
If you look at the autopsy report ( link in previous article ), you will find in the
comments section that the ME Dr Baker found evidence of Sickle Cell Anaemia. The article in
Wikipedia is highly informative ( not always the case ).
In the Developed World, life expectancy is between 40 and 60. Floyd was 46
.
One complication is Acute Chest Syndrome
Acute chest syndrome is defined by at least two of these signs or symptoms: chest pain,
fever, pulmonary infiltrate or focal abnormality, respiratory symptoms, or hypoxemia.[25] It is
the second-most common complication and it accounts for about 25% of deaths in patients with
SCD. Most cases present with vaso-occlusive crises, and then develop acute chest
syndrome.[26][27] Nevertheless, about 80% of people have vaso-occlusive crises during acute
chest syndrome.
So on top of the serious heart diseases, the potentially fatal ( on its own ) fentanyl
level, it looks like you can add Sickle Cell anaenia as well.
I asked him why the fentanyl body count was so high, he just shrugged and said the street
fentanyl is poison. The DEA was then blaming it on "China" but there are reasons to doubt
anything coming from them. since they were also talking about "cheap Mexican heroin" which is a
CIA myth. What's next, Russian Quaalude?
When they reported speed, specifically meth, in Floyd's system that was enough to clinch it.
The man was mixing his stash.
All that's going to happen now is cops seeing anybody black having an OD will just go the
other way. Can't say as I'd blame them.
Will the country and the legacy of hard work, intense sacrifice, honesty and creativity of
the millions of people who built this country be ultimately destroyed by either
A. A large middle aged negro, who while he didn't do anything, did die with a belly full of
fentanyl while resting in the street with cops either restraining him or intent on killing
him
Or
B. A lovely 60-ish year old Jewess billionaire who ran an international blackmail ring for
everyone's greatest ally Israel, that exploited the bizarre and lurid sexual proclivities of
our ruling class
Same thing happened to Germany Germans were so propagandized and brainwashed after WW2 about
the War & the Holy Hoax, that they will kiss JooAss with both lips to avoid being punished
further for what they never did.
@lysias t
talking about possible fentanyl superman adds to the mix.
People who died from fentanyl overdose had readings from 0.75 ng/mL to an astounding 113
ng/mL. The average death dose was 9.96 ng/mL. According to George Floyd's toxicology report,
his blood contained 11.0 ng/mL Fentanyl, plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl, 19 ng/mL of
methamphetamine, and three other drugs.
If he had survived that shit, he would above average on everything. It is quite likely that
he was way below average. Let's say 6 ng/mL would have been sufficient to send him ad
patres
What we are dealing with is not only the brainwashing of white students as to the evil
origin of their country and their inherited guilt, but also their inability to think
rationally and to make an objective conclusion from evidence.
I see that this article is not about the death of George Floyd, a tragedy, even if the usual
suspects are out and commenting their usual immovable opinions on that death.
Roberts is pointing out that no discussion is possible about this event. If George Floyd
came back from the dead and volunteered to give an interview alongside the police officers who
arrested him to explain what had happened, no one would listen. They SAW the video and formed
an emotional response. Facts are entirely irrelevant. One of the commenters above has already
taken that position. He said, following a more detailed article, "All you need to know is
what's on that video!"
Roberts blames the educational system and I've noticed that the more prestigious the degree
a young person has, the less able they are to engage in a rational discussion on any subject.
They look at you with this superior attitude, ready to spout some meaningless rejoinder like,
"OK Boomer," or "Do you still believe that?" As if truth were dependent on one's age or facts
are a matter of religious faith.
Are they being given mentally fatal doses of propaganda as they qualify for the better
schools or do the better universities have a selection system that singles out only those
already emotionally disassociated? That's where we are.
Why dont you write such titles in a medical magazine. Just like "Dr." Bill Gate of MS who
has been writing on vaccination in medical journals for past several years.
And we blame Americans are misinformed.
People who believe that suspected felons have the right to violently resist arrest or
otherwise obstruct the legitimate arrest process are anarchists who should own up to their
philosophy.
"None of the people watching the video had any awareness of any of the facts."
Ah, the "medical expert" pcr "proves" once again all the other medical experts are wrong and
Floyd did die of a drug overdose despite the heroic attempts of the sainted men in blue to
prevent his self initiated demise.
"The transcripts reveal that as the officers forced Floyd into the vehicle, the 46-year-old
black man said: "I can't breathe" and "I want to lay on the ground."
They reveal a lot more which roberts judiciously decided wouldn't help his spin about the
murder and didn't mention. Let's take a look at what else they reveal, shall we:
George Floyd warned police he thought he would die because he couldn't breathe, according to
body camera transcripts
@FB s.
You're arguing from literal survivorship bias, an obvious fallacy.
Also PCR is NOT a doctor, yet he makes doctor-like assertions about what is a 'fatal' dose
of fentanyl [actually all the medical literature says there is no MINIMUM fatal blood level
of fentanyl, because it depends on the tolerance of the user] and that Floyd was in the
'process of dying'
Either what PCR said is true, or it isn't, regardless of credentials. And the fact that
there is no minimum fatal blood level undermines rather than supports the case that St.
Fentanyl couldn't have died of a fentanyl overdose.
The little exculpatory evidence that has seen the light of day suggests the cops were trying
to figure out how to keep the guy alive. It seems that Black Felon Lives do indeed matter.
Anyone opening up a mouth about cops using their actions in this incident should consider
what they would do upon encountering someone with Fentanyl poisoning. In my experience, those
who get on a big talker high-horse wouldn't come to the aid of a drowning child.
This was a Perfect Storm. Someone took a heart-rending video of George Floyd's death, and
the Democrats and Allied Media ran with it because they're desperate to reverse POTUS Trump's
20% plus support with black voters. Add in the mass psychosis their lockdowns induced and we
were off to the races.
Here's my question. Should the clerk in the convenience store be brought up on charges of
accessory to murder for reporting the fake $20 and pointing out to the police the vehicle
George Floyd was sitting in?
You're just like black lives matter 'piling on' pitting one against the other. I wouldn't be
surprised if you were on their payroll.
The shills for destruction have no shame in their quest to divide and conquer. Thanks to your
help the Deep State is winning. Trump and his white patrons have a finite future in
America.
@FB gher
than the final lab results show. Fentanyl as an analgesic and especially as an additive to
general anaesthetics is applied in a controlled setting by highly trained anaesthesiologists.
It has a byphasic mode of action with a pronounced depression of the respiratory centre in the
first phase.
Its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic activity is greatly altered by age, race ( e.g. Asians
metabolize at a higher rate, Blacks at unpredictable rate etc), comorbidities (e.g. impaired
liver function, slow circulation syndrome), presence of other drugs (benzodiazepines,
metamphetamine etc).
Opiates including Fentanyl do not cause respiratory distress. There is no shortness of
breath or breathlessness. Opiates depress the area of the brain controlling respiration. They
will NOT complain of any breathing problems. The impetus to breathe is gone. They pass out and
die unless treated with an antagonist like Naloxone or ventilation is assisted or if the opioid
is miraculously metabolized prior to death. Direct injury to the lung from trauma, broken ribs,
infection, heart failure, being held in a stress position so the chest cannot expand, will
cause distress and the person will complain bitterly.
I know what I speak of: I have practiced emergency medicine for more than 40 years.
I agree. Thanks – your comment astounded me, because now – after the hundreds of
comment-pages I've read about this case, you are able to bring more new information here to the
public's eye.
Now I wait for someone to add these facts up – unz.com would almost do by itself, and write the book Sebastian Junger
did write about – – – – The Perfect Storm!
PS
(Would you know about the way in which the second autopsy was conducted? I remember having
read, it had been conducted by video – but I can't trace back just where I've read
this).
You are a complete ass. I hope one day someone as big and as black and as violent as Floyd,
all doped up on some dangerous drug, thumps you in the street. Buy it or dont buy it you will
lick the Cops balls to restrain him using any means. You are a moron !
However, for pretty much the same reasons, I am not inclined to believe he/they deliberately
intended to cause death, if that were the case they would have been more aware of
appearances.
I note that the police version of the incident has been suppressed to avoid "tainting a
potential jury pool" and "impair[ing] all parties' right to a fair trial," Given the massive
amount of one sided publicity given to the prosecution account, that decision is ridiculous.
Derek Chauvin has already been tried and convicted of murder in the media, a fair trial is
surely impossible anyway.
You have written a load of steamy horseshit. As Nick Stix alluded you must have pulled this
from a time bubble of 1860. In case you have not noticed we are now in 2020 with the Chimps
running out of control. Get real and dump all that brotherly love and cum bye ah.
I tell you what, the next time you are near to a ghetto, enter it and walk through it
shouting all the crap you have written above.
The one good thing that will come of your canter through the hood is that Unz will be one
idiot commenter less !
Well I also have another question for this Kouros dunderhead. He should try to subdue a
felonious monster as big as Floyd and with a history of violence and prison time. A pitiful
specimen like Kouros would be writing with a pen in his mouth, in his wheel chair while his
24/7 nurse changes his diapers.
This Kouros's comment was the most foolish I have ever read. He must be some kind of
simpleton or Chimp lover.
@Kouros
eos (none of us have) and believe "too (little) in the professionalism or well intentions of
the police." As others have noted, the missing bodycam videos should shed light on Floyd's
physical and mental state at the time he was being put in the police car.
PCR is examining evidence and noticing facts. You seem to be subject to the emotional
clouding of reason he is describing. To wit, making generalized statements without any factual
foundation to support what you "want to believe" is true.
PCR can now add you to the list of readers whose "opinions" rest upon emotion instead of
logic.
Agree. Here in NYC, there has been a big spike in men OD'ing on the street. I've noticed it
myself for some time (Frequently on subways) and have often wondered what cops would do in that
situation. The situation is fraught with risk.
The ruin of the productive American economy is the root cause of almost all social ills find
those who dismantled industries and exported jobs overseas, mainly to China, to punish them
severely, physically and financially to start remedy the nation or it's all lost.
The reason a patient wakes up after fentanyl anesthesia is that the anesthesiologist
supports the patient's breathing ( and other vital signs ) while under. If the doctor simply
walked away , the patient
would surely die. In fact, to treat a fentanyl overdose , one would mechanically support
breathing while reversing agent (narcan) takes effect.
Also, Floyd had potentially lethal dose of morphine (another narcotic)in his blood as well.
He also had methamphetamine and THC present which could have altered a classic narcotic
stuporous state with added agitation and delirium.
He had significant coronary artery disease which could have caused fatal arrhythmia under
stress of arrest or resisting arrest, hypoxia from respiratory depression from narcotics,
excitation from methamphetamine, or even by itself.Shortness of breath alone can be a symptom
of an impending heart attack without chest pain. Or chest pain could have been masked by
narcotic . People die of apparently unprovoked heart attacks and sudden arrhythmic deaths every
day.
There were no signs of brain ischemia or airway trauma.
Remember , one has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer killed Floyd. One
does not have to prove that Floyd died from drugs or heart disease, only that it was not
unreasonable.
It is clearly not unreasonable that he died from drugs/ heart disease instead of at the hands
of police.
Could things have been done differently that might have saved his life, in retrospect?
Maybe.
Perhaps narcan could have been given at the scene.
Remember, though, these are policemen with a person resisting arrest, not emergency room
physicians in a cooperative setting.
@MarkU g
Chauvin does not cut a deal and decides to go to trial and take his chances with a jury (or
judge).
However, what did Chauvin in, is exactly what you wrote. Maybe he is so jaded, or so had had
it with Floyd*, that he just didn't care anymore. His smirking face, with left arm nonchalantly
on his leg, while Floyd was dying – looks awful.
Damning optics, as they say.
________________________________________________
* Apparently Chauvin and Floyd worked as private security a while back at the same club. And
may have known each other. Imagine that.
May 27, 2020 New video shows Minneapolis police arrest of George Floyd before death
Four white officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been fired from the
Minneapolis Police Department, but Mayor Jacob Frey is saying that one of the officers should
be arrested for pressing his knee on Floyd's neck.
Cops are not diagnosticians. They are trained to react, not to conditions, rather how people
present. A diabetic slurring words and unsteady on his feet, due to low blood sugar, will be
suspected of being intoxicated. High blood sugar may make him appear violent.
Hindsight is 20/20. Cops are trained to react, not stand back and run 50 possible scenarios
through their heads before making an informed decision. If the cops were following protocol, they
are not "absolutely wrong". They would have been wrong not to follow protocol.
When in fact all doctors who have spoken about this have said Floyd showed NO SIGNS of
going into overdose,
Then those doctors are committing malpractice. Viewing a video taken many feet away from the
patient without interaction with the patient or someone with the patient does not qualify as
tele-medecine. No licensing body for physicians allows a diagnosis without examining the
patient or diagnostic tests on the patient. That would include you, if you are a physician.
Yes, he was saying he couldn't breath way before the knee was on his neck, and I'm convinced
the knee didn't kill Floyd, who died of (likely a combinations of) other reasons.
But when a man is subdued, and unresisting, and looking like he's increasingly placid, and
gasping that he can't breath, then if for no other reason, the simple optics, (knowing they
were being filmed), would have been a cue to get off his neck. Especially in our current
societal upheaval and hysteria over the deaths of some other black men- lied about in the
((media)) to make it look like they're all deaths by white racism.
They also started performing CPR once he became unconscious. So they provided him with all
the medical care they could and waited for the professionals to come and take him..
No, not according to the autopsy. And Jacob Frey is a soy boy Bolshevik, not a doctor or a
police officer. If he was doing his job he would know that the knee on the neck restraint is a
police department authorized technique and has been used hundreds of times. And was not the
cause of the thugs death.
@Kouros ot
on windpipe at all. A wrestling coach copied the exact maneuver for the same time to show it is
fairly harmless he was fired for it.
Officers are not chemists or doctors. They do not know what exactly is wrong with perps they
deal with. And they are not going to risk themselves or public if they can help it while
bringing them in. Ridiculous to think they should be goving medical doses. Blacks will riot
over anything: racial profiling, police abuse, overdoses by police, Fredric Douglass statues,
etc
Case Reports Chest
. 2013 Apr;143(4):1145-1146. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2131.
Fentanyl-induced Chest Wall Rigidity
Başak Çoruh 1, Mark R Tonelli 2, David R Park 2
Affiliations expand
PMID: 23546488 DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-2131
Abstract
Fentanyl and other opiates used in procedural sedation and analgesia are associated with
several well-known complications. We report the case of a man who developed the uncommon
complication of chest wall rigidity and ineffective spontaneous ventilation following the
administration of fentanyl during an elective bronchoscopy. His ventilation was assisted and
the condition was reversed with naloxone. Although this complication is better described in
pediatric patients and with anesthetic doses, chest wall rigidity can occur with analgesic
doses of fentanyl and related compounds. Management includes ventilatory support and reversal
with either naloxone or a short-acting neuromuscular blocking agent. This reaction does not
appear to be a contraindication to future use of fentanyl or related compounds. Chest wall
rigidity causing respiratory compromise should be readily recognized and treated by
bronchoscopists.
About 25 years ago, I was chatting with an older acquaintance, who was a retired railway
labourer, about the economic fraud being perpetrated on the public. He said 'It doesn't take a
big education to see what is going on in this country. My three boys are in university. It seems
the more they learn, the less they understand.' One of the boys was in accountancy, another in
business. The third dropped out of university, took up a trade, and the last I heard, didn't have
much to do with his brothers. The two university grads still believe in the mystical "market
forces".
The death of St. Floyd is a stunt. The ruling banking cabal made a decision: time to start a race riot. They made a video and
activated their communist agents in BLM and Antifa to begin the riots.
The Communism that the Jewish overlords are attempting to impose on America has nearly 0%
popular support. They have spent decades trying to embitter blacks and still haven't really
gathered much in terms of a revolutionary cadre. Nevertheless, they are moving into active
insurgency mode and have many major corporations backing their play. They have no hopes of success without disarming America. Good luck with that Jews. They continue to expose themselves to more and more 'normies' while confirming many of the
already aware's worst suspicions. They won't be happy until they impose one gov't, one religion
(satanic) and one currency (bogus). I'm really looking forward to treason trials. At some point, it will become unstoppable.
@vot tak
y, the coroner, in your opinion, is not a medical expert, despite having dissected Floyd's body
and ordered testing on body fluids. It would seem the second pathologist signing off on the
coroner's report isn't an expert either. However, the medical experts, who have never seen
George Floyd in person, spouting off about their theories, are more credible than those who
examined the body and reviewed the autopsy report before it was released.
Did you miss the number of times in the body cam transcript that the cops asked Floyd if he
was "on" something and what it was? If the dumbshit had told them, he might have survived.
Direct injury to the lung from trauma, broken ribs, infection, heart failure, being held
in a stress position so the chest cannot expand, will cause distress and the person will
complain bitterly.
None of which were present in Floyd's case according to the autopsy report.
If Floyd had died in New York , I'm certain his death certificate would simply have read,
cause of death: covid19. When you watch the plane crash investigation shows on tv and they
trace the disaster backwards to a determining event, here you go back and see that Floyd would
be alive today if he had said no to drugs. Take drugs, shorten your life. Simple as that.
Certainly blame the cops, his parents, maybe even society but if a grown man doesn't respect
his own body then nobody else will. Maybe the only way to solve these types of deaths is to
have trained medicos travelling constantly in tandem with the cops. But what is the cost
benefit.
And concerning a knee to the throat, I know I would not last eight minutes, let alone half that
if someone kneeled on my throat. I still can't believe that people think that a knee to the
neck killed Floyd.
Working with the scum of society rubs off on cops eventually, and Chauvin seems no different
than a lot of others, but here it appears that he and his colleagues were doing everything
right by the book. Maybe those baying for blood need to look elsewhere, perhaps higher up in
officialdom. Condemning the cops for doing the right thing seems very harsh.
Thank you for this article. I also appreciate the running commentary on the state of
American education. Although you have me by two decades, we both come from a place where we
were taught to think rather than emote. You say it so well in the following excerpt.
This perversity of education spells the end of the United States. The kind of people American
education is producing are not capable of scientific thinking. The kind of education Americans
receive today cannot produce scientists or engineers. We have the emotive generation, people
trained to be guided by emotion.
The inability of American education to produce people capable of thought is already our
reality.
I have found that lack of logic and inability to think in a linear fashion is passed off as an
artistic temperament. If that isn't a line of bunk I don't know what is.
I think this will become the central issue of the trial.
As this video illustrates, there is overwhelming evidence that police departments in the US
have become increasingly militarized by receiving training from the Israeli military.
Yes, there might be difficulty in restraining a big fella. There were at least four police
officers in the proximity, and while there was a bit of a struggle, it wasn't something to
difficult to handle.
never considered that the police was onto killing George Floyd.
Nobody, nobody commented on the issue of police not being trained and equipped to deal with
overdosed people, especially opioid overdoses. Being able to provide quick help is essential
and other jurisdictions have enabled police with syringes with Naloxone and try to use those
rather than tasers or guns.
"And then there are the many readers for whom it is of the utmost emotional importance that
Floyd was murdered by white police for racist reasons. These readers are immune to all facts.
One told me that fentanyl is not toxic. Another told me that it is not possible to overdose on
fentanyl. Yet another told me that the medical examiner is white and his report is a racist
report. Another asked me when did I become a racist.
In other words, they only want to hear what they have been brainwashed to believe. Facts
have no importance to them. Indeed, there are no facts, only emotional responses, and they are
indoctrinated with the emotional response that is valid. As long as the response is anti-white,
it is valid."
I ran into just this the other day with my relation to a Leftist organization I had
volunteered to do some technical work for. The group originally appeared to be a legitimate and
more open Left organization than I have seen in recent years. But in the end they were as close
minded as any other such group.
I tried to present Dr. Roberts' findings to them on this subject not to convince anyone of
its legitimacy but simply as a different perspective to be considered. I even did some research
on Dr. Roberts' earlier article on this subject regarding the existence of a second autopsy.
Using an article from the Daily Kos, a Left leaning rag, that promoted the existence of this
second autopsy I looked at the links they provided to only find that they pointed to the very
original autopsy report that Dr. Roberts provided in his original essay on this matter. So much
for journalistic integrity.
When posted to this Left organization's chat board for consideration, no one wanted to hear
of it. All they cared about was Floyd was dead and that was all that mattered. I tried to
explain that it did very much matter, considering that Floyd's death sparked so much outrage
and national trauma, somehow transforming him into some type of martyr.
Yet, again, people asked why I was posting such information when the matter was implicitly
settled.
One leader of the organization told me to stop posting such "Right-wing crap" or I would be
removed (cancelled). I told her to go ahead and remove me, which she promptly did.
Though I agree with the general grievances of The Left, this side of the political spectrum
appears to be populated with very immature adults and even more ignorant younger people not to
say the least of all the various proponents of their biological victimhood. They have no sense
of honest, historical relevance to anything they do and really don't care. As long as things
conform to their very limited world view, they are satisfied.
Though I tend to be somewhat conseratative with my opinions on things, I could hardly be
considered Right-wing in my views. But I do insist on historical honesty for our past and our
current events (which means legitimate debate on such matters). But The Left will never yield
on this, which makes them I believe as dangerous as the extreme Right
@FB ost
safe and effective control measure or therapy for what is most likely an extremely agitated
patient."
-- "There are well-documented cases of ExDS deaths with minimal restraint such as handcuffs
without ECD use. This underscores that this is a potentially fatal syndrome in and of itself,
sometimes reversible when expert medical treatment is immediately available".
@KenH
ersities have besmirched the founding of America and its history until 1965 along with blood
libeling the white population.
Yep . but it is longer than decades, because owning the press/narrative is part of Jewish
evolutionary method. Jewish usurpation via press and book publishing, goes back in time even
further than 150 years as discussed by Luther Pierce in link below.
Kouros has gone to a great deal of trouble to remain totally uninformed:
From the newly-released transcripts that are part of a legal filing by Lane's attorney, Earl
Gray, who has requested that the Hennepin County District Court dismiss the case against his
client:
The transcripts reveal that as the officers forced Floyd into the vehicle, the 46-year-old
black man said: "I can't breathe" and "I want to lay on the ground."
@FB on't
need a pathologist, you need a biologist.
I am Floyds size, even bigger actually. Did you ever look at Floyd's neck muscles?. He's got
a pretty solid well muscled neck, and I wouldn't want to tangle with him. (I have fought big
men, and it is not fun.)
The windpipe runs down the middle of your neck and is flanked by muscles on the side.
I've pressure tested my neck, and while it is uncomfortable It can take considerable
pressure when said pressure is delivered from the side. I can still breath with side
pressure.
It is easy to brainwash people, which is PCR's argument.
He was
on his stomach because nausea is one result of fentanyl overdose and the police did not want
Floyd choking to death on his own vomit.
So many commentators who hide behind false names are incapable of reason and simply
emote.
They are narcissists and it makes them feel good to denounce people who know a lot more than
they do. Some are also self-righteous and enjoy engaging in ignorant moral denunciation.
"A picture is worth a thousand words." And the picture Americans saw was interpreted for
them by a dishonest media. Their ignorance of anatomy made it easy for the presstitutes to
deceive them.
Some commenters have asked for references in the literature for the point I made about
surviving overdose at far higher fentanyl levels than that in Floyd's blood toxicology
report
Here is a paper by a group of physicians who treated 18 fentanyl overdose patients in about
a one week period in 2016 only one out of the 18 did not survive
All 18 patients tested positive for fentanyl in the serum. Quantitative assays conducted
in 13 of the sera revealed fentanyl concentrations of 7.9 to 162 ng/mL (mean=
52.9 ng/mL)
Note that highest number is FIFTEEN TIMES Floyd's blood level the mean [average] of all
those patients is about 53 ng/ml about FIVE times Floyd's level
So clearly a lot of people have survived a dose of fentanyl much higher than George Floyd
this medical data immediately invalidates the very notion that a number like 11 mg/ml is de
facto a 'lethal' dose clearly it's not
And again I stress in the entire medical community NOT ONE DOCTOR has come out and said
Floyd died of an overdose is the entirety of medical science completely ignorant ?
Or is it the case that a bunch of completely unqualified people are googling the internet
for medical literature [which any doctor will tell you requires a level of expertise to put
into proper context] and pulling numbers willy nilly, and then simply making doctor-like
pronouncements ?
Please find one single pathologist or emergency doctor who will say that Floyd died of an
overdose
If and when you do so, then we can start having an intelligent discussion until then this
kind of discussion is just pure nonsense
@FB What
is used in patients, who were chronic high dose users to put them under? Different drugs and
modulators.
I am not sure if Naloxone, if applied immediately in Mr. Floyd's case could change the outcome,
given that he had other serious comorbidities, possibly pulmonary complications of COVID
infection and high stress of the arrest, as shown in the video.
It is a probably a case of
gross medical negligence, leading to the fatal outcome, although, I am not sure how much we can
expect from police in this regard. It needs proper investigation and establishing the causality
of each factor and cofactors.
"... Then in June 2020, he forced the resignation of James Bennet , editor of the NYT 's op-ed page. Why? Because they carried an opinion piece by the Republican senator Tom Cotton which argued that demonstrations which turned violent should be met with "an overwhelming show of force" – a phrase that caused outrage among some of the staff. Bennet had been tipped as the future Editor of the New York Times . Now he was out the door. ..."
"... Journalism, in the protesting staffs' view, must conform to novel, liberal verities, which include the protection of audiences from material seen as hurtful, even dangerous. The view of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) – "to utter and argue freely, according to conscience"- is now discarded in many parts of the cultural landscape . The sharpening of one's own convictions by setting them against opposing opinions would now, under this approach, be impossible. ..."
"... Part of this may be the phenomenon which Jonathan Swift noted when he wrote that "you cannot reason someone out of something that he or she was not reasoned into": that views held because fashionable, or approved by one's circle, or regarded as morally beyond question, are sometimes too shallow to be able to sustain argument. Dogmatic positions adopted with little thought except for signaling virtue often collapse when questioned hard. ..."
"... A letter signed by prominent writers, scholars and others organized by Harper's Magazine on July 7 – " On Justice and Open Debate " – noted that "it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms". ..."
"... The concession to staff protests in the great New York titles and the punishments to Buruma and Bennet were "hasty and disproportionate". These journals stood as examples to others: their example has been weakened. Journalists have been trained to keep an open mind to all events they chronicle, conscious of their complexity: and to listen to and allow space for views which are far from their own. That tradition is not past its useful life. ..."
In 2018, David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker and Pulitzer Prize-winning author,
cancelled a public interview with Steve Bannon, a former senior adviser to President Donald
Trump, which he had organised for the magazine's annual festival. Several staff members had
complained and two or three participants in the festival had said they would withdraw if Bannon
appeared . Two of the magazine's most distinguished writers, Malcolm Gladwell and Lawrence
Wright, strongly criticised Remnick's decision: " journalism is about hearing opposing views" ,
said Wright. Gladwell noted that " If you only invite your friends over, it's called a dinner
party ". The episode was a worrying sign of things to come.
In 2019, New York Review of Books publisher Rea Hederman – who has a proud history of
anti-racism – fired Ian Buruma, editor of the Review for only sixteen months, after
pressure from the staff . Buruma's crime? He had printed an essay – 'Confessions of a
Hashtag' by Jian Ghomeishi, a former Canadian Broadcasting radio host, who had been accused of
violence to around twenty women, but had been recently acquitted in a case brought by some of
them. Ghomeishi's piece, which addressed these accusations, was deemed to be out of step with
the spirit of the #MeToo movement. That the next issue of the NYRB was to devote a large amount
of space to rebuttal was not enough to save Buruma.
A G Sulzberger had, in his apprentice journalist years, used relentless coverage to force a
Lion's Club in Narragansett to reverse its decision to bar women, and revealed misconduct in an
Oregon sheriff's office, causing his resignation. He took over as publisher of the New York
Times in 2018, the sixth Sulzberger to take that position: he strongly criticized President
Trump, in an Oval Office meeting, for calling the Times "treasonous" and rendering journalists'
work more dangerous.
Then in June 2020, he forced the resignation of James Bennet , editor of the NYT 's op-ed
page. Why? Because they carried an opinion piece by the Republican senator Tom Cotton which
argued that demonstrations which turned violent should be met with "an overwhelming show of
force" – a phrase that caused outrage among some of the staff. Bennet had been tipped as
the future Editor of the New York Times . Now he was out the door.
In each case, the main actors were men I admired – Hederman and Sulzberger by
reputation, Remnick (whom I met when we were both correspondents in Moscow) by his writing and
editing. They had faced difficult decisions, made enemies and hard choices. In each case, the
men worked for a journal with a history of innovative, no-hold-barred criticism of the
powerful.
And in each case, they had folded because of pressure from the staff – pressure which
stemmed from an article or an event the complainants deemed unsuitable for any audience. For
those staff, opinions they dislike are seen as intolerable in a publication on which they work.
A red line had been crossed.
Journalism, in the protesting staffs' view, must conform to novel, liberal verities, which
include the protection of audiences from material seen as hurtful, even dangerous. The view of
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) – "to utter and argue freely, according to
conscience"- is now discarded in many parts of the cultural landscape . The sharpening of one's
own convictions by setting them against opposing opinions would now, under this approach, be
impossible.
Part of this may be the phenomenon which Jonathan Swift noted when he wrote that "you cannot
reason someone out of something that he or she was not reasoned into": that views held because
fashionable, or approved by one's circle, or regarded as morally beyond question, are sometimes
too shallow to be able to sustain argument. Dogmatic positions adopted with little thought
except for signaling virtue often collapse when questioned hard.
What's to be done about this? First, the phenomenon itself has to be held up to the light as
much as possible. If, as I suspect, much of it is loudly proclaimed but lightly ingested,
argument and debate has to be brought to bear. The best argument remains Mill's: that opinions,
many of them having to do with central issues of our time, are too important not to be
challenged, worked over, considered anew and either strengthened or weakened – and, in
the latter case, either modified or discarded.
Journalism needs now, more than ever, to build debate and contestation into news media
worlds. The challenge is to rediscover the fundamentals of journalism – without which it
ceases to be a necessary pillar of democratic, civic societies: in short, journalism needs to
rediscover a belief in the fact of facts, and in the plurality of opinion. No liberal would for
a moment agree that criticism of President Trump, distasteful to his supporters, should be
censored.
Editors' mission is to insist that, barring the dangerous extremes, all opinions deserve
airing and contesting, just as all facts deserve to be checked and given context . Those in
journalism who object to views in their journal, channel or website must accept that the robust
clash of beliefs remains a necessary insurance against enforced conformity, and indeed
reaction. In a society built on diverse ways of looking at the world, some upset on seeing or
reading an account or a conviction which strongly contradicts your own has to be borne,
considered and where possible replied to, not shut down.
A letter signed by prominent writers, scholars and others organized by Harper's Magazine on
July 7 – " On Justice and Open Debate "
– noted that "it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in
response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional
leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate
punishments instead of considered reforms".
The concession to staff protests in the great New York titles and the punishments to Buruma
and Bennet were "hasty and disproportionate". These journals stood as examples to others: their
example has been weakened. Journalists have been trained to keep an open mind to all events
they chronicle, conscious of their complexity: and to listen to and allow space for views which
are far from their own. That tradition is not past its useful life.
John Lloyd is a Contributing Editor to the Financial Times, ex-editor of The New Statesman
and a co-founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of
Oxford.
This is about a new generation of Red Guards, not so much about watching Bruce Springsteen
And Dionne Warwick Be Pelted With Dogshit For Singing We Are the World
Notable quotes:
"... This Marxian denunciation of the defense of free speech as cynical capitalist ruse was brought to you by the same Ezra Klein who once worked with Yglesias to help Vox raise $300 million . This was just one of many weirdly petty storylines. Writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, who organized the letter, found himself described as a " mixed race man heavily invested in respectability politics ," once he defended the letter, one of many transparent insults directed toward the letter's nonwhite signatories by ostensible antiracist voices. ..."
"... The whole episode was nuts. ..."
"... In this conception there's nothing to worry about when a Dean of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell is dismissed for writing "Black Lives Matter, but also, everyone's life matters " in an email, or when an Indiana University Medical School professor has to apologize for asking students how they would treat a patient who says 'I can't breathe!' in a clinical setting, or when someone is fired for retweeting a study suggesting nonviolent protest is effective. The people affected are always eventually judged to be "bad," or to have promoted "bad research," or guilty of making "bad arguments," etc. ..."
"... In this case, Current Affairs hastened to remind us that the people signing the Harper's letter were many varieties of bad! They included Questioners of Politically Correct Culture like "Pinker, Jesse Singal, Zaid Jilani, John McWhorter, Nicholas A. Christakis, Caitlin Flanagan , Jonathan Haidt, and Bari Weiss ," as well as "chess champion and proponent of the bizarre conspiracy theory that the Middle Ages did not happen, Garry Kasparov," and "right wing blowhards known for being wrong about everything" in David Frum and Francis Fukuyama, as well as -- this is my favorite line -- "problematic novelists Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie , and J.K. Rowling." ..."
"... Where on the irony-o-meter does one rate an essay that decries the "right-wing myth" of cancel culture by mass-denouncing a gymnasium full of intellectuals as problematic? ..."
"... Mao and his Red Guard invented cancel culture. This is the Chinese cultural revolution American style. Same ****, just round eyes instead of slant eyes. ..."
Any attempt to build bridges between the two mindsets falls apart, often spectacularly, as
we saw this week in an online fight over free speech that could not possibly have been more
comic in its unraveling.
A group of high-profile writers and thinkers, including Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Wynton
Marsalis, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem and Anne Appelbaum, signed a letter in Harper's calling for
an end to callouts and cancelations.
"We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom," the authors wrote, adding, "We
need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional
consequences."
This Hallmark-card-level inoffensive sentiment naturally inspired peals of outrage across
the Internet, mainly directed at a handful of signatories deemed hypocrites for having called
for the firings of various persons before.
Then a few signatories
withdrew their names when they found out that they would be sharing space on the letterhead
with people they disliked.
"I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did
know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company," tweeted Jennifer Finney
Boylan, adding, "The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry."
Translation: I had no idea my group statement against intellectual monoculture would be
signed by people with different views!
In the predictable next development -- no dialogue between American intellectuals is
complete these days without someone complaining to the boss -- Vox writer Emily VanDerWerff
declared herself literally threatened by
co-worker Matt Yglesias's decision to sign the statement. The public as well as Vox editors
were told:
The letter, signed as it is by several prominent anti-trans voices and containing as many
dog whistles towards anti-trans positions as it does, ideally would not have been signed by
anybody at Vox His signature on the letter makes me feel less safe.
Naturally, this declaration impelled Vox co-founder Ezra Klein to take VanDerWerff's side
and publicly denounce the Harper's letter as a status-defending con.
"A lot of debates that sell themselves as being about free speech are actually about power,"
tweeted
Klein, clearly referencing his old pal Yglesias. "And there's a lot of power in being able to
claim, and hold, the mantle of free speech defender."
This Marxian denunciation of the defense of free speech as cynical capitalist ruse was
brought to you by the same Ezra Klein who once worked with Yglesias to help Vox raise $300
million . This was just one of many weirdly petty storylines. Writer Thomas Chatterton
Williams, who organized the letter, found himself described as a " mixed race man heavily
invested in respectability politics ," once he defended the letter, one of many transparent
insults directed toward the letter's nonwhite signatories by ostensible antiracist voices.
The whole episode was nuts. It was like watching Bruce Springsteen and Dionne Warwick be
pelted with dogshit for trying to sing We Are the World .
This being America in the Trump era, where the only art form to enjoy wide acceptance is the
verbose monograph written in condemnation of the obvious, the Harper's fiasco inspired multiple
entries in the vast literature decrying the rumored existence of "cancel culture." The two most
common themes of such essays are a) the illiberal left is a Trumpian myth, and b) if the
illiberal left does exist, it's a good thing because all of those people they're
smearing/getting fired deserved it.
In this conception there's nothing to worry about when a Dean of Nursing at the University
of Massachusetts-Lowell is dismissed for writing "Black Lives Matter, but also,
everyone's life matters " in an email, or when an Indiana University Medical School
professor has to
apologize for asking students how they would treat a patient who says 'I can't breathe!' in
a clinical setting, or when someone is fired for
retweeting a study suggesting nonviolent protest is effective. The people affected are
always eventually judged to be "bad," or to have promoted "bad research," or guilty of making
"bad arguments," etc.
In this case, Current Affairs hastened to remind us
that the people signing the Harper's letter were many varieties of bad! They included
Questioners of Politically Correct Culture like "Pinker, Jesse Singal, Zaid Jilani, John
McWhorter, Nicholas A. Christakis, Caitlin
Flanagan , Jonathan Haidt, and Bari Weiss ,"
as well as "chess champion and proponent of the bizarre conspiracy theory that the Middle Ages
did not happen, Garry Kasparov," and "right wing blowhards known for being wrong about
everything" in David Frum and Francis Fukuyama, as well as -- this is my favorite line --
"problematic novelists Martin Amis, Salman
Rushdie , and J.K. Rowling."
Where on the irony-o-meter does one rate an essay that decries the "right-wing myth" of
cancel culture by mass-denouncing a gymnasium full of intellectuals as problematic?
How long before Tiabbi is forced into a life of dumpster diving. I am pretty sure his
world is rocking right now but free speech needs all of the defenders it can get.
Jackprong , 7 minutes ago
They're even throwing Orwell to the dogs! They have no shame!
Secret Weapon , 10 minutes ago
Mao and his Red Guard invented cancel culture. This is the Chinese cultural revolution
American style. Same ****, just round eyes instead of slant eyes.
Justus_Americans , 13 minutes ago
The Overton Window The Illusion Of Choice Free Speech Respectful Discourse The Best
Interests of USA
" The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage
the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate " Noam Chomsky
"... As we highlighted yesterday , 150 intellectuals, authors and activists including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and JK Rowling signed the letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine. ..."
"... The letter criticized how "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted" as a result of "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty." ..."
Some of the public figures who signed an open letter decrying the rise of cancel culture retracted their support, presumably fearing
they too might become a victim of it.
As we
highlighted
yesterday , 150 intellectuals, authors and activists including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and JK Rowling signed the letter,
which was published by Harpers Magazine.
The letter criticized how "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming
more constricted" as a result of "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to
dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred
from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for
circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,"
states the letter.
Following its publication and pushback from leftists, some of the signatories caved and publicly withdrew their support.
... ... ...
Vox journalist Matt Yglesias was also reported to his own employers by a transgender colleague because she claimed his support
for free speech and his association with JK Rowling was an 'anti-trans dog whistle'. (tweet since deleted)
Is it any wonder that free speech is in such dire straits when this is the reaction to a letter that simply expresses support
for it?
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL
that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here . Donate
to me on SubscribeStar here . Support my sponsor –
Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Demeter55 , 41 minutes ago
Such cowardice! They put Joseph McCarthy's victims in heroic contrast to their stupid selves.
Ohiolad , 1 hour ago
We have never seen the degree of cowardice that we are now seeing from the so-called "intellectual" class. How can these people
be so spineless?
People vote their resentments as much as their wallets. Dems are fighting to create voting
block that will lead them to the victory. In the past (and in some countries who updated the
applicable definitions, still), the most relevant additional class was the petty bourgeoisie; in
the modern US, however, the concept of the professional-managerial class is the most useful frame
of reference as for the base of neoliberal Democrats.
People who think the Democratic Party is responsive to the concerns or interests of the poor
and working classes are delusional, full stop. The Democrats are neoliberal sellouts to the
financial oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And -- since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought -- the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. ..."
"... Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare. ..."
"... They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism. ..."
"... This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30 years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated to make room for the new diversity world order. ..."
"... "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities." ..."
The answer is "not always" due to existence of "What's the matter with Kansas" effect.
People can and do vote against their economic interests, although this is more common for
lower strata of population than for the elite.
This is the essence of the current play by the Neoliberal Democrats. Mike Whitney pointed
out that their support of black population is just a tactical trick:
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the
Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms
that have clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will
not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And -- since race is an issue on which
they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives
as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought -- the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate.
In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist
revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab
for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made
any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into
the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the
country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian
nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right
wing populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who
despise Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic
demographic changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion
and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the
bus 30 years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization,
fueling social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in
the media as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be
obliterated to make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this
theme in a speech he delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our
heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear
down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of
violent crime in our cities."
He than went off the rail, but still the part of his analysis reproduced above looks
pretty prescient.
The CHOP/CHAZ occupants reportedly established a reverse hierarchical social structure where
whites self-flagellated by performing quasi-religious rituals of atonement for the sins of
slavery. There was also a diversity quota of "centering" certain individuals based on their
ethnic background, gender and sexual orientation to cede leadership roles at the co-op, with
white participants coerced into overcoming their "fragility" (or sensitivity in discussing
racism). Concurrent with the protests, corporate consultant and University of Washington
professor Robin DiAngelo's intellectually fraudulent book White
Fragility shot to the top of The New York Times bestseller list and is a perfect
example of how such identity politics fails in dealing with social issues.
Collective punishment is never a suitable guiding principle in addressing social problems,
nor is using a conception akin to the religious idea of original sin where "white privilege" is
the root cause of racism. There were even mini-reparations demanded of repenting white
protesters reminiscent of the collection plate passed around by worshippers in a church. This
sort of bizarre and self-indulgent identity politics is much like what was widely mocked in a
viral video of a
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) convention collapsing into infighting last year.
What began as protests against police brutality were not only derailed into efforts to
set-up communes in major cities but a nationwide debate on statues, after the wave of
demonstrations and rioting across the country led to the Taliban-style destruction of
historical monuments perceived as glorifying racism. As a result, the toxic political
atmosphere which surrounded the events in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 was reignited.
While the calls for the removal of Confederate statues erected during the Reconstruction era is
long overdue, more debatable is the removal of those honoring slave-owning Founding Fathers
such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson which were toppled in Portland, Oregon. This was
followed by a statue of Union General Ulysses S. Grant being knocked over in San Francisco and
calls to remove the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., two men who victoriously led the North in the
Civil War. Regrettably, the prioritization of such iconoclastic gestures has not only defanged
the protests but diverted them from bringing real change to social inequities in the immediate
future.
This is not the first time we have witnessed this phenomena. Last year, a more troublesome
example were the calls to
remove a historic mural at George Washington High School in San Francisco that were
capitulated to by the city school board. The thirteen panel mural, Life of Washington ,
painted in 1936 by Russian-American artist Victor Arnautoff was commissioned as part of the
Federal Art Project, a New Deal program funded by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) which
employed visual artists to create public works during the Great Depression. One controversial
panel depicts George Washington pointing to a group of armed colonizers standing over the
corpse of a Native American, while another fresco portrays two colonizers surveying land as
slaves toil in a field. It would seem obvious to anyone that the mural is not only explicitly
anti -racist but representative of an important period in U.S. history where art was a
force for social change and progressive politics was at the center of American life. Arnautoff
was a Russian immigrant who was an assistant to Mexican muralist Diego Rivera, while the WPA
and its art program were dominated by communists such as the two men. Still, no matter the
context or intent -- the unflinching depiction of American history was deemed
"offensive to certain communities" because students were "triggered" by the harsh realities
illustrated.
This might seem unrelated, but the same illogic is behind the vigilantism of the statue
removals. While the Arnautoff mural is clearly anti-racist and certain monuments may glorify
slavery, the distinction is indecipherable to the social justice sect which needs its "safe
space" from the uncomfortable truths of American history. The differentiation between a
left-wing WPA mural opposing racism and colonial statue commending it is illegible to them. The
entire purpose behind the Arnautoff mural is to make one uncomfortable because its
subject matter is something no one should ever be at ease with. Yet its undeniable educational
and artistic value did not prevent the San Francisco school board from voting to paint over it,
while articles were published in The New York Times and even The Nation magazine
applauding their decision. What on earth is happening to the left when it is censoring
anti-racist art in the name of fighting racism?
The whole point of education at a high school is to teach students to analyze and interpret
subjects like art and history, not just emotionally react to them. When the very fabric of
culture and society like a historic mural or statue can be torn down simply because people are
upset by them, the next plausible step is book burning. San Francisco High School completely
failed to educate its students when they decided upon the most backwards way of interpreting
the mural, just as the protesters tearing down these statues did not use their faculties to
understand them in a historical context. Genocide and slavery are indeed the foundations of the
U.S., but we should learn from our tragic history to grasp the equivalent injustices happening
today. Simply eradicating murals and statues that remind us of it, whether they oppose or
elevate them, is totally ineffectual.
While some activists have expressed concern that the protests have deviated from their
original purpose, the right has fixated on the presence among the marches of "Antifa" which
Trump wants to designate as a "terrorist organization", a reckless idea given the completely
decentralized nature of the group. The original Antifa movement in the 1930s had been part of
the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in its effort to form a popular front against fascism, but
the dilettantes in the modern incarnation are closely associated with black bloc anarchism and
other amateurish orientations. Two decades ago, Seattle had been the site of the 1999 protests
against the World Trade Organization (WTO), often referred to as the 'Battle of Seattle', which
saw 40,000 march against globalization. Some may recall this was where the black bloc first
became notorious for injecting vandalism and senseless violence into peaceful demonstrations
and were widely thought to have been
infiltrated by law enforcement . In 2016, the current embodiment of Antifa first came to
attention during protests on college campuses against speaking appearances by far right media
personalities during the U.S. presidential election, including at the University of California
at Berkeley which had ironically been the site of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s.
Following Trump's election, the stage was set in Charlottesville during the Unite the Right
rally and counter-protests over the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in August 2017 for
'Antifa' to be crowned as heroes shadowboxing the historical ghost of fascism. When the likes
of The New York Times is suddenly
promoting the black bloc , that's your first clue something else is afoot. In order to
prevent the emergence of a truly progressive movement in the wake of Hillary Clinton's defeat,
a false narrative was concocted by the political establishment about the significance of
Trump's victory, which we were told was the result of alleged Russian meddling and the racism
of "deplorable" Trump voters. Instantly, any critique of the system which produced Trump
disappeared and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party was able to neutralize the
Bernie Sanders-led opposition in its ranks.
As a result, the vast majority of the left became convinced by the interpretation that
Trump's election was purely the outcome of a resurgence of "fascism", thus making Trump the
singular, most immediate danger -- while U.S. imperialism and endless war continue unopposed,
including the support for actual fascists in Ukraine. It should be understood that what Trump
and the wave of pro-Zionist, Islamophobic right-wing populists in the EU represent is something
qualitatively different. Still, anyone on the left who dares oppose U.S. imperialism today is
risking being branded a 'red-brown' collaborator. The Democratic Party, which spearheaded the
Orwellian idea of "humanitarian interventionism" used to justify the wholesale destruction of
uncooperative nations by the American war machine in recent decades, has since tricked the
majority of the left into unwittingly backing U.S. imperialism to unseat "dictators." Even when
the left today ostensibly opposes war, it is often forced to qualify its objections by
repeating the same talking points about countries attacked by Washington used to justify
it.
The U.S. foray in the Syrian war is a perfect example. Trump's idea to designate Antifa as a
terrorist group would be especially ironic considering that many American leftists who
self-identify using the "Antifa" black and red standard have thrown their support behind the
creation of another infamous "autonomous zone" in Northeast Syria established by mostly-Kurdish
militias known as Rojava -- with the help of none other than the U.S. military. There is even a
self-proclaimed International Freedom Battalion of American and European volunteers fighting to
defend the enclave that purports to be in the tradition of the International Brigades which
defended the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War. These "Antifa" conscripts fight
alongside the YPG (People's Protection Units), a Kurdish-majority militia which has been
rebranded by the Pentagon as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). These leftists are apparently
in serious need of a history lesson, considering it was the Soviet Union alone which intervened
to defend the Spanish Republic from fascism, not the United States. From Washington's
perspective, CHOP/CHAZ should be considered blowback from this policy.
The U.S. creation of the SDF has not been without controversy, as the YPG is widely regarded
as the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey which Washington's NATO
ally regards as a terrorist organization . While the Kurds and
their Western volunteers may believe they are creating an anarchist utopia, in reality they are
infantryman for the Zionist plan to balkanize Syria and
prevent Damascus from accessing it own resources . So it makes perfect sense that they
would try to replicate what they learned in Afrin in an American city using Rojava as a model.
When Trump tried to follow through on his anti-interventionist pledges as a candidate and pull
U.S. troops out of Syria, it sparked outrage from the pro-war "left" which glorifies Rojava as
a 'libertarian socialist' and 'direct democracy' experiment, even though non-Kurds such as
Arabs and Assyrian Christians face ethnic cleansing at hands of Kurdish nationalists in their
efforts to create an ethno-state.
The statue was vandalized
over the July 4th weekend, Rochester police told local media on Sunday.
Photos from the scene show
an empty spot where the statue used to stand in Maplewood Park, as well as its debris scattered in the vicinity. The statue
was lying 50 feet from its pedestal when officers found it.
The statue
"had
been placed over the fence to the gorge and was leaning against the fence,"
police said in a statement, as cited by The
Democrat and Chronicle daily.
Carvin Eison, director of
the 'Re-Energizing the Legacy of Frederick Douglass' project, said the monument is beyond repair and will need to be replaced.
"It's particularly painful that it happened at this time,"
he said.
Dozens of statues have
been knocked off their pedestals across the country in a monument-toppling spree championed by Black Lives Matter activists,
which see it as a way of reckoning with the nation's troubling legacy of slavery and racism. While the initial targets of the
protesters were Confederate generals, later vandalism, which met little resistance from law enforcement, saw the statues of
Christopher Columbus and other historical figures being removed as well.
It's so far unclear who was behind the Douglass statue incident.
The monument, inaugurated
in 2018 to mark Douglass' 200th birthday, is part of a city-wide installation consisting of 13 statues – all replicas of a
larger statue of Douglass, which was unveiled in Rochester's Highland Park neighborhood in 1899. The statues were placed
throughout the city in places of significance to the abolitionist's life in a bid to bolster his legacy.
In a speech in 1852,
Douglass made a case against celebrating July 4th by African Americans, saying:
"The
blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I
must mourn."
It's not the first time
the installation has been targeted by vandals. In December 2018, two students from Rochester's St. John Fisher College were
arrested and charged with misdemeanors after they were filmed dismantling one of the statues and stealing it. The students
claimed they were drunk and later apologized, calling what they had done to the statue
"a
terrible thing,"
and offered to help repair the monument.
As protesters target statues around the nation, one town is becoming a statue sanctuary city
for monuments honoring select figures.
Newton Falls, Ohio City Manager David M. Lynch has signed a proclamation that states that
the city will accept and display spurned statues of people including George Washington, Abraham
Lincoln, and certain other prominent figures.
"A Proclamation declaring that Newton Falls is a Statuary Sanctuary City and declaring a
general amnesty for George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant,
Patrick Henry, Francis Scott Key, Theodore Roosevelt and Christopher Columbus as represented by
the statues of these great leaders, and volunteering to accept these statues that have been
removed throughout the USA and place them in a location of honor in our community," the
proclamation says, according to a copy posted by
21-WFMJ .
"They founded our nation, they ended slavery, and established and protected our national
parks," Lynch said, according to
Fox 8 .
"Yes, they had warts but they laid the foundation for what we have today," he said.
Protesters in Baltimore, Maryland on July 4th
toppled a statue of Christopher Columbus and dumped it into the city's Inner Harbor.
Taibbi said in a Hill.TV this past week there is an "extraordinary irony" in white Americans
elevating a white corporate consultant to the top of bestseller lists in the wake of George
Floyd's killing by police in Minneapolis.
In the book, which has seen a resurgence in popularity amid the nationwide reckoning on race
relations, DiAngelo lays out her theory on white Americans' defensiveness when it comes to
addressing racism.
"This is how they want to reinterpret their racial issues," he said. "This is the racism
problem as seen through the lens of somebody who makes thousands of dollars an hour, being
hired by companies."
Taibbi said that rather than confronting how they contribute to systematic racism, companies
tend to force their employees into trainings with outside academics like DiAngelo.
"This is how corporate America views the race problem, it views it as an individual issue
that where racism is is sort of inexorably stuck in all of us and the only way that we can
combat it is through relentlessly listening to corporate consultants," Taibbi said.
Twitter's engineering team will systematically purge a list of offensive terms from its
source code and internal documents in the name of political correctness. Terms like "master"
and "slave" will go, as will gendered pronouns.
"We're starting with a set of words we want to move away from using in favor of more
inclusive language," Twitter Engineering announced on Wednesday.
Among the terms to be terminated are "whitelist" and "blacklist,""master" and "slave,"
which will be replaced with "allowlist" and "denylist," and "leader" and "follower"
respectively. Gendered pronouns such as "guys" will be swapped for gender-neutral terms like
"folks" and "y'all," while the terms "man hours" and "grandfathered" will have their
patriarchal connotations expunged, and will be replaced with "person hours" and "legacy
status." Even "dummy value" was deemed offensive.
All the more reason Twitter can go fuck itself. I have a Twitter account, but almost never
use it, and only created it so I could respond to things that really make me mad. Since then
almost everyone I strongly dislike has banned me anyway, so if they want to go to Ze and Zir
and Zippity Fuckin' Doo Da, it's no bother for me. But if they are really serious in their
busybody political correctness, they are embarking on a path which will eventually make the
English language almost unrecognizable. "Master" is a useful and common verb – I hope
one day to master the knots used in rigging – as well as an adjective: he is a master
of the instrument.
Sort of unsurprising for the country that claims to be the last word in free speech,
though. One wonderful day the only words allowed to be used in any questionnaire sent around
by your employer will be "I approve", and anything you say will be changed to that by
software.
I think you must mean Susan Rice – Obama's former National Security Advisor. A known
Russophobe and neo-liberal Democrat warhawk. I believe Biden promised, in one of his lucid
moments, to choose 'a woman of color' for his VP. This is what it has come to in the fight to
capture votes; it's not enough to spend – literally – billions in campaign funds,
but you also have to court as many communities as possible instead of just picking the best
person for the job. I'm not suggesting it is impossible a black or brown woman could be the
best person for the job, but in that case there would be no need to announce it in advance,
thereby eliminating all whites and males from competition. You can blame the voters for that
as much as the politicians – screwing up the job of leadership has become so
commonplace that a perception has arisen that the choice should be made on the basis of
'whose turn it is'.
Susan Rice could be baited into war with Russia at the drop of a hat – she is not a
diplomat, has a filthy temper and is totally committed to the ideal of the United States as a
benevolent tyrant which is not afraid to make the tough decisions because it knows what's
best. When it says 'do', you do. Or else. I think it is pretty plain now that the Democratic
strategy is to either use Biden – if elected – as a talking head for the Clinton
Machine if he is able to remain reasonably convincing, or to relieve him for health reasons
if he becomes visibly incompetent. Either way, rule in that administration will not be
Biden's decisions.
It is so much easier to get along when both can be right and wrong in the same exchange. I
do not have to run to my room to bury my face in my pillow and scream, like I do when I'm
wrong. Well, that's The Hill, so it's a solid recommendation and not one of those throwaway
"Hey, she'd make a great president!" endorsements like the papers make whenever some new
mouthpiece appears briefly on the radar (remember 'Joe the plumber'?) But Condi has been out
of politics an eternity, in political time, and would have to rebuild alliances and get
quickly up to speed. I frankly doubt Biden is considering her.
She would be a marginal improvement on Susan Rice, though, for the faults I have already
cited.
During Obama's presidency, the US ambassador to the UN was a wonderfully talented brown
woman. Can't remember her name now, but she liked taking names.
No, no, this was during the first couple of years of Donald Trump's Presidency: the
woman's name was Nikki Haley, originally born Nimrata Randhawa and of Sikh Indian background.
She liked keeping a long shit list of people and countries to nurture dreams of punishment
against.
Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are getting most of the
buzz, but former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is also been getting a lot
of attention in Joe Biden's campaign as he considers who to pick as his running mate, sources
say
####
I say, is that a cheeky cooking pun squeezed in to the headline? It gets a clap from me if
it is intentional!
The statue, dedicated in 1984, is the latest monument to be destroyed in what President
Trump dubbed the "left-wing cultural revolution" by "angry mobs."
According to the
Baltimore Sun , the Columbus statue has been the site of a wreath-laying ceremony right
before the annual Columbus Day parade, which, in 2019 was replaced with the Italian Heritage
Festival.
Republican state delegates and Italian-American activists held a press conference at the
statue last month to ask Gov. Larry Hogan and Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young to
preserve and protect the memorials , following activists' comments about pulling down the
monuments themselves and the introduction of a City Council bill this week to rename one of
them in honor of victims of police violence.
The downed statue is one of three monuments to Columbus in Baltimore. -
Baltimore Sun
BLM thugs have already started going after patriots. They ambushed our governor at the
small town of Ackley Iowa. They were stalking her as she visited companies providing
essential services during the pandemic. Her driver refused to stop, likely saving her life.
One BLM thug was hit but not seriously injured. They are not waiting to run out of statues.
We ordinary Americans must be heavily armed at all times now. Midwest states are full of
illegals, who serve the left as an army. Open civil war is upon us whether we would have it
or not.
warsev , 3 minutes ago
What these malicious rioters don't realize is that they are handing the November election
to DJT and Republicans for senate and house. Average Americans look on the footage that
accompanies this article with revulsion; for the ideas and the people behind them. Trump will
walk away with 2020. Just keep it up, loony lefties.
vic and blood , 4 minutes ago
We have been in a race and culture war with multiple factions for some time. The presumed
winner is not overtly participating.
Most white people are oblivious, though that is changing. Too bad we are demographically
doomed.
SolidGold , 1 minute ago
Divide and conquer. Who creates that genius?
NumberNone , 12 minutes ago
Was in downtown Baltimore less than 2 years ago, it felt like you were one person away
from someone that wanted to rob you. The downtown had all the usual suspects of faux high end
shopping but the vibe was one of John Wayne Gacy in his clown suit...it had all the look and
feel that was supposed to make you happy but it was rotten to the core.
Whoa Dammit , 13 minutes ago
We can't keep coddling these stupid brats. It's time to start making their parents pay for
the mess and destruction that their ill raised offspring cause.
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 17 minutes ago
Protesters == pavement apes
House of Cards , 17 minutes ago
Terrorists you mean
Watt Supremacissss , 16 minutes ago
Crybullies.
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 15 minutes ago
Redundant but accurate ... +100_000
Silver Savior , 17 minutes ago
Columbus was a dickhead anyway.
NumberNone , 9 minutes ago
So we tear apart the country for a guy that held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach...if
you're gonna pass judgement and replace other people's icons you might want to make better
choices.
Blackdawg7 , 43 minutes ago
I've never been a fan of Christopher Columbus but witnessing these know-nothing
sanctimonious twits destroy public property while virtue signalling makes my blood boil.
Workdove , 44 minutes ago
Not worth the 10 years in jail...
vic and blood , 50 minutes ago
History's losers are terrorizing, and soon to be tyrannizing us because Caucasians are too
civilized and docile.
Every race and tribe is programmed by God to attempt to dominate.
As an adherent of the non-aggression principle, I don't care for the binary choice, but
accept it.
Either dominate or be dominated. Only cucks believe in co-existence. I assure you our
rivals do not believe in peaceful co-existence.
unionbroker , 1 hour ago
Christopher Columbus sails out into the unknown where no man has gone before. What the
**** has BLM done. Put the statues back up and throw BLM in the water
They probably can pus a smartphone instead of demolished monuments. Their view of police as a
brutal occupying force is naive, because police is just a muscle, and it is not "white supremacy"
that is behind them. They are fighting sypmtom, not the root case.
We all remember those shots. American troops are entering Baghdad. A tank stops somewhere in
the city, cautiously, in the vicinity of a Saddam Hussein monument. After a few minutes of
apparent inactivity, a crowd is beginning to form around the monument. The crowd is not all
that big. It rallies around the figure of Iraq's president. Soon an American soldier climbs the
monument and puts an American flag on it. An Iraqi intervenes, so the flag is replaced with the
Iraqi one. And then, then some individuals begin to climb the statue, a crane arrives from
somewhere, a steel rope is attached to the monument and the crane drives slowly back, taunting
the line and gradually slanting the president's image to its feet. Eventually the figure drops
to the ground and the cheering people dance around it, deliver it kicks and carry some of the
pieces that fell off in the process away.
The alien forces have conquered the capital city of the enemy and performed an age-old
ritual that victors used to perform in the presence of the vanquished: Americans demolished the
material symbol of the enemy's sovereignty and by doing it they also humiliated the routed
nation.
In the nineties of the 20th century we could all see angry Russians in Moscow, but also
angry Poles in Warsaw and equally angry residents of other European capitals tearing down
monuments from the communist era, especially those of Comrade Felix Dzerzhinsky, the notorious
head of the Cheka (from:
Всероссийская
чрезвычайная
комиссия, i.e. Vserossiyskaya chrezvychaynaya
komissiya = The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission).
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.392.0_en.html#goog_1134708888 NOW
PLAYING
Americans Are Growing More Anxious Over Spread of COVID-19 as Cases Continue to Rise
US sets global record with 53,000 coronavirus cases in one day
Trump Reportedly Flew into Rage When He Was Briefed on Negative Russian Intelligence, So
Officials Stopped Briefing Him
Trump Says New Left Wing Revolution Is Designed To Overthrow America
Trump vows Mount Rushmore will 'stand forever'
'The White House put on a con,' Pelosi on bounty report intelligence
Donald Trump: We're doing very well in dealing with Covid-19 crisis
Bolton: 'Fickle' Trump would sell out Israel for photo op with Iran's leaders
Since the dawn of history monuments would be put up and torn down. Either act reflected a
huge political, social, religious or demographic change. Monuments are erected by common
consent of the majority of a given (national, social, religious, political) community, in which
case they are wanted as a tribute to or a memory of the community's most cherished heroes or
values, or they are enforced by occupying forces, in which case they are hated by those against
whose will they have been put up.
Monuments are only desecrated, defaced, toppled or destroyed by the enemies of those who
built them. Americans in Iraq and a part of Iraqi nation was against Saddam Hussein; a rather
large part of the Russian nation nurtured bitter memories concerning the henchmen of their
ancestors like Felix Dzerzhinsky, so they vented their anger on his images the moment an
opportunity presented itself. The divide between those who put up the monuments and those who
hated the sight of them was in each case insurmountable. What was dear to the former, was
abhorrent to the latter.
Recently a huge wave of monument desecration and monument removal has swept the United
States and to a much lesser extent Europe. It is mostly the heroes of the American South
– generals of the Army of the Confederate States – that are targeted, but not only.
Also abolitionists, 1) fighters for
American independence of other nationalities, 2) Christian
missionaries 3) and even Jesus
Christ himself. 4) John Wayne may
not be spared the same fate either 5) so much so that
a monument to a Portland elk – his ancestor was presumably a slave owner and the elk
– a confirmed racist – fell victim to the rage of American iconoclasts.
6)
All this is taking place amid riots caused by the death of a frequent prison inmate who was
caught by the police while suspected of paying with counterfeit money. The activists of the
Black Lives Matter movement, supported by Antifa 7) and heavily
sponsored by the powers that be and spurned on by the democrats performed the usual acts of
protest: burning cars and looting shops. This time two qualitatively new elements have been
added: one is the toppling or desecration of monuments and the other is forcing the police
officers to knee to the rioters. All this is happening because it is wanted by at least a
significant part of the establishment, democrats in the first place, who having failed to
impeach Donald Trump, having stopped America's and the world's economies due to the so called
pandemic now are playing another trump card in yet another effort to thwart the president
incumbent from being elected for the second term.
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890
Shamelessness as a revolutionary act ( which see )
The democrats have decided to use American blacks to create chaos and make a distressing
impression on US citizens who should come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is not capable of
running the country. History provides ample examples when a part of the elites willing to
topple the current ruler would resort to the help of the masses in order to force the ruler's
abdication or resignation. Such was the case in France in the run-up to the French Revolution,
such was the case in Russia in the run-up to the Russian revolution. In France it was the
so-called third class that was used for the purpose, in Russia it was the proletariat, now in
the United States it is the easily excitable blacks. History teaches us that a genie let out of
the bottle cannot be put back at a moment's notice. Either the democrats have not been
attentive during their history classes or their hatred of Donald Trump is so intense that they
don't care.
What is happening now in the Land of the Free makes the whole world wonder. It fits the
definition of a cultural revolution – modelled on its Chinese or Bolshevik predecessors
– or a colour revolution known from the streets of Belgrade, Tunis, Cairo, Tbilisi, Kiev
and many other places. If the latter is the correct interpretation then the question arises
whether this time the process was initiated – as usual – by the CIA or whether it
is the boomerang hitting back the thrower. Be that as it may – power struggle apart
– the events reveal a few important things.
[1] Americans are not a uniform, coherent nation and never will be: it is always blacks
against whites, though the discrimination laws are a thing of the past, how much more slavery.
Assimilation or integration – so much propagated in Europe in view of the influx of the
people from the Third World – does not work in the least. The two races share the same
terrain, language and religion and still remain far part.
[2] Monument desecration and removal is a fight against memory. Memoriae damnatio or the
Orwellian black hole is a well-known historical phenomenon. Invaders of Egypt necessarily
obliterated the images of pharaohs; Arab conquerors smashed images of ancient heroes or
Christian saints; Christians would destroy pagan idols; Byzantine iconoclasts raised their
hands against paintings depicting Jesus Christ and saints; protestants would do the same a
couple of centuries later in northern and western Europe; French revolutionaries would even
stoop down to extracting corpses of the long-dead French kings – Capetians, Valois,
Bourbons – and desecrating them; Bolsheviks in Russia would do the same with the remnants
of the tsarist past; even worse: factions of Bolsheviks would delete from very recent memory
yesterday's comrades.
[3] The BLM movement is racist to the core. It is aimed against whites and whites alone. It
is strong because it is supported by the democratic party and its adherents and a number of
foundations. That it is anti-white is evident. White actors have been discouraged from
impersonating or even voicing characters of colour, which, however, is not the case when it
comes to black actors who are increasingly frequently cast in typically white roles. It is only
and exclusively whites who are accused of being racist.
[4] Humiliation of the white population and especially of the police. The pictures of white
people kneeling to blacks and of the policemen – armed to their teeth – to the
rioters have been spread worldwide. It is an act of humiliation pure touted of course as an act
of interracial reconciliation and mutual respect.
[5] As usual, whenever a black gets killed in a squabble or a scuffle African-Americans,
Antifa and the mainstream media are quick to pass judgement without waiting for the court
sentence, which runs counter to the well-established procedure that no one is deemed guilty
until proven. The pressure exerted by the rioters and the media without doubt negatively
affects the decision of the judges who later deal with the case.
[6] What is happening is certainly wanted by a large part of the establishment or else it
wouldn't have been happening. Black rioters know that they can enjoy a lot of leeway and they
act accordingly, looting and burning and showing disrespect for the law and the police. Many a
mayor or police chief – usually a democrat and a black – under the pretext of
deescalating the conflicts withdraws the law enforcement units from parts of the city that they
are in charge of. Consider the so-called autonomous zones in Seattle and New York held for a
time by rioters. The powers that be could suppress the riots within 24 hours if they only
wanted to. As it is, they are using irascible black communities (agitated by Antifa activists)
to create turmoil and thus to achieve political goals. Just picture to yourself a rally of
genuine Nazis raising their hands in the Roman salute: how long would they hold a public
space?
Welcome to the DSA: the Dis-United States of America!
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
People occupying parts of the city called autonomous zones remind the Kiev Maidan
protesters. They spend days and nights doing nothing, but somehow they do not go hungry. In
both cases the police are either inactive or indolent. The Maidan riots in Kiev brought about
the change of the government. The powers that be must be counting on the same in the Dis-United
States of America.
How do we know that the riots are instigated, sponsored and used by the powers that be?
Precisely because of the inactivity and indolence of the police, because of the inactivity and
indolence of local; authorities, because of the media's condoning tone towards the events.
Lastly, history teaches us that revolutions, are made by means of popular protests and these
protests are paid by very rich individuals. Professional revolutionaries whose task it was to
destabilize Russia at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries were in the
pocket of Alexander Parvus (born: Israel Gelfand) and Jacob Schiff. Individuals that later
became the driving forces of the coup d'etat – Leon Trotsky (born: Lev Bronstein),
creator of the Red Army – did not have to bother about their living.
The deletion of historical memory and the renunciation of the heroes of the past paves the
way for replacing the United States of America with something new. Maybe the Union of Soviet
States of America? At present it is the images, effigies, and monuments that are beheaded,
trampled upon, kicked and drowned. Tomorrow it may very likely be people. Such are the dynamics
of any revolutionary movement.
"Today, America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers,
unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and
sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the
floor But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is
the inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the
murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson
observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals
and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate
school".
Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too,
wanted to 'topple the statues'; to burn down everything. 'You really believed that Washington
would allow you in', they taunted and tortured their leaders: "No, we must burn it all down.
Start from scratch".
Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would
organically inflate, and expand to fill the void. It would happen by itself – of its own
accord: Faith.
Professor John Gray has noted "that in
The God that failed, Gide says: 'My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a
promise of salvation for mankind'' . "Here Gide acknowledged", Gray continues, "that communism
was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when Gide and others gave up
faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that
both ideologies had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was
a directional process in which humankind was advancing towards universal freedom ".
So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own
Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear
signals: A secularised 'illusion' is metamorphosing back into 'religion'. Not as Islam, of
course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now
as purifying 'fire' to bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.
Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking,
frames the movement a little differently:
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself
We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are
up against These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" .
Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world,
apart from destroying the old one. This vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of
western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own path;
their own internal logic.
Mill's 'ghost' is arrived at the table. And with its return, America's exceptionalism has
its re-birth. Redemption for humankind's dark stains. A narrative in which the history of
mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old, now lack the
power to project it as a universal vision.
'Virtue', however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try
nevertheless to sustain the old illusion by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and
dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from
Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before
dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see
a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted.
And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
play_arrow
N2M , 22 minutes ago
Vision? What vision that might be?
"'Freedom' is being torn down from within"
What freedom? Could be "Freedom" they decide how, when and where you can express your
thoughts? There is only one true freedom that exists and that is human free will to tell the
truth.
Today vision of Freedom is a joke, this game was never about freedom for in a world of
ideology, there is always lurking a deceits of lies and control.
There are 3 types of Americans.
A sharp ones and well tune to what has been going on and those I had a chance to talk
to and become friends when I was in U.S.A
The imbeciles of totally clueless generation of people who will listen to any wave of
information in propaganda as true and must be and their government is so beloved, no others
can even compete and they only have good intentions /s /c
And there is this group, shrewd, conniving, self-moral, warmongering, evil to a core
psychopaths who only follow different orders to impose their will on other nations to makes
sure they follow what? USD.
So when author speaks about vision it must separate few things!
Washington is running around imposing sanctions, destroying relationship/interest with
nations, trying all this regime changes at a cost of death of millions of people and then
dropping "Freedom bombs' almost every 8 to 9 minutes somewhere in this world, because these
freaks vision is way different, then some regular people either be in South America or other
continents that these regular people have.
Real vision is based on corporation, and U.S.A had that before, however after being
hijack, now they trying to start a war of unimaginable proportions so few fat bosses in one
Chamber can feel as super masters of the world and everyone as slaves.
I would like to remind some people about vision – Marx had a vision to, and rest is
history.
Becklon , 1 hour ago
It's a lack of shared purpose, I think. Without a common focus, such as an external threat
(as once provided by the USSR) groups tend to fracture and turn on themselves and each
other.
It's got nothing to do with any one religious or political group having more power than
others. It's to do with homo sapiens - and maybe entropy.
1 play_arrow
David Wooten , 1 hour ago
Well, if all this is true, there is far, far more at stake than the US being unable to
"Re-Impose Its Civilisational Worldview" (which I would be fine with).
"... This lady is sitting there lying trying to prove a point. I have been in enough arguments to kow when someone is just arguing to keep the discussion going ..."
The bottom line is, they want to take away any problem solving skills that might build character, because someone might get
hurt! Victimhood culture run amuck.
Mathematics is the cornerstone of all forms of trade, communications, home economics and every other aspect of life. Truth
is they're dumbing everyone down to control populations!
I have Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and I'm 62-years old. I have never once cared about the history of mathematics,
other than a curiosity. Knowing the history of mathematics never helped me once to solve an ordinary second order differential
equation.
When a person lies while giving an interview they should be shocked or something. This lady is sitting there lying trying
to prove a point. I have been in enough arguments to kow when someone is just arguing to keep the discussion going. She has
already lost the argument deflected and differed responsibility when confronted with the legitimacy of the paper.
Go exercise healthy body makes a healthy mind not the other way around.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal.
They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was
smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or
quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments
to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper
General.
Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove
people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took
George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen- year-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had
a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short
bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap
radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government
transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to
keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel's cheeks, but she'd
forgotten for the moment what they were about.
Dostoyevsky had a good definition of the political correctness of his day, from his very
prescient novel "The Possessed" [by devils]. He defined it as "a combination of self
righteousness, and the unwillingness to hold an independent opinion." (They were then as now
called "liberals," the "resistance" then to Tsar Aleksandr II, who had just freed 23 million
serfs, created a court system with trial by jury, and instituted elected local and regional
governments. Elements of the resistance assassinated him en route to proclaim an elected
national parliament, the proclamation physically on his person.)
"... Speaking with Fox's Ainsley Earhard on Thursday, the conservative actor took aim at 'cancel culture,' dubbing it "like an early version of George Orwell's 1984" which would have barred the 90s-era character from uttering his iconic slogan. ..."
"... "I promise you that Superman – I wouldn't today be allowed to say: 'Truth, justice, and the American way,'" ..."
Actor Dean Cain, who portrayed Superman for a 1990s TV show, has set Twitter ablaze after arguing that modern 'cancel culture' would
have outlawed the superhero's catchphrase – "Truth, justice and the American way."
Speaking with Fox's Ainsley Earhard on Thursday,
the conservative actor took aim at 'cancel culture,' dubbing it "like an early version of George Orwell's 1984" which would have
barred the 90s-era character from uttering his iconic slogan.
"I promise you that Superman – I wouldn't today be allowed to say: 'Truth, justice, and the American way,'" Cain said,
responding to a recent op-ed in Time
Magazine calling for a "re-examining" of how superheroes are portrayed on screen.
"... "I'ma stab you, and while you're struggling and bleeding out, I'ma show you my paper cut and say, 'My cut matters too,'" she declared in the TikTok clip. ..."
"... Holding back tears, Janover said she'd "worked really hard" to receive a position at the company, and complained that her contract had been terminated even though Deloitte claims to "stand against systemic racism." ..."
A Harvard graduate has reportedly lost her job after posting a now-viral TikTok video in
which she vowed to assault anyone who didn't support the Black Lives Matter (BLM)
movement.
...
Claira Janover became an overnight sensation after several news outlets caught wind
of a video in which she threatened to attack anyone "entitled" enough to believe
that "all lives matter."
"I'ma stab you, and while you're struggling and bleeding out, I'ma show you my paper
cut and say, 'My cut matters too,'" she declared in the TikTok clip.
...Holding back tears, Janover said she'd "worked really hard" to receive a
position at the company, and complained that her contract had been terminated even though
Deloitte claims to "stand against systemic racism."
..."File under Schadenfreude or Karma," noted conservative firebrand
Michelle Malkin.
...Janover's firing is unusual as it marks a rare case of 'reverse' cancel culture.
Social-justice activists have typically been the ones using social media to attack anyone who
is suspected of holding politically incorrect views.
or about a month now, America's major cities have treated to nightly orgies of
old-fashioned, rope-and-torch iconoclasm. Statues of variously "problematic" historical figures
(including both Robert E. Lee and, for some reason, Ulysses S. Grant) are defaced, torn from
their rivets, and set on fire.
As cooler minds have always known, it was only a matter of time before these iconoclasts
moved out of the public sphere and into the private. But that day came much sooner than many of
us anticipated.
Enter Shaun King, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter and a doyen of the cultural
elite. Last Monday, Mr. King issued
gave his followers a rather disturbing order:
Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down.
They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. In the Bible, when the family of Jesus
wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went? EGYPT! Not Denmark. Tear them down.
Yes. All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and
their white friends should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as
tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should all come down.
The Christian Post
identifies King as a "retired pastor," which is a pretty big stretch. In 2008, at the age
of 29, Mr. King founded a church in Atlanta called "Courageous Church" -- only to step down
four years later, aged 33, because his congregation didn't really like him. "I think in some
ways I moved people too quickly for their comfort and it just didn't work," he explained. "Some
people really loved the changes and transitions that I was proposing, but it didn't work." I
guess so. In fairness, destroying statues of Jesus and the saints went out of vogue with
Protestants a good four hundred years ago.
Every people are allowed to imaging Jesus in their own way.
So what's the issue exactly? That's right there is no issue. King simply wants to deprive
white people of their own self respect while elevating his. He's a Satanic figure.
Cue bono? Not black people (actually she is an Indian, which until recently was a caste
society). Is she a victim of "affirmative action" policy and occupies a position for which there
are more worthy academically candidates. University is not sinecure, at least it should not
be.
How good is she as an academic? Is she mentally stable?
The decision of Cambridge University to promote her after such an idiotic tweet creates
several additional questions.
Petition against Prof Priyamvada Gopal now off line. Additionally I noticed earlier today
that the comments given on the site voicing why they were signing had all been removed, but not
on other petitions. As of yesterday evening these comments were peaceful, and not personal,
just things like 'because it is racist' and 'do I even need to give a reason'?
The petition had nearly 25,000 signed supporters earlier today, and new signings were
flooding in at over 1/sec when I checked.
In addition in an affront to common decency the University/College promoted her whilst
they had stated earlier they were aware of the controversial nature of her tweets.
Her original tweet was deleted by Twitter as a breach of community guidelines. She also
reports that, in spite of senselessly provoking people at a delicate time with racist tweets,
that the extremely racist responses she got from some far right people was being looked at by
the Police.
All in all this establishes a systematic problem. Being deliberately vague means you cannot
use context as a defence, and the context of all her tweets shows some extreme patterns of
thinking against certain groups that casts very considerable doubts on the validity of such a
defense. Moreover, context hasn't been a defence when others have been prosecuted for far less.
Nobody, including Cambridge academics, should be above the law.
To those people that think that what she said was justified because she was trying to
defend BLM from supposed alternative movements, all she in fact did do was to achieve the
opposite of that.
If one wishes to convey complex ideas a teacher of English in her position *must know* that
this requires a long form medium to provide argumentation, and that Twitter is no such place to
do it due to its character count. But taking in all the other comments she has made, its very
clear the double standards and overall bias that really does amount to overt prejudice.
At the very least she is so contradictory, immature and incompetent as to make a mockery
of her college and for that reason at minimum, she should lose her job. I'm sorry to say that
as well.
But something about this whole episode feels like a jumping the shark moment. I don't think
this is going away all that easily.
Wikipedia: (born 1968) is a Professor in the Faculty of English at the University of
Cambridge, where she is a Fellow of Churchill College. Her main teaching and research interests
are in colonial and postcolonial literature and theory, gender and feminism, Marxism and critical
race studies.
"She's racist. I think we need to stop this dumbass spiel that minorities cannot be racist
because they absolutely can. She is racist and is getting away with because she's not white.
That's just the fact of the matter."
"please recognize that this is completely unacceptable and indefensible? How are her students
supposed to feel safe?"
More racist tweets by Cambridge University Professor Priyamvada Gopal have been unearthed,
including one in which she spoke about her urge to "kneecap white men."
Gopal caused controversy last week when she tweeted "white lives don't matter," prompting a
petition demanding she be fired. However, Cambridge University responded by promoting her to a
full professorship, despite the fact that the tweet was censored by Twitter for hate
speech.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.392.0_en.html#goog_1310934887
NOW PLAYING
Beyoncé Dedicates BET Award To People Marching In BLM Protests
Viral Finland PM quote about US being under Russian control 'not true' | #TheCube
Twitter's Mislabels Useful Tweets About Coronavirus As They Try To Stop The Spread Of
Misinformation
Twitter's Mislabels Useful Tweets About Coronavirus As They Try To Stop The Spread Of
Misinformation
Judge in Loughlin Case: 'Disturbing' Defense Allegations
Hillary Clinton And John Legend To Honor America's Graduates In Star-Studded Podcast
Twitter Is Experimenting with a New 'Audio Tweet' Feature
California To Offer 150,000 Undocumented Workers Financial Relief Amid COVID-19 Outbreak
The media's reaction was to portray Gopal as the victim of bullying while feigning
infinitely greater outrage over a "white lives matter" banner that was flown over a soccer
match in Manchester.
More hateful tweets have now been discovered, including one discussion where Gopal states,
"I resist urges to kneecap white men every day. So, no **I** am the hero."
"Can @Cambridge_Uni please recognise that this is completely unacceptable and indefensible?
How are her students supposed to feel safe?" asked Emma Webb.
"She's racist. I think we need to stop this dumbass spiel that minorities cannot be racist
because they absolutely can. She is racist and is getting away with because she's not white.
That's just the fact of the matter," remarked Dominique Samuels.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1277617338326679552&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fwhite-lives-dont-matter-academic-i-resist-urges-kneecap-white-men&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Maybe these messages will lead to another petition demanding Gopal's removal. The first one
was deleted by Change.org after receiving over 20,000 signatures.
Cambridge University has stood by Gopal despite previously dismissing Noah Carl after 500
academics signed a letter challenging Carl's research on race and intelligence.
The institution also previously rescinded its offer of a visiting fellowship to Jordan
Peterson after a woke mob complained about his stance on political correctness and after he
appeared in a photograph with a man wearing a t-shirt that said "I'm a proud Islamophobe."
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me
disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter
here . Donate to me on
SubscribeStar here . Support my sponsor –
Turbo Force – a supercharged
boost of clean energy without the comedown.
A few thoughts on America's smash-hit #1 guide to egghead racialism...
A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools in America since
the early nineties was the view that individual rights, humanism, and the democratic process
are all just stalking-horses for white supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like
former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility (Amazon's #1 seller !)
reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power
contests.
It's been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it surged
past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today
cheered , "American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary
escapism." When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon
gushed , "I know everyone wants to talk to you right now!" White Fragility has been pitched
as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of George
Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this
isn't a straightforward book about examining one's own prejudices. Have the people hyping this
impressively crazy book actually read it?
DiAngelo isn't the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual
horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race
theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human
experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only
by our racial category.
If your category is "white," bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in
white supremacy ("Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities Whiteness has always
been predicated on blackness"), which naturally means "a positive white identity is an
impossible goal."
DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except "strive to be less white." To
deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo's
lecturing – what she describes as "leaving the stress-inducing situation" – is to
affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the "ordeal by water"
(if you float, you're a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.
DiAngelo's writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of
this type is built around the same principles as Orwell's Newspeak : it banishes ambiguity,
nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and
antiracist, platform and deplatform , center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series
of binary choices . Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like "
AMAZING !" and "
SAD !" that are
simultaneously more childish and livelier.
Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly nouns out of ugly
verbs (there are countless permutations on centering and privileging alone). In a world where
only a few ideas are considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. "To be less white is
to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the comfort of white
people," or "Ruth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness, describes
whiteness as multidimensional "
DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for speaking clearly. "When
there is disequilibrium in the habitus -- when social cues are unfamiliar and/or when they
challenge our capital -- we use strategies to regain our balance," she says ("People taken out
of their comfort zones find ways to deal," according to Google Translate). Ideas that go
through the English-DiAngelo translator usually end up significantly altered, as in this key
part of the book when she addresses Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream," speech:
One line of King's speech in particular -- that one day he might be judged by the content
of his character and not the color of his skin -- was seized upon by the white public because
the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend
that we don't see race, and racism will end. Color blindness was now promoted as the remedy
for racism, with white people insisting that they didn't see race or, if they did, that it
had no meaning to them.
That this speech was held up as the framework for American race relations for more than half
a century precisely because people of all races understood King to be referring to a difficult
and beautiful long-term goal worth pursuing is discounted, of course. White Fragility is based
upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their
character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one
another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. This is an important passage because
rejection of King's "dream" of racial harmony -- not even as a description of the obviously
flawed present, but as the aspirational goal of a better future -- has become a central tenet
of this brand of antiracist doctrine mainstream press outlets are rushing to embrace.
The book's most amazing passage concerns the story of Jackie Robinson:
The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by
rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often
celebrated as the first African American to break the color line
While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as
racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson
finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong
enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this:
"Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball."
There is not a single baseball fan anywhere – literally not one, except perhaps Robin
DiAngelo, I guess – who believes Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier because he
"finally had what it took to play with whites." Everyone familiar with this story understands
that Robinson had to be exceptional, both as a player and as a human being, to confront the
racist institution known as Major League Baseball. His story has always been understood as a
complex, long-developing political tale about overcoming violent systemic oppression. For
DiAngelo to suggest history should re-cast Robinson as "the first black man whites allowed to
play major league baseball" is grotesque and profoundly belittling.
Robinson's story moreover did not render "whites, white privilege, and racist institutions
invisible." It did the opposite. Robinson uncovered a generation of job inflation for mediocre
white ballplayers in a dramatic example of "privilege" that was keenly understood by baseball
fans of all races fifty years before White Fragility. Baseball statistics nerds have long been
arguing about whether to put asterisks next to
the records of white stars who never had to pitch to Josh Gibson, or hit against prime Satchel
Paige or Webster McDonald. Robinson's story, on every level, exposed and evangelized the truth
about the very forces DiAngelo argues it rendered "invisible."
It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the
mathematical opposite of one's intended point, but this isn't uncommon in White Fragility,
which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna
Karenina.
Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself "antiracism"
– I think it deserves that name a lot less than "pro-lifers" deserve theirs and am amazed
journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race
relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed
groups, allies, and white oppressors.
Where we reside on the spectrum of righteousness is, they say, almost entirely determined by
birth, a view probably shared by a lot of 4chan readers. With a full commitment to the program
of psychological ablutions outlined in the book, one may strive for a "less white identity,"
but again, DiAngelo explicitly rejects the Kingian goal of just trying to love one another as
impossible, for two people born with different skin colors.
This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy,
is the vision of "progress" institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why?
Maybe because it fits. It won't hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades
now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts
since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars.
Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture, have already embraced this
performative race politics as a useful tool for disciplining apostates like Bernie Sanders.
Bernie took off in presidential politics as a hard-charging crusader against a Wall
Street-fattened political establishment, and exited four years later a self-flagellating,
defeated old white man who seemed to regret not apologizing more for his third house. Clad in
kente cloth scarves, the Democrats who crushed him will burn up CSPAN with homilies on
privilege even as they reassure donors they'll stay away from Medicare for All or the carried
interest tax break.
For corporate America the calculation is simple. What's easier, giving up business models
based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There's a deal to
be made here, greased by the fact that the "antiracism" prophets promoted in books like White
Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, freedom
of speech, etc.
Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be
addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute
codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction.
If you're wondering what that might look like, here's DiAngelo explaining how she handled
the fallout from making a bad joke while she was "facilitating antiracism training" at the
office of one of her clients.
When one employee responds negatively to the training, DiAngelo quips the person must have
been put off by one of her Black female team members: "The white people," she says, "were
scared by Deborah's hair." (White priests of antiracism like DiAngelo seem universally to be
more awkward and clueless around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction
worker).
DiAngelo doesn't grasp the joke flopped and has to be told two days later that one of her
web developer clients was offended. In despair, she writes, "I seek out a friend who is white
and has a solid understanding of cross-racial dynamics."
After DiAngelo confesses her feelings of embarrassment, shame and guilt to the enlightened
white cross-racial dynamics expert (everyone should have such a person on speed-dial), she
approaches the offended web developer. She asks, "Would you be willing to grant me the
opportunity to repair the racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?" At which point
the web developer agrees, leading to a conversation establishing the parameters of
problematic joke resolution.
This dialogue straight
out of South Park – "Is it okay if I touch your penis? No, you may not touch my penis
at this time!" – has a good shot of becoming standard at every transnational corporation,
law firm, university, newsroom, etc.
Of course the upside such consultants can offer is an important one. Under pressure from
people like this, companies might address long-overdue inequities in boardroom diversity.
The downside, which we're already seeing, is that organizations everywhere will embrace
powerful new tools for solving professional disputes, through a never-ending purge. One of the
central tenets of DiAngelo's book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and
can only be managed through constant, "lifelong" vigilance, much like the
battle with addiction . A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced
toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts -- in the
fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.
NEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar
to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three
years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was
denounced for expressing the opinion that "anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to
imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the
Writer's Union of Canada for the crime of "cultural appropriation," and denounced as a racist
by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki "doesn't see the
humanity of indigenous peoples." Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing
to provide proof that she was Indigenous.
Michael Korenberg, the chair of the board at the University of British Columbia, was
forced to
resign for liking tweets by Dinesh D'Souza and Donald Trump, which you might think is fine
– but what about Latino electrical worker Emmanuel Cafferty, fired
after a white activist took a photo of him making an OK symbol (it was described online as a
"white power" sign)? How about Sue Schafer, the heretofore unknown graphic designer the
Washington Post decided to out in a 3000-word article for attending a Halloween party two
years ago in blackface (a failed parody of a different blackface incident involving Megyn
Kelly)? She was fired, of course. How was this news? Why was ruining this person's life
necessary?
People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and
colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a
salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of
"anti-black racism" to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to
start submarining each other's careers before they've even finished growing?
"People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don't want people
like that to keep getting jobs," one 16 year-old said.
"Someone rly started a Google doc of racists and their info for us to ruin their lives I
love twitter," wrote a different
person, adding cheery emojis.
A bizarre echo of North Korea's "
three generations of punishment " doctrine could be seen in the
boycotts of Holy Land grocery , a well-known hummus maker in Minneapolis. In recent weeks
it's been abandoned by clients and seen
its lease pulled because of racist tweets made by the CEO's 14 year-old daughter eight
years ago.
Parents calling out their kids is also in vogue. In Slate, "Making a Mountain Out of a
Molehill" wrote to advice columnist Michelle Herman in a letter headlined, " I
think I've screwed up the way my kids think about race ." The problem, the aggrieved parent
noted, was that his/her sons had gone to a diverse school, and their "closest friends are still
a mix of black, Hispanic, and white kids," which to them was natural. The parent worried when
one son was asked to fill out an application for a potential college roommate and expressed
annoyance at having to specify race, because "I don't care about race."
Clearly, a situation needing fixing! The parent asked if someone who didn't care about race
was "just as racist as someone who only has white friends" and asked if it was "too late" to do
anything. No fear, Herman wrote: it's never too late for kids like yours to educate themselves.
To help, she linked to a program of materials designed for just that purpose, a " Lesson
Plan for Being An Ally ," that included a month of readings of White Fragility. Hopefully
that kid with the Black and Hispanic friends can be cured!
This notion that color-blindness is itself racist, one of the main themes of White Fragility
, could have amazing consequences. In researching I Can't Breathe, I met civil rights activists
who recounted decades of struggle to remove race from the law. I heard stories of lawyers who
were physically threatened for years in places like rural Arkansas just for trying to end
explicit hiring and housing discrimination and other remnants of Jim Crow. Last week, an Oregon
County casually exempted "people of color
who have heightened concerns about racial profiling" from a Covid-19 related mask order. Who
thinks creating different laws for different racial categories is going to end well? When has
it ever?
At a time of catastrophe and national despair, when conservative nationalism is on the rise
and violent confrontation on the streets is becoming commonplace, it's extremely suspicious
that the books politicians, the press, university administrators, and corporate consultants
alike are asking us to read are urging us to put race even more at the center of our
identities, and fetishize the unbridgeable nature of our differences.
Meanwhile books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, which are
both beautiful and actually anti-racist, have been banned, for
containing the "N-word ." ( White Fragility contains it too, by the way).
It's almost like someone thinks there's a benefit to keeping people divided.
In a brilliant New York
Times op-ed from 2017 , Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote that identity politics
ironically enough gives whiteness a near-mystical power to mold and control the course of the
world in such a way that "those deemed white remain this nation's primary actors." White people
act, black people are acted upon. This is the way it's been and, if you ask the likes of
Ta-Nehisi Coates, this is the way it's going to remain for a long, long time. It was
unfortunate that Jones fell into the same fatalistic way of thinking.
But what felt like an argumentative misstep then is now the law of the land on the left, by
which activists like the indignant white woman from the Twitter video above reveal their actual
racism. It's the same sentiment informing those horrid Facebook posts by your friends.
What will be left to the wayside as a result is any meaningful attempt to tackle the issues
of overly aggressive policing, unemployment, low growth, dwindling incomes, existential
despair, and the
skyrocketing homicide rate that's been haunting our cities since the recent riots and the
subsequent retreat of police forces. Black lives are getting lost at staggering rates, and no
one who holds the public microphone seems to care.
...things have degenerated toward ahistorical acts of iconoclasm against the
author of the Declaration of Independence or the
Union general and later president who brought the rebellion to its knees and then crushed
the KKK. The target in all this is not so much some perceived historical injustice that
occurred in the distant past but the belief that "whiteness" has wiggled its way through time,
swallowing and destroying all that has stood in its way. It's the stony memorials to this
mythic, all-pervasive whiteness that therefore need to be toppled first before
anything else can change . And voila, we're way past addressing the real problems affecting
our country.
(Perhaps, it's the advance guard of Joe Biden's presidency. After all,
didn't he promise a room full of megarich donors that under his administration "nothing
would fundamentally change"?)
...a compassionate plea to black Americans -- really, to all Americans -- not to feel like
the deck is forever stacked against them. True change requires us to engage in meaningful civic
activity in order to regain a sense of agency that our corporate-sponsored anti-racist
figureheads insist remains confined to the hearts of entitled white progressives.
Otherwise, "we'll be back here in ten years having the same conversation."
Gregor Baszak is a PhD candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a
writer. His articles have appeared in The American Conservative, Los Angeles Review of Books,
Platypus Review, Public Books, Spectator USA, Spiked, and elsewhere. Follow Gregor on Twitter
at @gregorbas1.
The Clinton Crime bill was not a mistake. Anyone who's ever spent any amount of time on
the darker side of a major American city knows that "superpredators" are all too real. The
supreme irony over all this revisionist angst is that the mass incarceration of black
criminals is a massive boon to black communities, given that crime perpetrated by black men
overwhelmingly harms black people.
Superpredator? Sounds like a SciFi movie title. A swaggering, mean-talking street tough
who'll steal anything not nailed down or red hot doesn't qualify as Son of Godzilla.
No, "superpredator" was a term used by Hillary Clinton in 1993 to describe the hardcore
violent criminals who seemed so common at the time. Violent crime in America peaked in
1990. It was a major campaign issue beginning in 1968 and continuing through 1992, after
which crime decreased rapidly.
Saying that Lincoln is the "symbol of white supremacy" has about as much foundation as
saying Harvey Milk is the symbol of militant heterosexuality. Both were great leaders who were
killed at the height of campaigns for equality. As I discuss below, there are aspects of
Lincoln's legacy that are worthy of condemnation but even John Wilkes Booth would dispute the
claim of Lincoln as the embodiment of white supremacy.
America is in the midst of one of the great moral panics in our nation's history.
If we don't stand up
for our nation's core values, the situation could get even worse – and soon. If you've spent any time on social
media in the last three weeks, you've probably noticed the organized campaigns to get college and even
high
school
students expelled or denied admission based on their political views. You've also seen gleeful mobs
celebrating as Americans lose their jobs for running afoul of someone's momentary political obsessions.
In every sector of American society, people are having their careers destroyed to the pitiless baying of the
"woke" masses.
It's happening in business. CrossFit CEO Greg Glassman spent 20 years building the fitness
brand into a multi-billion dollar company, only to be
thrown
out
of the empire he built for declining to go along with the "racism is a public health crisis" dogma.
It's happening in journalism. New York Times editor James Bennet, a liberal, was
fired
for
publishing an op-ed by a sitting Republican senator advocating for a military response to nationwide rioting -- a
position the majority of Americans
agreed
with.
The same fate befell Philadelphia Inquirer editor Stan Wischowski, who was terminated for approving an article
that condemned looting and arson.
It's happening in
entertainment
,
in
academia
,
and pretty much anywhere someone can be found who is not sufficiently supportive of the Black Lives Matter
movement.
It's even happening to people who didn't do anything at all.
An L.A. Galaxy soccer player was forced to
resign because
his
wife
tweeted that rioters should be shot. A lawyer in San Francisco was fired because
his
wife
was rude to a man she
thought
was
spray-painting BLM propaganda on a building that wasn't his (it was). On Thursday, this Stasi-esque trend reached
another level when a company called Equity Prime Mortgage
fired
the
stepmother
of
the officer charged in the controversial shooting of drunk driver Rashad Brooks after he fought with and fired a
taser at police. The stepmother was apparently fired for no reason other than family loyalty.
On Monday, the panic reached what one can only hope will be its peak when a San Diego Gas and Electric employee
lost
his
job for "making a white supremacist hand gesture." We've
long
since debunked the notion that the OK sign is somehow racist -- that was just a fiction perpetrated by internet
trolls -- but in this case, this man lost his livelihood
despite the fact
he
wasn't even making an OK sign
. He was apparently cracking his knuckles as he drove.
What America is going through right now is not merely another, more intense round of "cancel culture." We're now
in the midst of a full-force, totalitarian remolding of our society, one that seeks to place the petty resentments
of an outraged minority of leftist activists above everything else in American life.
Because of their willingness
to riot, loot, and assault anyone they perceive to be insufficiently sympathetic to their cause, leftists are able
to bully ordinary people into submission. As a result, television shows such as "
Cops
" and
"
Live
PD
," classic films such as "Gone With the Wind," and iconic brands such as
Aunt
Jemima
,
Mrs.
Buttersworth
, and
Uncle
Ben's
rice are consigned to the "dustbin of history."
I used to speak frequently to nervous conservatives who were convinced that if we only allowed the left to tear
down Confederate war memorials, they would be satisfied. How quickly events have disproved that wishful thinking.
From Christopher
Columbus
,
George
Washington
,
Thomas
Jefferson
,
and the western
pioneers
,
activists are now coming after cartoon
sports
mascots
and college
fight
songs
.
Everything
--
from the core of our country's history to the values and norms undergirding American culture -- must be
uprooted to appease the mob.
They are tearing down dozens of statues and facing no consequences whatsoever for vandalizing our public spaces --
including memorials to our nation's greatest heroes. When private citizens try to do the job the government won't
and protect our culture, our history, and our public property from destruction, local officials step in and
remove
the
statues on behalf of the vandals, lest they injure themselves while imitating Iraqis celebrating the fall of
Saddam Hussein.
These people are not seeking change at the margins. They are demanding a total cultural revolution, and cowardly
public officials are giving it to them.
If you look at this national outpouring of hatred and
recrimination with horror verging on despair, I assure you that you are not alone. Tens of millions of Americans
feel exactly the same way.
President Trump is doing exactly what an American president should do in a crisis like this. He is working to
maintain law and order and prevent cowed local officials from allowing political violence to flare again. He
issued an executive order to add to his legacy of reform and address legitimate concerns about law enforcement in
this country. He also issued a separate executive order targeting the systemic bias in Silicon Valley's censorship
offices, which has allowed our social media platforms to become echo chambers for left-wing extremism and "cancel
culture."
The only thing that could make the situation worse at this moment would be handing the White House to a doddering
and unprincipled establishment politician beholden to the "cancel culture" mob.
Presumptive Democratic
nominee Joe Biden would immediately delegate
de
facto
control over the vast justice, civil rights, and regulatory apparatus of the federal government to the
loudest voices in his coalition: the woke activist class.
At this moment, there is a veritable army of lawyers and bureaucrats who have spent the last three and a half
years subsisting on resentment and salivating at the prospect of regaining power.
Things are bad enough
now, but conditions will become much worse if the "cancel culture" born on social media is augmented with the
force of law and given the full attention of Biden appointees imbued with the sweeping powers of the federal
bureaucracy.
Dark forces have been unleashed in this country. Even now, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
If
we don't want to find out how much damage it can inflict on the ship of state, we must prevent those forces from
taking control of the federal government.
Delay
,
5 minutes ago
FTA: there is a veritable army
of lawyers and bureaucrats who have spent the last three and a half years subsisting on resentment and
salivating at the prospect of regaining power.
They are not merely subsisting, they have paid themselves well and have accumulated substantial tangible
wealth. Their homes are similar to oases in a desert of despair. The army of lawyers and bureaucrats
think they have all their problems under control by giving tax money to their black servants. The fact is
Latinos, Chinese, Moldovans and even their viziers say to themselves, "When you see an amazing
opportunity for looting, but you are not sure you can do it, just do it."
Secret Weapon
,
53 minutes ago
BLM/Antifa is a replay of Mao's Red guards. They revved up the college students and set them loose upon the
countryside. It worked in China. Will it work here? Second Amendment is the wild card in the deck. Funny
thing was, once Mao was done with the Red Guard, he had all of them executed. He did not trust them.
Blondefire
,
1 hour ago
The cancel culture is emboldened because they are, for the most part, getting away with it. They saw
Hillary's classified email debacle go unpunished, the Uranium One sale go unpunished, Fast and Furious go
unpunished, Benghazi go unpunished, the attempted coup go unpunished, and they realized they can
literally get away with anything. Now vandalism, theft, riot, arson and anarchy are not only unpunished
but glorified in the msm while police officers are being led away in handcuffs. Tomorrow is not the day to
regain control, Q isn't going to release some new documents next week and save us. We need to act today,
right now, with overwhelming force, against all enemies foreign and domestic.
CNN
10.1M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Ethan Wayne, son of actor John Wayne, reacts to calls to remove his father's name from John Wayne Airport after
inflammatory quotes resurfaced from an interview the actor did in Playboy Magazine in 1971.
#CNN
#News
I went to school in Mexico for a while and I loved it. I think that we need to invade Mexico and take the land that they are
selfishly trying to keep for themselves.
John
Wayne was a figment of America's imagination. He served in the imaginary military ( not in the real military) and countless
imaginary battles from the Alamo to Viet Nam. He was nothing but a propagandist for the military and right wing conservatives.
His name shouldn't be on anything but his tombstone.
I still like John Wayne's movies but I never listened to his personal speak. He tried to be political but he should have
stayed out of it. He was an actor. Yes, he sounds like a racist and white supremists
"... Statues of Confederate generals have been taken down or vandalized, and President Donald Trump has responded with an executive order promising harsh punishments for those who continue committing the acts. ..."
Democrats are calling for John Wayne Airport in Orange County to be renamed in protest of the
long-dead actor's alleged racism, making him the latest historical figure being judged by today's
cultural standards.
"There have been past efforts to get this done and now we're putting our name and our backing into
this to make sure there is a name change,"
said Ada Briceño, chairperson of the Democratic Party
of Orange County, following a resolution being passed calling for the airport to be be given the
simple name: Orange County Airport.
Wayne's specific transgression are
"racist and bigoted
statements"
made during a Playboy interview in 1971, eight years before The Duke passed away at
the age of 72. The airport was named after the actor the year he died.
In the infamous interview with Playboy, Wayne made comments that have long been controversial,
though admittedly harsher and more extreme than in other public conversations.
"I believe in white supremacy until the Blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I
don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,"
the 'True Grit' star said at one point.
If we're looking to name airports only after people who were without sin,
then we'd better drop all their names and let them be known simply by their three-letter IATA
codes. John Wayne was no saint, but he still contributed in a positive way to American pop
culture history. https://t.co/l5KD5kXuGg
The Western star also made derogatory comments about Native Americans.
"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. [O]ur so-called
stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival," he said.
"There were great
numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for
themselves."
The resolution from Democrats fully acknowledges the removal of Wayne's name is part of a larger
effort to axe
"white supremacist symbols and names [that are] reshaping American institutions,
monuments, businesses, nonprofits, sports leagues, and teams."
As protests against police brutality and racism rage across the nation in the wake of George
Floyd's death, more and more historical figures with monuments and landmarks memorializing them have
been targeted.
Statues of Confederate generals have been taken down or vandalized, and President Donald Trump has
responded with an executive order promising harsh punishments for those who continue committing the
acts.
As has been the case with other figures of the past being held to today's standards, some
questioned the logic of targeting Wayne decades after his death.
"Of course, John Wayne was racist. By the hyper sensitive standards of today, just about every
person who has ever lived was racist,"
conservative journalist John Hawkins
tweeted
.
The truth is that it is Maidan -- a legitimate protest which was turned to nefarious goals by Neoliberal Dems and financed by
usual suspects (Soros, Ford Foundation and other CIA influenced outlets)
Notable quotes:
"... The idea of the protests as an "American Maidan" was reflected in the Komsomolskaya Pravda ..."
"... Several elements of the pro-Kremlin English-language ecosystem are based in the US. Fort-Russ News, another frequent contributor to the EUvsDisinfo database , is also ready to describe the protests in the US as staged by the Democratic Party: ..."
South Front has a
clear picture of the protests: it's a colour revolution, a fake popular uprising, set up
by "Globalist Corporations" targeting Donald Trump.
The situation is such that typically, it was a standoff of US President Donald Trump
and the US national industry, in a standoff against the globalist and the non-mainstream
corporations.
Today's fires which have spread across America in the wake of George Floyd's murder at
the knee of Minnesota police officer Derick Chauvin has presented America with the chance to
do some serious soul searching. It has also presented certain Deep State opportunists, color
revolutionaries and anarchism-financing billionaires a chance to unleash what some are
calling an "America's Maidan" in the hopes of accomplishing what four years of Russiagate
failed to do.
The idea of the protests as an "American Maidan" was reflected in the Komsomolskaya Pravda , Russia's largest
daily, with a circulation that puts it in top-20 in Europe. An openly racist version of the
text was spread by Margarita
Simonyan , the editor-in-chief of RT and Sputnik, as reported by the
EUvsDisinfo . The text, endorsed by Ms. Simonyan, ends:
Send runners everywhere, call to the World. Be assured – in this very minute a
slow coup d'etat is played out by the bureaucrats in the White House. If the Americans will
take my advice into consideration, I hope we can see the United States becoming a real
Ukraine. Good luck, friends! The entire progressive humankind is with you! Beat the whites
until they turn black.
Several elements of the pro-Kremlin English-language ecosystem are based in the US.
Fort-Russ News, another frequent contributor to the EUvsDisinfo database , is
also
ready to describe the protests in the US as staged by the Democratic Party:
This color revolution is a DNC coup against constitutional government.
A particularly special outlet is the US-based, Russian nationalist site Russia Insider.
EUvsDisinfo reported on the site's
decision to adopt an openly anti-Semitic editorial policy in 2018, and it is a frequent
contributor to the disinformation database. The site has no visible connections to Russian
state structures, but is demonstratively loyal to key Kremlin priorities. Russia Insider has
gone fully racist on the protests, giving room for white supremacists:
Why is Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who is Jewish, actively encouraging the mobs
burning down his police department's precinct? Why is the President of the United States
reduced to impotently begging
Yoel Roth to let him tweet? Why has Trump decided to letMinneapolis burnas he cowers under his desk inside theWhite House, all while the NYPD under "woke" Bill De Blasioviciously
brutalizespeople protesting for the same cause? Traditional understandings of how
power is brokered and administrated do not apply.
[ -- ]
All white people are targets, no white person can expect either of the existing parties
to the rescue. When November comes around, we must vote no-confidence. This is America, and
its system is out to destroy you.
This is not Kremlin policy. It is impossible to claim that the Kremlin has an explicitly
racist agenda, but the pro-Kremlin disinformation network reaches out to a great variety of
audiences, with which it seeks to find distinct avenues of appeal. Sites affiliated with state
structures share content and contributors with sites without any visible connections to the
Kremlin. A Red, White and Blue All-American Maidan.
Supporting and Attacking Antifa
Creating rapport with white supremacists works just as well as reaching out to leftist,
anti-capitalist groups and individuals; like here :
It is entirely believable that the current violence is largely instigated. The media
obediently relayed Attorney General Barr's claim that rioting was led by the anti-fascist
groups known as 'Anti-Fa', until proof was uncovered of a deliberate White House/White
Nationalist plan to provoke violence by unsuspecting protesters who long ago forgot if they
even knew it, that Donald Trump's most powerful backers in 2016 ranged from David Duke, the
Grand Wizard (sic) of the Ku Klux Klan, to the white nationalist millionaire hedge fund owner
Robert Mercer, who hand-picked several of Trump's initial cabinet.
So while one part of the pro-Kremlin network defends the Antifa movement, the
above-mentioned Russia Insider
vehemently attacks it :
Antifa, the extreme anarchist-communist movement, has rioting down to an art. The first
broken window is the blood in the water for looters to move in. When the looting is done,
those carrying flammable chemicals start fires to finish the job. Footage recorded in
Minneapolis and other cities show militants dressed in black bloc -- the antifa uniform --
wielding weapons like hammers or sticks to smash windows. You see their graffiti daubed on
smashed up buildings: FTP means 'Fuck the Police'; ACAB stands for 'All Cops Are Bastards';
1312 is the numerical code for ACAB.
Was Floyd chokehold it staged at least partially, but then went wrong because Floyd has high level of fentanyl in his blood ?
Autopsy shows
George Floyd had COVID-19, meth & fentanyl in his - NBC2 News (The autopsy, which was performed the day after his death, showed
11 ng/mL of fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamines, in addition to 86 ng/mL of morphine and other substances.)
Notable quotes:
"... It would be hard to choreograph a film scene more likely to provoke a backlash against police than the killing of George Floyd. White Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin was filmed kneeling on the handcuffed black man's neck for an excruciating eight minutes, all but smirking directly into the camera as if he knew it was his big moment of stardom. Ever since, public opinion of the police has been pummeled by a non-stop stream of on-camera brutality, and cries to defund police forces across the country are reaching fever pitch. ..."
"... With so much public outrage against police abuses, one might think that police departments would be hurrying to clean house and get rid of their " bad apples. " Accountability – punishing the truly bad cops in court with prison sentences rather than desk duty or dismissal from the force – would seem to be the only alternative to defunding. Incremental reforms, like the rollout of body cameras and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's move to outlaw chokeholds that were already banned by the NYPD in 1993, are clearly not having the desired effect. But police departments have resoundingly failed to hold their officers accountable, and so – with a handful of exceptions – have courts. Instead, the violence has only gotten more alarming. ..."
"... It's worth asking why these officers engage in such disturbing acts of violence, knowing they'll be on social media and probably the nightly news, providing a glowing advertisement for police abolition. Surely they aren't all the racist sociopaths Black Lives Matter has, with its " All Cops Are Bastards " slogan, dubbed them? ..."
"... cops in the past have gone to great (and possibly illegal) lengths to stop civilians from filming them in the act of abusing their authority. The man who filmed the 2014 police chokehold killing of Eric Garner even sued New York City two years later over alleged retaliation by the cops, claiming he was arrested on trumped-up charges for documenting the brutal act. ..."
"... Yet 2020's over-the-top bad cops seem unconcerned with amateur cinematographers. One might expect officers to be on their best behavior post-George Floyd, not auditioning for a spot on the now-cancelled COPS reality show. ..."
Over-the-top gratuitous violence against unarmed protesters, shockingly racist conversations, all of
it somehow recorded for posterity (and maximum virality) – are American police TRYING to get their
profession abolished?
While police brutality has been an ugly reality for as long as the US has had police, the cartoonish
levels of on-camera police violence circulating on social media in the last month are truly
mind-boggling. Suddenly, there is no better advertisement for the police-abolition movement than the
police themselves.
Defenders of the police tend to blame the "
few bad apples
" who shoot
fleeing suspects, choke innocent men, or pepper-spray peaceful demonstrators for cops' bad reputation.
But that absolves from responsibility the supposed "
good apples
" who have repeatedly closed
ranks around those same problem officers, even as their unconscionable assaults are caught on film and
broadcast to the world.
It would be hard to choreograph a film scene more likely to provoke a backlash against police than
the killing of George Floyd. White Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin was filmed kneeling on the handcuffed
black man's neck for an excruciating eight minutes, all but smirking directly into the camera as if he
knew it was his big moment of stardom. Ever since, public opinion of the police has been pummeled by a
non-stop stream of on-camera brutality, and cries to defund police forces across the country are
reaching fever pitch.
With so much public outrage against police abuses, one might think that police departments would be
hurrying to clean house and get rid of their "
bad apples.
" Accountability – punishing the
truly bad cops in court with prison sentences rather than desk duty or dismissal from the force –
would seem to be the only alternative to defunding. Incremental reforms, like the rollout of body
cameras and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's move to outlaw chokeholds that were already banned by the
NYPD in 1993, are clearly not having the desired effect. But police departments have resoundingly
failed to hold their officers accountable, and so – with a handful of
exceptions
– have courts. Instead, the violence has only gotten more alarming.
It's worth asking why these officers engage in such disturbing acts of violence, knowing they'll be
on social media and probably the nightly news, providing a glowing advertisement for police abolition.
Surely they aren't all the racist sociopaths Black Lives Matter has, with its "
All Cops Are
Bastards
" slogan, dubbed them?
It's hard in 2020 to find a public place where there isn't at least one camera on the scene -
though that didn't stop Louisville cops from shutting off their body cameras before local barbecue
owner David McAtee was shot, allegedly with a National Guard bullet, earlier this month, an incident
that remains under investigation. But cops in the past have gone to great (and possibly illegal)
lengths
to stop civilians from filming them in the act of abusing their authority. The man who
filmed the 2014 police chokehold killing of Eric Garner even sued New York City two years later over
alleged retaliation by the cops, claiming he was arrested on trumped-up charges for documenting the
brutal act.
Yet 2020's over-the-top bad cops seem unconcerned with amateur cinematographers. One might expect
officers to be on their best behavior post-George Floyd, not auditioning for a spot on the
now-cancelled COPS reality show.
Even nonviolent policing incidents seem designed to incite popular outrage. The bizarre arrest of a
CNN reporter covering the early unrest in Minneapolis – in which sheepish-sounding officers
apologetically informed correspondent Omar Jimenez that he was under arrest while live on the air –
elicited predictable cries of free speech suppression and a groveling apology from Minnesota Governor
Tim Walz.
And were the three North Carolina cops – referred to as "
veteran officers
" of the
Wilmington Police Department and fired earlier this week after their disturbingly racist chats were
recorded via "
accidental activation
" of a dashboard camera – really unaware those cameras
could be inadvertently triggered? Why indulge in multiple in-car hatefests when you know you're under
surveillance?
None of this adds up. Even as more communities seem to warm to the notion of "
defunding the
police
," it remains unclear what will replace them. Are we looking at a future of empowered
community snitches
, each snooping on the next in the hope of being rewarded by local government
for catching a crime in progress? Or are the rich merely going to hire Blackwater-style mercs to guard
their compounds while the poor rob and kill each other in the streets? Americans deserve some answers
– preferably before our police departments are dissolved.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
It's all hypocracy, fakery, flim flam and bamboozle. As some old sage once said, you can fool
some of the people all of the time. It's all about the money. ( It always is )
I'm not a conservative, no way; I am not a supporter of the current regime. I think that a
revolution – even the fake one, organized by Soros out of the GayLib crowd, lightly
sprinkled with Africans for colour – will do some good for America and the world. The
American troops are already leaving
Germany after only 75 years of occupation. There are more than 100 major bases overseas
that can be evacuated if the revolution persists. Fine and dandy.
But, Mr Hopkins, do not tell Trump that he has chosen the right survival strategy. As if
everyone will respect his authority if he doesn't get provoked. Let's be frank, comrade. Tell
Trump: if his main consideration is first of all not to be called a 'bloody tyrant' by a
liberal site, there is a place for him in hospitable Rostov, next to Yanukovych. Let him
decide. He can buy a villa over there for a good price.
Alternatively, let him try to regain some ground, and if he is called Hitler by some freaks,
let him answer with 'no more Mr Nice Guy', like the protagonist in Mel Brooks' film The
Producers . Let him defeat the colour Revolution of Masks, before it devours him.
Our colleague Andre VItchek
suggested we should not describe the process going on in the US, as a 'colour revolution'.
Firstly, the protesters shouldn't be discouraged, let alone ridiculed. Secondly, all these
revolutions are different, he says. These are weak arguments. First, I endeavour to understand
and explain events, and I leave encouragement to others. Second, colour revolutions are
revolutions made for the benefit of oligarchy. They remove the ruler who is too strong-willed
or social-minded for the billionaires' liking. And they utilise legitimate grievances of the
people. They ride on the people like a rider rides a horse. It means that a colour revolution
can shift and turn into the real thing, like a horse can throw down the rider and gallop away,
but this is not the usual turn of events.
The Mask Revolution in the US has too strong a support from corporations to be anything else
but a colour revolution. "Black Lives Matter Receives $100 Million from Foundations, in
addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from George
Soros through his Open Society Foundations", says Policemag
(the article was removed but can be accessed via archives.com.)
It can't be decoupled from the Covid pandemic, or rather, from the lockdowns. These unusual
means of disease control are deadly for small businesses and for free-lancers. Big corporations
survive and even grow fat; small ones die. Control over the population increases. Free-lancers
are forced to join the regular labour force and work for a large corporation; or die. The
actors of the revolution will be destroyed by the success of their enterprise. We shall know
the revolution became a real one, when the revolutionaries fight the corporations. Likewise,
the enemies of the colour revolution should not fight Blacks and minorities; they should fight
the corporations that use the Blacks as their cannon fodder.
Because of this connection between lockdowns and the Mask Revolution, Trump should end the
lockdowns. If there is one thing we have learned from first half of the year it is that
lockdowns do not help. We have to live with the virus, even if it that means dying. If you have
no lockdown, you'll have no second wave. The Swedes did it; everybody can do it. Those who want
to lock us down would lock us down forever.
And now, another reason why I disagree with Vltchek. It is not that BLM or DNC are better or
worse than Trump's warriors. DNC and BLM are close to a hegemonic power. They are loved by the
media, by the Masters of Discourse. If the Democratic candidate wins the 2020 elections, the
West will be united behind him. He will humiliate China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran; the
Deplorable will be deplored; European nationalists will be eliminated; the New World Order will
proceed at double speed. No, thank you, Andre. It is better to have America and the West
divided under Trump rather than united under the DNC.
No matter what Trump and the Republicans do to all of these coping plan-trusters (including
Shamir), they will never be held to account, never be questioned for their serial betrayals
of the base, because "Democrats worse."
Foreign observers are welcome to their relatively uninformed opinions but those of us
who've grown up and been forced to live under generations of kosher sandwich U.S. politics
– two parties for Jews, none for us – have had enough.
Trump loses in November, bigly. The legitimacy of every American institution has been
exhausted and the faith of the people in the entire American project is at a modern,if not
all time low.
Even in the Civil War, patriots of both sides believed in their respective governments. A
strong majority of Americans left and right have nothing left to believe in at all –
except ourselves.
Trump should have listened to his own speeches from his own election campaign 2016, and
follow them to the letter.
If he had done that, he could fill five stadiums and would be on the way to a big election
victory. However, the reality was different. He went back on his promises and betrayed his
team – so his base (what's left of it) rightly no longer trusts him. Fool me once.
Anyway, 2020 US elections will probably be an exercise in chaos, since the whole BLM, SJW,
CHAZ flag burning, violence and statue toppling has moved out onto the streets.
Black Lives Matter Receives $100 Million from Foundations, in addition to more than $33
million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from George Soros through his Open
Society Foundations
How long before they blow through all that loot? Or more likely, have it all stolen by their
(((accountant)))? We all know blacks can't count, especially with so many zeros behind a
number.
Do not bother with racism or anti-racism. It is a faux-agenda, like gay or homophobe, like
fem or trans, like toilet gendering. Real people aren't interested in this sort of nonsense.
Blacks are not interested in anti-racism, either. It is mainly White Wokes that are, and they
will follow whatever the newspaper tells them to follow. Seattle has very few blacks but many
Wokes, that's why it is the centre of the 'anti-racist' campaign. Even if Trump went around
kissing the sneakers of black youngsters, he wouldn't change anything. Blacks are not hostile
to him, not at all, but people who speak for them, the Dem Wokes, definitely are.
TBH, I have grown to hate the GOP even more than I hate the DNC.
The only thing on our menu is the kosher sandwich.
trump has done virtually nothing for white people. In fact I could make a good argument that
things were better under Obama.
Things are so bad now I can barely go to sleep at night and I can barely get up in the
morning.
The rioting and burning and looting and killing was bad enough, but the destruction of our
statues is like daggers stabbing me in the back. And to think that the entire fucking GOP sits
and WATCHES and does NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The United States government is no longer legitimate. They can't even protect the citizens
and this is the very LEAST that we ask of those bastards. Idiots give trump a pass because it's
"Democrat cities being destroyed." Well ..I live in a Democrat city and my life matters
too.
Fuck trump. trump is part of the deep state. trump is a swamp creature. The idea that he
would actually do something against Antifa is absurd. Antifa and BLM are shock troops for the
jews.
trump WORKS for the jews, does the bidding of the jews.
Antifa attacks white men, nothing happens.
White men defend themselves against Antifa, white men go to jail.
Fuck trump.
We now live in an apartheid state where whites have no rights yet must follow the law, while
non-whites can do whatever the fuck they want.
I can't however decipher the following: "If the Democratic candidate wins the 2020
elections, the West will be united behind him. He will humiliate China, Russia, Venezuela,
Iran; the Deplorable will be deplored; European nationalists will be eliminated; the New World
Order will proceed at double speed. "
Why would the DNC puppet humiliate China when the DNC puppeteers made of China what it is
today. Aside from industrializing China (while the West, especially the US, was
deindustrialized) and the decade-long of technology transfer (read: theft) from the West to
China, the City of London (who paradoxically also waged successive phases of opium wars on
China*) has backed the Chinese Yuan since 1913 (coincidentally, the same year they created the
US Fed).
The same goes for Iran, it would be inaccurate to think of it as a monolithic entity. Iran
is divided between the Rouhani clan (who support the Muslim Brotherhood (a British intelligence
creation modeled on the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry) and who hoped Hillary came to power)) and
the Revolutionary Guards.
_____
* The British Empire's drug money launderer in Hong Kong, Jardines, still bears the opium
poppy flower as its logo. https://www.jardines.com
Very sensible stuff, Shamir. Thanks. High time we all jumped off the phony racism express. A
Pew poll shows 46% of the BLM/Antifa mob are White, fewer than 20% Black. Who are those
anti-White, anti-Tradition Whites? Could they be exactly what they look like -- affluent
anti-Trump suburbanites fanning arson and riots with copious financing from Soros and the
various other oligarchic foundations built by stateless corporate interests? I sure do agree
with you that this is a fresh attempt to putsch Trump out of office and get his deplorables
back under lock, key and mask.
And, yes, the problem with Trump is that he's all bark and no bite. He was elected because
his bark resonated with the concerns of millions of sane, normal Americans who have had a
snootful of globalism, deindustrialization, open borders and forever wars. Then he packed his
government with their enemies and got a knife in the back from each one of them. Trump framed
the issues but forgot to lead.
A quick look at the economic desolation left by the lockdown hoax and the physical chaos
left by the racism hoax is now persuading even Black leaders to wash their hands of this
nonsense. Thousands of Black soldiers and cops would gladly join them. They are the natural
allies of the Deplorables against the wealthy interests tearing the country apart. But who is
going to lead them? Our welfare-warfare regime leaves no alternative to Trump's bark. But when
is he going to bite?
Trump is a minion of the Deep State something the author and many other Trump apologists
fail to understand.
Even this is giving Orange Buffoon too much credit. I never sensed guile, just a man with no
real plan. That the atrocious kushner continues to infest the WH is proof-positive Trump can't
separate family from the aloneness required for leadership.
Follow RT on
All the riots, toppled statues and attacks on American history will not end in the Year Zero the
protesters want. It's going to achieve precisely the opposite, as the silent majority of Americans
will show in November.
The silent majority is one of the biggest X factors in American politics. Possibly even the biggest.
Not all Americans are the type to shout everything from the high heavens, even though we have a
reputation for being brash and loud. Many of us would rather let our actions do the talking than our
words.
With the presidential election less than 150 days away, the left needs to reconsider where
it's going and what it's enabling. And whether it wants the nation to dump Trump, as its supporters
say they're passionate about achieving.
The poll numbers are hardly surprising. Biden tends to range anywhere from 42 to 56, whereas Trump
is anywhere from 37 to 48 percent,
according to Five Thirty Eight
.This is no different to how it was in 2016, when the
polls
showed Hillary Clinton routinely holding double-digit leads over Trump.
After he won (albeit with a smaller number of votes than Clinton secured), there was a lot of
pondering about how exactly the polls got it wrong, and it all came down to the same conclusion: the
silent majority. That large swath of Americans who weren't vocal about who they were going to vote
for, but weren't pleased with how the country was going and let their actions speak for themselves.
During the course of the past four years, the political left in America has learnt zero lessons
from their loss in 2016. If anything, they've become even less. CNN personality Don Lemon
has even gone to bat for Antifa
.
There are constant statements in the liberal press that there's some sort of deep-seated racism
that's inherent to the United States. So much so that the Pulitzer Prize honoring journalism and the
arts went to The 1619 Project,
a historically inaccurate
and easily debunked piece about the history of slavery in the United
States. Then came the death of George Floyd.
Since that moment, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has been working to enact a sort of Year
Zero, targeting monuments across the country to deface or destroy them. This, of course, comes after
the mass riots agitated by Antifa that saw many cities in flames. And then there's the creation of the
CHAZ/CHOP autonomous area in Seattle, which is
reportedly
about to be shut down by the mayor.
Where is the condemnation from the Joe Biden camp? Where is the condemnation from the left in
general? Where is their support for the police? Why aren't any of them calling for BLM – an avowedly
Marxist group, the aims of which include the overthrowing of capitalism – to stop encouraging this or
for Antifa to be declared a terrorist group, or declaring how bad an idea an autonomous, police-free
zone is? The answer? They're nowhere. In fact, Nancy Pelosi tried to place the murder of George Floyd
at the feet of Republicans
.
Here is what the left does not understand. Its unwillingness to call out these Marxist groups and
their actions doesn't go unnoticed. There's a reason Trump rallies sell out the way they do. There's a
reason why he won in 2016 and could just as easily have a poll-defying victory again. That reason is
simple: Americans take notice of what's around them and realize who's in charge and who's failing.
It's been speculated that the 2016 election was an indictment of HIllary Clinton, but I'm not sure
I agree. I think it was an indictment of the left in general. During the Barack Obama presidency,
"flyover country" was constantly demeaned as being racist and backwards. With Hillary Clinton, it was
no different, and people were sick of it. Now, it's gone far beyond that. Not only are there groups
that actually believe America is a deeply racist and oppressive nation (the opposite of reality), but
they want to destroy it and create something new. If you look at CHAZ/CHOP, it's rather obvious that
they can't even plant a crop, let alone run a country.
The United States does not want a Year Zero. Ours is a nation with a heritage most Americans are
proud of, and we're proud of the oppression we've defeated over the years. Erasing that history only
means we'd be doomed to repeat it.
As such, the polls are likely going to remain the same until the election. At that point, the
silence will be deafening. Americans will pull the cord for Republicans, and we'll have another 2016
on our hands. All because the left would not stand up to the radicals who want to destroy the nation.
Can leftists and conservatives of our modern era peacefully coexist within the same
society?
If someone asked me this question only ten years ago I would have said "Sure, it's
possible".
Today, the answer is a resounding "No way".
The political divide has become so vast that there is simply no chance for the two sides to
reconcile or come to reasonable terms, and make no mistake, this is not a two-sided disaster;
the majority of the damage is being done by one side of this equation.
Back in 2016 I wrote numerous articles discussing the issues and dangers of the political
divide that was developing within the US, and many of these articles focused on who actually
benefits. In my article
'Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost' I stated:
" When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention
that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking
near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has
been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural
Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is
a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.
When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger
scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting
fascism. Ironically, it will be this behavior by leftists that may actually push
conservatives towards a fascist model. Conservatives might decide to fight crazy with more
crazy."
The transformation I described in 2016 is now happening in 2020. The left is going full
communist, with a little help of course. Currently, the Cultural Marxists are seeking to clean
house within their own ranks. They are terrorizing long time Democrats and "allies" of the
movement into subscribing to ALL the tenets of the new social justice religion. No deviation is
allowed; all progressives must declare fealty and signal their virtue and submission or they
are systematically targeted and destroyed. It is essentially coercion by cancel culture.
After this phase is over and they have organized the political left into an army of mindless
drones, they will fully turn their attention to conservatives.
To be clear, social justice movements are not the primary threat, they are merely a symptom
of the disease - A cancer called "globalism". These people are being used as a weapon of
expediency, nothing more. There is an open and admitted organized effort on the part of a tiny
minority of power brokers and money elites in our society that seek to manipulate the public
into accepting the notion of total centralization and the end of personal liberty and national
sovereignty in the name of an arbitrary "greater good". This is not "conspiracy theory", this
is conspiracy fact.
As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International
Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission,
wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation's (CFR) journal Foreign
Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled 'Hard Road To World Order':
" In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather
than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use
William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal
assault."
It is my view, according to the evidence, that the social justice left is a cultivated
threat, a product of the gatekeepers of Cultural Marxism that has been gestated over decades
to the stage we now see today – a mass movement of useful idiots, insane narcissists
and sociopaths obsessed with identity politics and the destruction of the "old world".
It was globalist institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation that
funded different elements of the feminist movement and "gender studies" movements from the
late 1960's onward. This included the Rockefeller Foundation's large donations to 'The
Feminist Press' and the Ford Foundation's programs to indoctrinate teachers into injecting
social justice talking points into their curriculum. This is openly admitted in Alison R.
Bernstein's book
'Funding The Future: Philanthropy's Influence On America's Higher Education' . Bernstein
is the vice president of Education at the Ford Foundation and the former Associate Dean of
Faculty at Princeton.
That's right folks, social justice activism was paid for and encouraged by the so-called
"patriarchy". This is the reality, and it never stopped. Even today SJW groups are funded by
globalists.
For example, as the mainstream media often tries to dismiss or ignore, Black Lives Matter
was initially funded by the
Ford Foundation and George Soros and his Open Society Foundation . BLM coffers were
flooded with over $100 million from uber rich white elites. Again, this is a FACT that even
the dishonest spin doctors at Snopes were not able to deny. Instead, they attempt to use
strawman arguments and sophistry to distract from the implication of extreme-left mobs
receiving seed money from elitist billionaires.
As noted, the political left is being weaponized, but to what end? To understand the end
game we have to understand the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic and "problem - reaction -
solution".
If there is one behavior that stands out above all others as a defining trait of the social
justice left, in my opinion it is their obsession with exploiting tragedy and crisis for their
own personal and political gain. The George Floyd incident, a terrible event to be sure, should
have been held up as a prime example of police abuse, yet it was immediately twisted by BLM
into an issue of "systemic racism". There is no proof of systemic racism. There's not even any
proof that George Floyd was killed because he was black.
Police abuse is something which concerns every American equally, not just black Americans.
But the BLM has obscured the real issue of police accountability and made it about the delusion
of "white supremacy" and an attack on basically every element of American heritage and
tradition. This will alienate millions of Americans who would have otherwise agreed to certain
points and arguments. The narrative was hijacked by the political left and they reveled in the
death of George Floyd as a means to push numerous unrelated agendas forward as quickly as
possible.
These agendas include a vast array of censorship in social media and the firestorm of cancel
culture, threatening anyone who does not agree with the prevailing leftist narrative. People
are losing their platforms, their jobs, and their reputations are being dragged through the
mud, and the mainstream media is helping to make this happen.
Now, as a true conservative, I respect the boundaries of private property, and to be sure, a
website is indeed private property. A social media company has the right to remove people and
content they don't like, just as any person has the right to remove someone they don't like
from their home. That said, there are some exceptions to this.
For example, when a company has a monopoly over a certain means of communication, then
censorship becomes a legal and moral problem and that company must be either limited or broken
up. Monopolies are not natural functions of a free market, they are attempts by elites to
subvert free markets. Corporations in general receive their charters from government, along
with the protections of limited liability and corporate personhood. They are not a natural part
of the economy, they are aberrations created by government. They are children of socialism, not
"capitalism".
If we are to solve the current problem in the long term, corporations must either be
regulated or abolished and replaced with classical limited partnerships. Joint stock companies,
as corporation used to be called, were never intended to become permanent power structures
within free market societies, and now we are witnessing why.
That said, the danger of monopolies does not only extend to corporations. There can also be
such a thing as a political or ideological monopoly as well. When a particular minority of
ideologues take over a vast majority of mass communication outlets and actively seeks to
squeeze out any dissenting voices so that only one point of view is presented to the public,
what else do we call this but a monopoly?
I see where the cancel culture is going and it is quickly going to a very ugly place. While
google's removal of ad revenue from conservative websites like Zero Hedge is a legal grey area,
the attacks will eventually go far beyond monetization. One day soon, I predict there will be
an attempt to influence website host providers to remove "offending" sites altogether. One
might argue that handing government the power to nationalize the internet would help to protect
free speech, but I doubt that. Government is run by the same ghouls that are funding the social
justice cult. Why should we trust them to police the web fairly?
The political left is not only asserting control over speech on the web, but also pushing
restrictions in major population centers (to be fair, Trump and his cabinet of elites including
Anthony Fauci are also culpable in encouraging medical tyranny). If you lived in a major US
city during the first pandemic lockdowns, then you have seen the extreme lengths politicians,
mostly on the left, will go to to assert dominance.
Why are Americans in these cities being admonished from even going outside? You do know that
viruses are far less communicable in open areas than indoors, right? No one catches a virus
from jogging through a park or walking on a beach. Such rules seem like they stem from a severe
ignorance of how viruses survive and function, but it's not ignorance; it's deliberate. These
draconian rules are not about saving lives, they are about control, and many conservatives are
fed up with it.
Add to this the fact that city governments like Seattle are actively encouraging civil
unrest and rioting by Antifa and BLM, and something has to give.
The insanity of the left is triggering a balkanization of the US, but I'm not so sure this
is a bad thing.
It is clear that SJWs cannot live with or get along with anyone who respects liberty or
logic. They are a destructive force in society and they have no comprehension of the
non-aggression principle. They believe that they have the right to enforce their ideology and
beliefs on others. They infest every aspect of our culture with the sole intent of destroying
what we have previously built so that our history can be erased and replaced. It is only
natural that reasonable and free-thinking people would want to get as far away from them as
possible.
There has been much talk in the mainstream lately about the
growing exodus from major cities into suburban and rural areas is due to the pandemic. I
disagree. In my own state of Montana, there has been a surge of new residents buying
properties, and the word is the majority of them are conservatives trying to find like-minded
people. They are trying to escape from the madness of the political left, they are not only
concerned about the pandemic.
A great migration is coming, and it will be from leftist stronghold states like California,
New York, Illinois, etc., as well as from major cities. People are going to seek out and move
to places where their ideals and principles are respected or protected. There has not been a
division like this in the US since perhaps the Civil War.
I'm not sure it's avoidable, and even if it was I'm not sure it should be avoided. There is
something to be said for conservatives and leftists balancing each other out in a community,
but when one side becomes aggressive while also being protected, we have limited options.
Conservatives are the primary pillar of support propping up these otherwise broken states and
communities. Perhaps it's time for producers and liberty advocates to seek out greener pastures
and go where they are appreciated? And maybe it's time for progressives and socialists in
America to finally stand on their own and be allowed to fail.
The global elites have a different scenario in mind, I think. They certainly want a civil
war, but one that they can mold and control on both sides. They are using the left to strike
fear into the minds of conservatives and they want us to demand government action as the
solution. They want us to push the button on the Insurrection Act and to demand martial law. If
we separate and establish conservative strongholds then the temptation to beg for government
help will be diminished.
There will be numerous arguments made against this strategy - They will say the cities and
high population states are economically essential and leaving will be financially disastrous
for individuals. But, if producers are leaving in droves, then they can build an economy
anywhere they please. It's the leftists that need conservatives to feed off of their labor and
production; conservatives don't need leftists for anything. There will be others that claim
that when we leave blue states and counties we are abandoning the fight and leaving those
places to be completely taken over. I disagree with this mentality. By leaving and forming
conservative communities and economies and businesses we are changing the landscape of the
conflict. Instead of constantly contending with political obstruction we will be free to
actually build something lasting.
This is what the establishment is afraid of; they do not want conservatives to become
proactive. They want us to hide in our homes in fear and apathy waiting for someone else to
save the day.
I realize that there is such a thing as the false left/right paradigm, but this paradigm
applies to politicians and government. Politicians are only loyal to the establishment power
structure, and that structure desires tyranny. Common people have differing social and
political viewpoints, and this is natural. One would hope that ALL Americans regardless of
their beliefs would still have a respect for the fundamentals of the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution. But when one side or the other becomes openly hostile to those principles and
values of freedom, then they become my enemy and the enemy of any liberty minded person. We
cannot live together, so, we must live apart. Otherwise, we will have to go to war until one
side is removed from the equation.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on
advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The
Wild Bunch Dispatch . Learn more about it
HERE .
"Dear White People, Please Read 'White Fragility'," instructs
The Washington Post. In case you don't get the message, The New York Times, helpfully
reminds its
stupid white readers, "Dear White People: Being an Ally Isn't Always What You Think." Fortune – a magazine that usually deals
with the affairs of big business – also piles in with its words of wisdom: "Dear White People, The Work Takes Time."
Not to be outdone, the usually frivolous Glamour Magazine assumes the grave persona of a Sunday School Preacher and
warns : "White people, here's how
we can try to be better allies and proactively anti-racist." And just to show that new-fangled American theology has also absorbed
the condescending "Dear White People" mantra, Evangelicals for Social Action are ready to
remind
the world: "Dear White People: Being an Ally Is More Than a Performance."
As you would expect, the banal rhetoric of "Dear White People" is now institutionalised in higher education. The website
of the prestigious Imperial College of London, has a
page called "How To Be A White
Ally." Its main message to dear white people is "Acknowledge your Privilege." That's another way of saying confess your
sin, which is symbolised by your skin tone.
The University of Nevada leaves little to chance. It offers dear white people a 10-point plan that will help "white allies"
to redeem themselves. Most of the guidance is devoted to explaining that dear white people should know their place, which is
at the bottom of a newly constructed racial hierarchy. To realise this objective, it
embraces a version of a Maoist self-critical
struggle ritual and states "When Criticized or Called Out, Allies Listen, Apologize, Act Accountability, and Act Differently."
Most of the guidance directed at dear white people is ostensibly directed at turning individuals possessing "privilege"
into allies. Historically, the struggle against racism demanded solidarity from people of all races. Sadly, things have changed and
the language of solidarity has been replaced by a quasi-religious rhetoric of acknowledging your guilt.
Dear White People are not invited to work as equal participants in the struggle against racism. They are instructed to know their
place. "Our anger isn't yours. It doesn't belong to you," notes a memo to would-be allies. One
toolkit , titled "Guidelines for Being
Strong White Allies" insists, "Support the leadership of people of color."
Without a hint of irony, a manual
that instructs dear white people how to behave on demonstrations is titled, "Proper Protest Etiquette for Allies." And
as you would expect, its rule number one is, "Know Your Place." It explains:
"Before you show up to your first protest, it's important to know and recognize your place. You are going into someone else's
home, so it's vital that you check your privilege at the door before barreling up the stairs."
The exhortation to know your place is usually combined with the call to "Listen To Black Leaders" and to behave as you
are told. Anyone familiar with 19th century Victorian manuals produced for servants will be struck with its similarity in tone with
contemporary dear white people literature.
The Dear White People narrative assumes that its audience are composed of infantilised and disoriented adults who are clearly
morally inferior to its authors. The use of the term Dear, that prefixes white people expresses the attitude of barely disguised
irritation and contempt. Its scolding air signals the expectation that allies are expected to crawl abjectly on the ground with their
faces downwards.
It is worth noting that a lot of the Dear White People communiques are written by white people rather than black authors. In numerous
schools and universities, white race entrepreneurs insist that studying the book White Fragility is more or less mandatory. This
cohort of "super allies" have assumed that they have the moral authority to impose their views on their moral inferiors.
Unfortunately, whatever their intention, these race entrepreneurs are complicit in racializing everything. Their programme of
race humiliation will do nothing to undermine real racism. Worse still, by attempting to re-create a "fairer" form of racial
hierarchy they undermine the possibility of genuine solidarity.
Frank Furedi's Why Borders Matter: Why Humanity Must Relearn The Art of Drawing Borders is published by Routledge on 13 July.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
BLM are not Marxists. they are Maoists and toppling statues is a natural thing for them, much like it was for "Red Guards" during
China "cultural revolution"
Notable quotes:
"... "gross form of White Supremacy." ..."
"... The Last Supper ..."
"... "No one would seriously argue that the Pieta or the Last Supper should be torn down or painted over," ..."
"... "Shaun King is just being ridiculous and provocative, and writing an article about his mad claims is just legitimising them," ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Guy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and
Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter
@guybirchall
Guy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and
Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter
@guybirchall
24 Jun, 2020 07:35
Get short URL
A leading activist's remarks that all "statues, murals, and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother" represent
"gross white supremacy" shows that radical, racialised politics has no limit to its targets.
The problematic statues row has now taken a turn from political iconoclasm to literal iconoclasm with depictions of "white Jesus"
next on the hit list for some of Black Lives Matter's more hardcore proponents.
Activist Shaun King has called for all the statues,
murals, stained glass windows and paintings depicting the Messiah as having European features to come down because they are a
"gross form of White Supremacy."
To illustrate his point, King makes the perceptive observation that when Jesus, Mary and Joseph
went into hiding while Herod engaged in a spot of infanticide in 1 AD Judea, the family hid in Egypt, not Denmark, so they would
"
blend in.
"
This is exactly the sort of mission creep many people worried about when the whole statues issue started to pick up steam last
month. It began with slave owners, and one can see the argument there for taking them down, but it is worth noting that the statues
themselves were not erected for their services to the Transatlantic slave trade.
Then in America, they moved onto their national heroes, like Washington and Jefferson, again because they owned slaves. Again,
one can understand the argument that they shouldn't be venerated because of this fact, but they aren't praised for being slave owners
but for founding the United States of America.
Before we knew it, we were at Ulysses Grant, who lead the Union Armies in the Civil War to end slavery, but because he married
into a slave owning family, he too must be torn down. Defeating the Confederacy wasn't enough to save him. Then Theodore Roosevelt
was next on the list because of white supremacy, (although he wasn't the Roosevelt who actually interred Americans in camps based
on their race in World War II, that was FDR).
But even with the pace with which this movement has declared former icons persona non-grata, to jump from Teddy Roosevelt to Jesus
is extraordinary. Were Mr. King's demands to be met, and "all statues of the White European they claim to be Jesus" to come down,
that would amount to the destruction of some of the finest works of art in existence.
Michelangelo's Pieta, gone, Da Vinci's Last Supper, erased, Raphael's Transfiguration, wiped, Donatello's Crucifix, torn down,
and that would be just if we targeted artists who share their names with turtles who know karate. And the Sistine Chapel? Razed to
the ground, along with the smashing of the stained-glass windows of virtually every church and cathedral in Europe.
This erasure of history would make the destruction of the Reformation and the dissolution of the monasteries in 16th-century England
look like child's play.
The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus has, throughout history, been portrayed as looking like any number of races, and those
usually reflect the race of the artist. Black artists have portrayed him as having African features, Asian artists have done something
in their image, and so European artists obviously portrayed him as looking European. Which is kind of the point of Jesus: all his
followers are supposed to be able to see themselves in him. As a result of living in the Western world, that means, to Western eyes,
he has more often been portrayed as looking like a white European.
Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a
form of white supremacy. Always have been. In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where
they went?EGYPT!Not Denmark.Tear them down.
Yes. All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends
should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should
all come down.
There is also the fact that for a large chunk of history, Europe is where Christianity blossomed. In the Middle East, where yes,
Jesus was born, a very different religion, with a very different view on depicting religious figures arose, which perhaps goes some
way to explaining the paucity of paintings of Christ in this part of the world. The fact that Jesus plays second fiddle to Mohammed
in Islam and is regarded as a false prophet in Judaism, might explain why there are fewer depictions of him in the immediate vicinity
of the Sea of Galilee.
One also has to have quite a conspiratorial mind to conclude that 'white supremacy' was top of the agenda for the likes of Da
Vinci and Raphael. Couldn't they just be artists painting and sculpting their interpretation of what Christ looked like? Could the
depictions of him as looking more European not just be down to those being the kind of people they hung around with?
I mean, if we're getting into the weeds about this, it's probably quite unlikely that the historical Jesus had a rippling six
pack and sinewy biceps as he is so often shown as having. Can art not just be appreciated as art without having the artist's motivation
impugned four, five or six centuries after the fact? Given that the Transatlantic slave trade didn't begin until the 17th century,
it seems baffling to tear down art made in the centuries before.
It also raises the question of how exactly is it acceptable to depict Jesus from now on then? Given that he was a Palestinian
Jew, it seems equally unlikely that he looked like the African man he was portrayed as in Madonna's
Like a Prayer
video,
as he would look like the dirty blonde haired European in Da Vinci's
The Last Supper
. (Gosh, it's painful equating these
two very different pieces of culture in the same sentence).
This may seem like a fringe issue that is never going to happen, and it could easily be dismissed as the ramblings of someone
on the extreme left.
"No one would seriously argue that the Pieta or the Last Supper should be torn down or painted over,"
some might say.
"Shaun King is just being ridiculous and provocative, and writing an article about his mad claims is just legitimising
them,"
they may add.
This may be true, but ask yourself – in 2010, how much money would you have put on statues of Washington and Jefferson being torn
down in America? What odds would you have got on the bookies of Churchill's statue having to be boarded up in London? I don't think
you'd have even put a quid on it.
There has to come a point where a civilisation just says "enough, stop," otherwise these movements pick up steam. Several American
states have shown themselves incapable of defending their founding fathers. With Christianity dwindling year by year in the West,
how long will we be able to make a defence for these priceless works of art if they too are decided to be contrary to the prevailing
ideology of the day?
Ugly civilisations torch their history, others learn from them. Let us not become the former, just because the other side is shouting
louder than we are.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
What fun, what entertainment. And rare: One seldom sees the collapse of a landmark society
in a rush of wondrous idiocy. Would I could sell tickets. Don't look at it as a loss, but as a
show, an unwanted but grand amusement.
The coup de grace in our ripening decadence is the current uprising purportedly, though
implausibly, over racism. But never mind. The causes don't matter. The deal is done.
Still, it is interesting to recognize that the protesters are, perhaps deliberately,
confusing the incapacity of blacks with systemic racism. In truth, America has made the
greatest effort ever essayed by one race to uplift another. Reflect: In 1954 an entirely white
Supreme Court unanimously ended segregation. Later it found the use of IQ tests by employers
illegal because blacks scored poorly, then found "affirmative action," racial discrimination
against whites, legal (hardly oppression of blacks, this). An overwhelmingly white Congress
passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act the next year. A white President
sent troops to Little Rock to enforce desegregation. There has been an enormous flow of charity
to blacks: Section Eight Housing, AFDC, Head Start, hiring quotas, set-asides, sharply lowered
standards in police and fire departments. We now have free breakfasts for black children, then
free lunches, in addition to outright welfare. In aggregate they resemble a distributed
guaranteed basic income. Which is interesting.
These measures sprang from the best of intentions. Most I think should continue. I for one
do not want to evict blacks from public housing or have their children go hungry. Yet none of
these programs has had its desired effect. The crucial academic gap has not closed, crime
remains horribly high, illegitimacy verges on universal. This is a great shame. Blacks are
decent enough people, likable if they don't hate you, and phenomenally talented. But it hasn't
worked.
Nothing has worked. There is no indication that anything will. The great black cities are in
something approaching custodial care.
You cannot solve a problem without knowing what it is. This we dare not know. Democracies,
however approximate, cannot deal with chronically underperforming minorities.
They cannot even try. Anything that might help is politically impossible, and anything
politically possible won't help.
So, after the riots:
Social division will worsen after the riots. Racial hostility from blacks will not
decrease because their conditions will not change. The rioters are getting their way now, and
rule, but at the price of sowing hatred. At best we will have many decades of ugly rancor. At
worst, we are winding the spring for another outburst.
Multiculturalism has not worked, quite apart from race, and will not. White Americans
are not one people. The poor communications and bad roads that once allowed them to live almost
separately no longer exist. In its writ-large form, trying to force West Virginia to accept the
culture of Massachusetts will produce only anger.
The likelihood of amity between races is proportional to their agreement on values important
to them. For example, the Chinese share (what once were) the white values of study, work,
courtesy, and obedience to the law. That they eat with chopsticks and celebrate New Year on the
wrong day doesn't matter.
However, again for example, a culture that believes in female genital mutilation and utter
subjection of women cannot live amicably with a culture that abhors these things. Black ghetto
culture and white are immiscible in so many fundamental values that they will not live well
together.
Some cultures can assimilate, for example East Asian and American white, Latino and American
white. But, in addition to sharply different cultures, too many blacks live in sprawling,
racially isolated urban centers with almost no contact with the outside world other than
television.
Censorship will intensify, not just of communications and office chitchat but of
books. Tom Sawyer will be pulled from bookshelves or -- Amazon being the continental
shelf -- or bowderlized to remove the Nigger Jim and Injun Joe The Nigger of the
Narcissus may survive because none of the blacks and few of the whites will ever have heard
of Conrad. At least for the foreseeable future, firings for anything imaginably redolent of
racism–saying "All lives matter," for example–will be snatched at in a mixture of
passive aggression and schadenfreude to result in firings. This is unlikely to have a happy
ending.
Schooling : Watching great universities become sandboxes for unpleasantly righteous
dimwitted brats galls, or does if one lets it. I don't. Most of the protesters seem recently to
have erupted from the drains of an educational system that has been in sharp decline for
decades They, including the intelligent among them, appear historically not just ignorant but
carefully misinformed, culturally pathetic, and intellectually laughable. (For example, a
protestress interviewed by a British reporter as to what she thought of Churchill said she
couldn't really say because she hadn't met him. How many in BLM can spell "Confederacy"? A
statue of Ulysses Grant was pulled down in the belief that he was a Confederate general. May
God preserve us.)
The, uh, redaction of culture will not stop with books. Classical music is too white, the
sciences too white, mathematics a tool of oppression (meaning that blacks cannot understand it)
and so on. We have created a nation of pampered and imbecile peasants.
Schooling will continue its plummet. Science departments probably will not be
abolished. However, because they are too white, schools will recruit hopelessly unqualified
black students and professors, standards will fall yet more, and mathematics will be played
down even in astrophysics (this is being done). Extirpating racism will replace scholarship,
already degraded by the retirement or death of those professors who knew what education meant.
This will inevitably result in lowered American technological competitiveness and prosperity.
There is no hope of preventing this.
The replacement of learned professors by aging detritus from the Sixties antagonistic
to scholarship is not surprising. America has had strong anti-intellectual undercurrent since
its inception. The degradation will not be noticed by the young as they have never lived in a
world different from their own, with Harry Potter and Toni Morrison thought to be literature. A
liberal education was once the mark of the cultivated, being deep in languages, literature,
philosophy, the sciences, history, mathematics,. Universities once had, at least among the
better students, a love of open minded curiosity, thought, and debate. No more. Future
historians will notice the shift, but those within it will not. We are left with a nation of
morons who will not know they are morons.
This too cannot be prevented. Jejune herdthink is now warmly espoused throughout the academy
with children in grade school being primed for it.
The most -- I dare not say "entertaining" for fear of lynching, but, well, perhaps
"interesting" reforms will be those of the police, whether abolition, defunding to shift money
to youth outreach and rehab (which don't work) or replacement of police by warm and caring
adults, will result in increased crime. We need not concern ourselves with whether and to what
extent the police have been culpable in which cases. The changes will come anyway.
An intriguing question is what the nonviolent, non-racist, warm and fuzzy pseudopolice will
do when they encounter violent criminals. Counsel them on social justice? I would love to
watch.
Our system of governments has proved itself weak, feckless, and unable to govern. The
chaotic response to the coronavirus is a prime example, there being no national policy and the
states being told to do as they see fit. The other major example was the inability or
unwillingness to prevent looting and arson.The widespread destruction was unopposed, protected
by the media, and celebrated by the many corporations that have fallen over themselves to
truckle to the unwashed and to give them money. If our rampaging anthropoids can loot once,
there is no reason to think they cannot do it again.
Many cities are routinely out of control, with seven hundred homicides in Chicago and three
hundred in Baltimore every year. Increasingly criminals are released without bail and small
crimes, such as evading subway fares, are ignored when committed by minorities. The hordes of
derelicts grow, the New York subways become a homeless shelter. These are not problems seen in
civilized countries. Which America no longer is, to the astonishment and amusement of the
world.
Perhaps this was to be expected. The American practice of choosing its leaders every two,
four, or six years by popularity contest worked, after a fashion anyway, in a sprawling
continental country in which government had very little local influence. In a world far more
complex, with little ability to plan when those in charge change with paralyzing rapidity, and
everything intensely regulated by people unfamiliar with problems, results are poor. America's
competition with large countries having intelligently authoritarian and stable governance will
prove a losing proposition proposition. The inevitable decline in standard of living, already
well underwater, will promote unrest. Here we go again.
We have done what Marx couldn't: Achieved communism, a true dictatorship of the proletariat,
of a rabble jacquerie of much noise and no wit, the rule of the unfit. It is a rule only of the
culture. The moneyed would not grant it power over anything else. Yet rule it is. We shall hear
much of the authenticity of the illiterate, the purity of ghetto urges, the wisdom of the
people, the need to lay low the pretensions of the mansion.
Yet the catastrophe has its consolations. It is amusing for those amused by the end of
empires. The Soviet Union spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but lived under the
dictatorship of a gray aristocracy. America speaks of the rule of the people, a horrible idea,
and seems to be getting there.
Think of it as the Cultural Revolution by suburban hobbyists. There are the same raging
untermenschen, the same desire to destroy anything they do not know, or cannot understand, or
be bothered to learn.
As a philosophic emollient one may reflect that all empires and civilizations must end, and
ours is. America will remain as a place, a military bastion, a large if declining economic
force. It will never again be, even by the low standards of humanity in such things, a
relatively free and vigorous society. The world will not again credit its charades of moral
leadership. The rot, the tens of thousands of derelict people living on the sidewalks, the
looting and fire setting, the censorship, are now visible to the entire earth. Oh well. It was
a good thing while it lasted.
Write Fred at [email protected] Put the letters pdq anywhere in the subject line to avoid
autodeletion. All read, not always answered due to volume.
Amazon review: "Essays on America, life, politics, and just about everything. The author
chronicles among other adventures an aging stripper in Austin, dressed in a paper-mache horse,
who had with her a cobra and a tarantula like a yak-hair pillow with legs and alternately
charmed and terrified a room full of cowboys sucking down Bud and . Fred was an apostle of the
long-haul thumb during the Sixties and saw many things. He tells of standing by the big roads
across the desert, rockin in the wind blast of the heavy rigs roaring by and the whine of tires
and dropping into an arroyo at night with a bottle of cheap red and watching the stars and
perhaps smoking things not approved by the government. He tells of..well, that's what the book
is for. Join him."
The American system worked decently enough when, and only when, a quarter of the adult
population was eligible to vote. That was when democracy was a thing and not "our" thing.
'America's competition with large countries having intelligently authoritarian and stable
governance will prove a losing proposition proposition.'
I might still generally agree with this, but our insane 'lockdown' policy in response to
an epidemic that posed no real serious threat was copied from the Chinese!!
As a result I felt upbeat enough to feel like ordering your 'Nekkid in Austin' paperback
from Amazon. $20 and change with tax. Hopefully at least some of that makes it into your
pocket.
Re: "In truth, America has made the greatest effort ever essayed by one race to uplift
another."
You say nothing about any other country on the planet. What the US has done without the
context of the rest of the world is somewhat empty. What about Canada? What about the UK?
There are countries outside of the US.
I see no mention of the black history of June Nineteenth or of Tulsa Black Wall Street. Is
that not consequential? It's a silent form of discrimination.
How many blacks can spell "confederacy." There is some implicit bias there. Did you think
about mentioning the lead content of public water in some inner cities and what affect that
might have on development of black children?
I'm not ever sure you fully understand the history of Ulysses S. Grant. You may not have
seen this earlier piece written from the UK.
They thought it was relevant because for those following the Black Lives Matter movement,
it's more than just about Black lives. There is an acronym floating around you also may not
be aware of. Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC). For further information see:
https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-bipoc.html
Sad to see America and the west in general turning out like this, what frustrates me is how
hard it is to get normal based white people to organize, the left can get nearly 100,000
people in several cities across America and Europe tearing down statues, shouting abuse at
western European culture and it's defenders and the right barely manages to get a couple of
thousand people to gather in central London while thousands of left anarchists were scrawling
graffiti on Churchill and other monuments. I know left wingers have the advantage of living
IN the major cities but most are still surrounded by millions of ordinary middle class people
who i am sure are aghast at what is happening. The fact that it is so hard for them to get of
their asses and drive 100-200km to meet one another is depressing.
Only Fred Reed could opine that the biggest threat facing higher ed is the dumbing down of
curricula.
There's a little flu going around that's going to remake all of higher ed, with the
prospect of hundreds of schools filing for bankruptcy or eliminating whole departments now
very real.
Reed's so out of touch with America that it's just laughable. But I can see why he doesn't
mention Covid, since Mexico is now in a full-blown pandemic, just as I predicted 2 months
ago. (How'd the "siesta and a cerveza" policy from AMLO work out?) The deaths are increasing,
curves aren't being flattened and the sick little buggers are scurrying like rats across the
border to get hooked up to gringo ventilators at our expense.
Evidence continues to mount that spikes in Covid cases in U.S. border states are due to
successive waves of infected people fleeing Mexico's dysfunctional and overwhelmed
hospitals to get American medical care. https://t.co/aifN8575IW
-- Center for Immigration Studies (@CIS_org) June 24,
2020
Yep, Mexicans seem to be causing the new wave of infections in Southwest border
states.
A two minute conversation with a typical American will quickly show you that their thoughts
never dwell on anything noble. Rather, their thoughts are adrift in emotional nonsense. We
have a vast underclass of 160 million immigrants from failed-3rd world countries and their US
born children, since 1965. The new Americans and our black underclass don't like white people
and the old America. We are now a nation of George Floyds, Homer Simpsons, and an obese
Walmart shoppers. There is nothing noble in America. It's not a pretty picture. Who cares if
it fails? There isn't anything worth saving.
This is funny. We are looking at what a deeply corrupt, predatory system of government (look
at the Dem-Woke-Rats) has achieved, the rule of the super-rich, which has achieved huge
levels of homelessness, a country that has zero hospitals, zero medics, except for the rich,
that is unique in that, and no education except for the rich, saddling the rest with deep
debts, this mad rule of the rich waging economic war against countries that outstandingly
look after their people, such as Cuba, a system wholly about predation and so with
astronomical military expenditure but that forcing the poor to pay for it -- and here we have
an article about the resulting anarchy, prattling on about side effects but ignoring the
cause.
And comments on the rule of the people versus the dictatorship of the proletariat! When
there is no such thing as a Congress critter who is not a millionaire but still must pander
to supermillionaires.
@Charlemagne Is
democracy even a good thing? Last summer I read "The End of Democracy" by a Belgian named
Christophe Buffin de Chosal, and I'm now convinced that it is not.
When the Soviet Union ended it could fall back into various nation states, America has no
such thing. This makes its collapse incredibly more dangerous, all those nuclear weapons it
has, what is going to happen to them?
"Reflect: In 1954 an entirely white Supreme Court unanimously ended segregation. Later it
found the use of IQ tests by employers illegal because blacks scored poorly, then found
"affirmative action," racial discrimination against whites, legal (hardly oppression of
blacks, this). An overwhelmingly white Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the
Voting Rights Act the next year. "
Except that did not end segregation nor did it shift the imbalance of educational
resources as whites have been the most benefited population from these supposed investments.
There isn't a measure that whites have not managed to accrue the major benefits from.
And I think, I could down your list and demonstrate just how failed those supposed
remedies ave been applied to the black population of US citizens, if not for the redundancy
of effort.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
I am not sure how to respond to nonsense such as Section * housing as if section * housing
was a program unique to blacks. I would love o bemoan the ignorance of anyone who dis not
know General/President Grant was a Union officer and a intense advocate for equity, at least
for a while, when the person decrying their ignorance thinks that the Civil Rights era was
unique for black citizens.
One might expect some level of ignorance for Pres. Grant by the uneducated, but the level
of ignorance on display by the educated is only compounded by the fact that same individual
making the complaint wants to continue more immigrants, who are the second largest winners of
the civil rights changes but have managed o to convince people like Mr. Reed that
Cinco De Mayo should be celebrated as a US Holiday.
When Fred wades into Multiculturalism he speaks of FGM being incompatible with our values.
But, as most Americans do, he neglects the other half of the story. MGM, aka circumcision,
sanctioned by our backward society, is an equally barbaric crime.
Recently, I briefly touched on why I think the United States of America is done and dusted
after almost 244 years of existence. Fred Reed, who is so much more eloquent with words than
I, thinks so as well in A Country Not Salvageable!
IT IS INTERESTING AT THE OUTSET TO OBSERVE THAT THE MAIN REASON THE UNITED STATES FINDS
ITSELF IN AN IRREDEEMABLE DIVE IS BECAUSE IT IS IN THE DNA OF THEIR CITIZENS. YEP –
THAT'S RIGHT – THEIR DNA!
[MORE]
FOR MANY DECADES, IF NOT ALMOST 2 1/2 CENTURIES, THEY HAVE INCORPORATED RACISM, SEXISM,
BULLYING, WAR MONGERING AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN THEIR DNA TO MENTION BUT A FEW. THE
ONLY WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS AS FOLLOWS:
After almost 244 years in existence, 221 of which have been spent at war, the United
States of America can no longer find a way to extricate itself from a situation which has
been many decades in the making. It has become painfully clear that the 3 branches of
government (executive, legislative and judicial) so proudly exhibited as effective and
meaningful checks and balances no longer works. The military/industrial complex, now joined
by the political/media complex, has made it impossible for anyone to Make America Great
Again!
No one can see the United States extricating themselves from this unbelievable mess
without dropping nuclear bombs on themselves and other nations around the world. Cutting off
one's nose to spite one's face is not a solution as they have discovered on many, many
occasions throughout their history. But there is one solution, and probably only one, which
could work given help from other nations.
As everyone knows, everywhere one looks and everything one looks at in America is in
serious difficulty – most of which will never be corrected without major and prolonged
surgery. Take a few examples only such as debt, education, infrastructure, immigration,
constant war mongering, racism, irreparable political divisions, a disappearing middle class,
sexism, wealth in fewer and fewer hands, debilitating unemployment, a dismal trade imbalance,
gun control along with associated deaths and injuries, a non performing and dishonest
judiciary, catering to one country in the Middle East, lobbying, a weakened electorate, an
out of control media, a dangerous religious fervor, a bullying approach to everything, prison
incarceration rates, non stop political campaigning, a rapidly falling life expectancy,
obesity due to fast foods along with a couch potato syndrome and a constant interference in
the affairs of other sovereign nations, little or no respect for the ravages of climate
change and dropping out of signed agreements and treaties. And this is to only name a very
few issues as they now have managed in addition to become the absolute laughingstock of the
world. A very dangerous and emotional one to be sure – but a laughingstock nevertheless
for which a few people now feel pity.
So let's cut to the chase even if it brings on yet another civil war. And this is where
the help of other nations will be most critical. It is time to employ some 'outside the box'
thinking which could bring benefit to the entire North American continent, let alone the
world. The citizens of the United States of America and the world have become frustrated at
the lack of progress on any and all of the issues in play – and there are a whack of
them.
Guess what? The reasons for the American Civil War (1861-1865) point the way to the
solution and eventual benefits to everyone concerned. As you undoubtedly recall, the reason
for the Civil War in the first place was the South's insistence on the continuation of
slavery with secession from the Union. That's right – the USA needs to be divided along
roughly the same lines demanded by the secessionists some 150 years ago! In other words, the
North made a serious error in not letting them secede and the entire country has been paying
for it ever since.
The proposal is a very simple one in reality. Take all of the what we will call the RED
states, which are really the most southerly ones, and give them to Mexico. The country could
be renamed RED-NEXICO as in rednecks and Mexico. Into this melting pot of death, destruction,
convoluted thinking, religious fervor, gun addicts, right wing societies (NRA, Born Again
Morons, white nationalists, etc.) pro-life ning nangs, Nascar addicted, arrogant, stupid and
the hopeless people of America, most of the unemployable, poorly educated folks, rapists,
paedophiles, violent criminals, most rednecks and other ne'er-do-wells will number about 300
million people when all is said and done. It is a perfect fit if one looks at what
constitutes the current country of Mexico (that is, soon-to-be RED-NEXICO) because they will
get back all of the territory they claimed was stolen by the U.S. from them and then some.
Almost all illegal immigrants speak Spanish as do the folks in the U.S. south and the
Mexicans. Throw in California which will soon fall into the Pacific Ocean in any event and we
have a us a convoy!
Now what should be done about the remaining northern states or what we will refer to the
green states? Quite simple really. Give them all to Canada and rename the country
CAN-AMERICA. With them go the wealthier states with better employment figures and
opportunities along with most of the top class universities which will go undergo a seismic
change over the next quarter century, no world wide income tax, a corporate tax on
profitability or flat tax which must be paid, no lobbyists, severe penalties for moving
manufacturing offshore, lower teen pregnancies, racism and sexism to be dealt with severely,
no sub prime mortgages, most of the fresh water, an abundance of hydro electric power,
sufficient oil and gas reserves to last well into the next century, minerals galore, oodles
of room, strict and honest banking regulations, bilingualism, much less violence, severe
firearm controls, more attention to global climate change and other similar world problems,
no Nascar, lower divorce rates, domestic violence and so on. Think about it for a moment. The
list of benefits are inexhaustible.
It is a win/win for both sides of the equation except for one vital but missing
ingredient. With it comes the most important caveat – all citizens in CAN-AMERICA will
have the right to vote in person or by post/internet in a national referendum which could
affect them. The political power will rest with the people and not the politicians, one of
the clearest failings of the United States form of republic.These referendum issues could
include, but are not necessarily limited to, a declaration of war, debt, immigration,
expulsion of criminals, complete gun control, mosques, military, industrial, political and
media complexes, trade, currency, prisons, joining and contributing to stem winding world
organizations, infrastructure repairs, a mandatory health system at lower cost and
effectiveness, reducing military expenditures by 90%, etc. etc. This will blunt political
power and politicians at every turn when they try to do anything – and they always will
– which is not in the best interests of the new country.
CAN-AMERICA can really make an impression on the rest of the world with +/- 250 million
people by taking a much more critical view of whether to belong to various groups or
organizations which have clearly outlived their usefulness. NATO, the United Nations, the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund immediately come to mind but there are many,
many others which increase the income tax burdens of people unnecessarily.
Many naysayers will insist that such a geographical and political division in North
America will not work but Europe is a showcase of how it does. In fact, many could foresee
the eventual fusion of CAN-AMERICA into a worldwide economic trading block of which it would
be a dominating member along with China, Russia, India, etc. On the political side, it will
see the demise of the two party system along with the republicans and democrats under their
new regimes.
Now for the clincher which is an updated version of the current U.S. president's call for
a wall dividing countries both south and north of the U.S. border. There will be a strip of
land measuring 100 kilometres wide separating RED-NEXICO and CAN-AMERICA. It will be electric
fenced to 10 metres on all sides and be patrolled electronically 24/7 and by drones. Dense
forests will be planted which, with proper husbandry, will flourish eventually to the benefit
of both countries. Anyone entering or caught within these 100 kms will be eliminated
immediately whether they come from CAN-AMERICA or RED-NEXICO. The cost of building,
maintaining and patrolling no woman or no man's land will be shared equally between the the
two countries. Any immigration from one country to another will have to go through official
channels as there will be no borders to cross except for the 100 kms which means no one would
make it. It would kill tourism between the new countries for many years but who really wants
to travel to RED-NEXICO in particular!
Unknown to many Americans who are living in the U.S. at the moment is the fact that many
of their fellow citizens are surrendering their American nationality in disgust. It has moved
from a trickle 25 years ago to where it has become a flood today. Most embassies are
inundated with requests – so much so that waiting periods of up to 2 years are not
uncommon and growing more expensive every year. Of course, anyone wanting to do so must have
another passport to fall back on as well.
This is a very abridged version of a much more detailed proposal but the drift is clear
– the United States is slipping quickly and inexorably into third world country and
'shit hole' country status to utilize the current president's description. In many opinions,
it is already there! Let's all jettison this cancer in the world so the rest of us can get on
with our lives!
EVEN IF THIS SEPARATION/SECESSION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED (AS IN FORCED DOWN THEIR THROATS),
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN BE SAVED IN THE
PROPOSED FORMAT GIVEN THE LIST OF ISSUES WHICH HAVE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II
75 YEARS AGO!!!
P.S. Any input which will enhance any aspect of this proposal which is more than a matter
of detail is sorely welcomed as implementation will be something requiring great skill!
Criticisms are also warmly encouraged as long as they are not simply more bleating about how
unfair it would be, how civil war will break out, how the 300 million guns will be used to
shoot their way out of this, how the political slop will stop it and so on. America is doomed
as it is now and saving the best parts is paramount.
IN THE WELL KNOWN LYRICS OF THE SCAR STRANGLED BANNER, IT USED TO BE KNOWN AS "THE LAND OF
THE BRAVE AND THE HOME OF THE FREE!" NOW IT IS KNOWN AS "THE LAND OF THE FAT AND THE HOME OF
THE FEARFUL!"
Recently, I briefly touched on why I think the United States of America is done and dusted
after almost 244 years of existence. Fred Reed, who is so much more eloquent with words than
I thinks so as well in A Country Not Salvageable!
IT IS INTERESTING AT THE OUTSET TO OBSERVE THAT THE MAIN REASON THE UNITED STATES FINDS
ITSELF IN AN IRREDEEMABLE DIVE IS BECAUSE IT IS IN THE DNA OF THEIR CITIZENS. YEP –
THAT'S RIGHT – THEIR DNA!
[MORE]
FOR MANY DECADES, IF NOT ALMOST 2 1/2 CENTURIES, THEY HAVE INCORPORATED RACISM, SEXISM,
BULLYING, WAR MONGERING AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN THEIR DNA TO MENTION BUT A FEW. THE
ONLY WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS AS FOLLOWS:
After almost 244 years in existence, 221 of which have been spent at war, the United
States of America can no longer find a way to extricate itself from a situation which has
been many decades in the making. It has become painfully clear that the 3 branches of
government (executive, legislative and judicial) so proudly exhibited as effective and
meaningful checks and balances no longer works. The military/industrial complex, now joined
by the political/media complex, has made it impossible for anyone to Make America Great
Again!
No one can see the United States extricating themselves from this unbelievable mess
without dropping nuclear bombs on themselves and other nations around the world. Cutting off
one's nose to spite one's face is not a solution as they have discovered on many, many
occasions throughout their history. But there is one solution, and probably only one, which
could work given help from other nations.
As everyone knows, everywhere one looks and everything one looks at in America is in
serious difficulty – most of which will never be corrected without major and prolonged
surgery. Take a few examples only such as debt, education, infrastructure, immigration,
constant war mongering, racism, irreparable political divisions, a disappearing middle class,
sexism, wealth in fewer and fewer hands, debilitating unemployment, a dismal trade imbalance,
gun control along with associated deaths and injuries, a non performing and dishonest
judiciary, catering to one country in the Middle East, lobbying, a weakened electorate, an
out of control media, a dangerous religious fervor, a bullying approach to everything, prison
incarceration rates, non stop political campaigning, a rapidly falling life expectancy,
obesity due to fast foods along with a couch potato syndrome and a constant interference in
the affairs of other sovereign nations, little or no respect for the ravages of climate
change and dropping out of signed agreements and treaties. And this is to only name a very
few issues as they now have managed in addition to become the absolute laughingstock of the
world. A very dangerous and emotional one to be sure – but a laughingstock nevertheless
for which a few people now feel pity.
So let's cut to the chase even if it brings on yet another civil war. And this is where
the help of other nations will be most critical. It is time to employ some 'outside the box'
thinking which could bring benefit to the entire North American continent, let alone the
world. The citizens of the United States of America and the world have become frustrated at
the lack of progress on any and all of the issues in play – and there are a whack of
them.
Guess what? The reasons for the American Civil War (1861-1865) point the way to the
solution and eventual benefits to everyone concerned. As you undoubtedly recall, the reason
for the Civil War in the first place was the South's insistence on the continuation of
slavery with secession from the Union. That's right – the USA needs to be divided along
roughly the same lines demanded by the secessionists some 150 years ago! In other words, the
North made a serious error in not letting them secede and the entire country has been paying
for it ever since.
The proposal is a very simple one in reality. Take all of the what we will call the RED
states, which are really the most southerly ones, and give them to Mexico. The country could
be renamed RED-NEXICO as in rednecks and Mexico. Into this melting pot of death, destruction,
convoluted thinking, religious fervor, gun addicts, right wing societies (NRA, Born Again
Morons, white nationalists, etc.) pro-life ning nangs, Nascar addicted, arrogant, stupid and
the hopeless people of America, most of the unemployable, poorly educated folks, rapists,
paedophiles, violent criminals, most rednecks and other ne'er-do-wells will number about 300
million people when all is said and done. It is a perfect fit if one looks at what
constitutes the current country of Mexico (that is, soon-to-be RED-NEXICO) because they will
get back all of the territory they claimed was stolen by the U.S. from them and then some.
Almost all illegal immigrants speak Spanish as do the folks in the U.S. south and the
Mexicans. Throw in California which will soon fall into the Pacific Ocean in any event and we
have a us a convoy!
Now what should be done about the remaining northern states or what we will refer to the
green states? Quite simple really. Give them all to Canada and rename the country
CAN-AMERICA. With them go the wealthier states with better employment figures and
opportunities along with most of the top class universities which will go undergo a seismic
change over the next quarter century, no world wide income tax, a corporate tax on
profitability or flat tax which must be paid, no lobbyists, severe penalties for moving
manufacturing offshore, lower teen pregnancies, racism and sexism to be dealt with severely,
no sub prime mortgages, most of the fresh water, an abundance of hydro electric power,
sufficient oil and gas reserves to last well into the next century, minerals galore, oodles
of room, strict and honest banking regulations, bilingualism, much less violence, severe
firearm controls, more attention to global climate change and other similar world problems,
no Nascar, lower divorce rates, domestic violence and so on. Think about it for a moment. The
list of benefits are inexhaustible.
It is a win/win for both sides of the equation except for one vital but missing
ingredient. With it comes the most important caveat – all citizens in CAN-AMERICA will
have the right to vote in person or by post/internet in a national referendum which could
affect them. The political power will rest with the people and not the politicians, one of
the clearest failings of the United States form of republic.These referendum issues could
include, but are not necessarily limited to, a declaration of war, debt, immigration,
expulsion of criminals, complete gun control, mosques, military, industrial, political and
media complexes, trade, currency, prisons, joining and contributing to stem winding world
organizations, infrastructure repairs, a mandatory health system at lower cost and
effectiveness, reducing military expenditures by 90%, etc. etc. This will blunt political
power and politicians at every turn when they try to do anything – and they always will
– which is not in the best interests of the new country.
CAN-AMERICA can really make an impression on the rest of the world with +/- 250 million
people by taking a much more critical view of whether to belong to various groups or
organizations which have clearly outlived their usefulness. NATO, the United Nations, the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund immediately come to mind but there are many,
many others which increase the income tax burdens of people unnecessarily.
Many naysayers will insist that such a geographical and political division in North
America will not work but Europe is a showcase of how it does. In fact, many could foresee
the eventual fusion of CAN-AMERICA into a worldwide economic trading block of which it would
be a dominating member along with China, Russia, India, etc. On the political side, it will
see the demise of the two party system along with the republicans and democrats under their
new regimes.
Now for the clincher which is an updated version of the current U.S. president's call for
a wall dividing countries both south and north of the U.S. border. There will be a strip of
land measuring 100 kilometres wide separating RED-NEXICO and CAN-AMERICA. It will be electric
fenced to 10 metres on all sides and be patrolled electronically 24/7 and by drones. Dense
forests will be planted which, with proper husbandry, will flourish eventually to the benefit
of both countries. Anyone entering or caught within these 100 kms will be eliminated
immediately whether they come from CAN-AMERICA or RED-NEXICO. The cost of building,
maintaining and patrolling no woman or no man's land will be shared equally between the the
two countries. Any immigration from one country to another will have to go through official
channels as there will be no borders to cross except for the 100 kms which means no one would
make it. It would kill tourism between the new countries for many years but who really wants
to travel to RED-NEXICO in particular!
Unknown to many Americans who are living in the U.S. at the moment is the fact that many
of their fellow citizens are surrendering their American nationality in disgust. It has moved
from a trickle 25 years ago to where it has become a flood today. Most embassies are
inundated with requests – so much so that waiting periods of up to 2 years are not
uncommon and growing more expensive every year. Of course, anyone wanting to do so must have
another passport to fall back on as well.
This is a very abridged version of a much more detailed proposal but the drift is clear
– the United States is slipping quickly and inexorably into third world country and
'shit hole' country status to utilize the current president's description. In many opinions,
it is already there! Let's all jettison this cancer in the world so the rest of us can get on
with our lives!
EVEN IF THIS SEPARATION/SECESSION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED (AS IN FORCED DOWN THEIR THROATS),
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN BE SAVED IN THE
PROPOSED FORMAT GIVEN THE LIST OF ISSUES WHICH HAVE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II
75 YEARS AGO!!!
P.S. Any input which will enhance any aspect of this proposal which is more than a matter
of detail is sorely welcomed as implementation will be something requiring great skill!
Criticisms are also warmly encouraged as long as they are not simply more bleating about how
unfair it would be, how civil war will break out, how the 300 million guns will be used to
shoot their way out of this, how the political slop will stop it and so on. America is doomed
as it is now and saving the best parts is paramount.
IN THE WELL KNOWN LYRICS OF THE SCAR STRANGLED BANNER, IT USED TO BE KNOWN AS "THE LAND OF
THE BRAVE AND THE HOME OF THE FREE!" NOW IT IS KNOWN AS "THE LAND OF THE FAT AND THE HOME OF
THE FEARFUL!"
@john cronk Fred's
right, it's too late, but two things spelled our country's doom: colleges became factories
for feminist propaganda which discouraging bright women from marrying and having children
while they were young and fertile; then welfare was used as a tool to outsource childbearing
and rearing to the poor. What could go wrong? Stir the pot for 75 years, voila! the evening
news.
@ASimpleHistory Of
course its hopeless just read what you posted that's the drivile that got us where we
are,Canada's history with the Native Tribe are worse then worse, as the schools use the young
native girls for their own pleasure.If blacks can't spell simple words then they are only to
blame for they don't want to learn, for they learned how to play the blame game and the rest
is history .
@Gordon K. Shumway
Maybe, but why is little Willie tampered with for no reason. And without the owner's consent.
Now don't come back with penile hygiene, penile cancer and other yesterday arguments.
Countries with soap and water can keep little Willie clean and cancer free without chopping
off its skin. Circumcision is an American tradition just as FMG is of others. Let us call a
spade a spade.
@Daemon Be kinder
to our women. Circumcision is not on the level of female genital mutilation. Losing some skin
is not comparable to losing the sexual sense organ. Just another SJW trying to impose their
values on others.
It is also true that the things we take completely for granted – harnessed electricity,
clean potable running water, OTC medicines (to name a few) – will become less common,
then rare, then un-heard-of. The people we see rioting cannot build, create, or maintain,
they can only destroy. But we cannot KNOW the future. As absurd as it may seem (and its very
absurdity makes me think it's possible), what if the Old World comes to the rescue, so to
speak, of the New? Yeah I know, we're much more likely to be colonized by China, but still
@Gordon K. Shumway
I am against FGM, but how do you know African women don't enjoy sex? I read few days ago in
the Cosmopolitan magazine that the g-spot doesn't exist. It concludes that intimacy is what
makes women happy. Also it's not clear who enjoys sex more: the circumsized man or the
uncircumcised.
@LCBozo Being
against circumcision doesn't mean I'm automatically for FGM, you know. And no, considering
90% of the nerve endings are "inside" the part of the foreskin removed (and removed for the
EXPLICIT purpose of denying pleasure from intercourse) – it is exactly the same as FGM.
And watch the video, the host debunks the supposed "health benefits" of cutting off a
natural piece of your body. It's literally bronze age blood sacrifice for the modern era.
if these people are so hostile to supremacism, why aren't they attacking Israeli
consulates, protesting ADL & AIPAC, burning Israeli flags, and denouncing the Zionist
'genocide' of Palestinians?
Why aren't they denouncing Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, and others for their support of
supremacist state of Israel?
I hear that this is an attack by the 'left'. If so, why is this 'left' so silent about the
plight of Palestinians and other victims of US imperialism that is directed by Jews?
It's not about the Left. It's about punks and hoodlums serving as Janissary to Jewish
Supremacist Power.
@follyofwar It's
mad, totally mad, to call the American system of government a democracy. The rule of the
super-rich is not the rule of the people, only the rule over the people.
@Ann Nonny Mouse
Few democracies actually reflect the will of the voting public in the way they they are
administered. The power elite runs the show.
Human society is inherently hierarchical, unless we revert to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
@neutral Not to
worry. Most likely, very few of the US nukes are still operational. However, we lack the
testing capacity to determine which are still functional and which are duds. Deterrence is
based on fear, uncertainty and doubt.
@Charlemagne Agree
that universal suffrage voting is crazy-town. Women, on average, are not evolved for
protecting the frontiers, and vote with emotion. There are always exceptions of course.
Minority races tend to vote as a block.
Mosley seems to have come up with a solution that is lost to history:
Basically, voters vote on subjects they are qualified for. Corporate state does not mean
corporatocracy, which is what we have now in the U.S.
Governments are elected on the strength of their appeal to passion or to sentiment. Once
in office they promptly resign their effective power in favour of the great interests within
the State, but yet superior to the State, who exercise their power in secret. The
increasingly technical nature of all problems in an economic age has made it difficult or
impossible to explain the real issues to the electorate as a whole. The division between
daily politics and the reality of Government has become ever greater.
The technician has become ever more enchained by the passion, the prejudice and the folly
of uninstructed politics. By such a system as we advocate, the technician, who is the
architect of our industrial future, is freed for his task. He is given the mandate for that
task by the informed franchise of his colleagues in his own industry. A vote so cast will be
the result of experience and information. Is not this in fact rationalised democracy? Is not
this system preferable to the solemn humbug of present elections, which assumes that the
most technical problems of modern government, ranging from currency management to the
evolution of a scientific protective system, can be settled by a few days' loose discussion
in the turmoil of a General Election?
The ordinary man would greatly resent such treatment of the facts of his daily industry
and life. If someone strolled into an engineering shop and, after five minutes' cursory
examination of an intricate process which the engineer had studied all his life, proceeded to
tell him how to do it, the engineer would quickly tell the intruder he was a presumptuous
ass . Yet these are the methods which our present electoral system applies to that most
intricate and technical of processes, the government of a civilised State.
Rationalised democracy, as well as rationalised industry, has become an imperative
necessity. The Corporate State provides the only known solution to the problem. Our
electoral system has become a farce, worse even than in the days of bribed elections and
pocket boroughs. As it is organised at present, our system of government lacks the calibre to
carry us out of trade depression and set Britain again on top of the world.
In its writ-large form, trying to force West Virginia to accept the culture of
Massachusetts will produce only anger.
Who the hell is suggesting that? A tour of the radio dial would show that the
influence goes the other way. Where are the Arthur Fiedlers and Leroy Andersons when we need
them?
Good column Fred, but blacks are "phenomenally talented" is an interesting statement. Aside
from some basic talent with song & dance and athletics blacks are in general dismal.
I'll give them this: they know suffering mostly self-inflicted. It's a tragic situation
for them and us.
@SteveK9
I must disagree with the concept that the US lockdown was "copied from the Chinese".
While in no way do I support the current thoughts gaining popularity that "democracy
doesn't work" (works well enough in sane places like Japan, Korea, Slovakia, and such), this
precise example–the handling of the novel coronavirus–showed Beijing in a quite
OK light.
(The complaints how "they should have sounded the alarm half an hour earlier this would
have changed everything are only voiced by place that were too moronic to react properly in
time, unlike all of East Asia, which did)
What China did is lockdown ONE city (Wuhan), and sever connections between various other
cities and counties, in order to check the spread. And thus, they checked the spread. In 90%
places there was even never no "mandatory social distancing" or "mandatory mask wearing",
what people did they did because they felt they should, through grassroot peer pressure.
The whole Eastern Asian approach, China included, was:
1) Clamp down instantly on hot spots
2) Sever connections between suspect counties
3) After 1-2 viral cycles open up again
What the US and UK did was first go with the "nothing to see here" model, and then go into
"incompetent overreacting mode" when it was already far too late. This is NOT "the Chinese
model" that we saw.
But we're importing all the spiffy Latinos that Fred loves so much. We should be getting
better!
These headlines are hyperbole. America isn't going to "collapse". It still has far more
power than any other country. I don't know what will happen in the future and the state of
White Americans is a problem. But the country isn't going anywhere.
"""Our system of governments has proved itself weak, feckless, and unable to govern. The
chaotic response to the coronavirus is a prime example, there being no national policy and
the states being told to do as they see fit. """"
What's wrong with that? The FF took states rights for granted. That's why they wrote the
tenth amendment and that's why the federal constitution says the federal govt cannot by
itself amend its constitution. Only the states can.
@Ann Nonny Mouse
""It's mad, totally mad, to call the American system of government a democracy. The rule of
the super-rich is not the rule of the people, only the rule over the people.""
Democracy is dead not because of the rich but because of the Supreme Court. Those 9
unelected old goats appointed for life have granted themselves final say on every issue in
america. They write the laws even though the constitution says "All legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
The world will not again credit its charades of moral leadership. The rot, the tens of
thousands of derelict people living on the sidewalks, the looting and fire setting, the
censorship, are now visible to the entire earth. Oh well. It was a good thing while it
lasted.
The biggest contrast between the US and successful societies seems to involve the concept
of citizens rights and obligations.
If Americans had a strong concept of citizenship it could guide them through many
difficult issues. For example the world's longest running democracy (Switzerland) puts a
heavy list obligations on its citizens, such as military service, active regular
participation in local meetings/ issue based elections, and makes it clear to them that they
are a part of a historical society with no opt outs.
Americans have few or no obligations towards their founding history. They aren't required
to study it, respect it, or see themselves as part of it – in fact, to contribute in
any way at all. Rather, the Jewish media encourages them to demean it, and they are defined
as "consumers" (something that feeds and shops) rather than citizens.
Agreed that the US continues on its fast downward track, and it will involve more serious
financial and social crises.
On a basic level, US society is hopelessly uncompetitive with places like modern China
(great unified national projects in education, industry, infrastructure and national
development) while it papers over the cracks with debt, and pushes its ZioGlob SJW
agenda.
Yes, there may be no future for this society in white European terms. But it can still be a
magnificent place for people of color. The African population is expected to swell to more
than 45 billion in the coming years. Why not open up this unoccupied land and these existent
cities to these populations? There is a similar population spike ahead in Mexico and areas of
central and South America. These individuals are skilled farmers and they can make the U.S.
flourish with new crops.
If these new immigrants can build on the wonderful democratic ideals of the disappearing
white population, we may see a terrific future for mankind, also womankind.
The author seems to think the actions of rabble arise spontaneously. But they are just chess
pieces in a campaign to destroy the traditional Christian America. Money c0ntrols our
politics by owning the media and in effect the political parties and academe. The flow and
flux of opinions is in the hands of very bright people who unfortunately hate us.
What fun, what entertainment. And rare: One seldom sees the collapse of a landmark
society
Imagine thinking you're not standing in line to the slaughter.
I wonder if you'll still be thinking this once BLM militarizes. And they will, just look
at the sort of "donations" they are getting from the fortune 500. BLM is bigger than both
parties, and they are gearing up for a 1917. That means red terrors, the abolished police
replaced by NKVD style outfits that will abduct, torture, and murder the people you love, it
means mass executions,
The writing's on the wall; the anti-white hate speech, 1619, the statues being toppled,
the kneeling and appeasing, the more demands, the more fanaticism, the more hatred in this
racial rendition of marxism the proletariat are non-whites and the bourgeoisie are whites.
Watch out. There will be ZERO mercy if you're white. No matter how much you kneel, it will
never be enough.
It's not hard to imagine; a second wave of clownvirus to scare white people into
lockdowns, a chinese cyber attack to black out everything, then suddenly a red terror of
crazed and armed BLM mobs universally activated to slaughter the white sitting ducks in an
Esther style genocide which the jewish media will absolutely love. Interestingly this covid
hoax was launched around Purim.
"America speaks of the rule of the people, a horrible idea, and seems to be getting
there."
Do not think anyone can know
Their speech is restricted so we cannot know what they think
Their freedom to associate is restricted so they cannot organize with those of a like
mind
Their freedom to live as they will is restricted by federal legislation and nine
judges
They are forced to pay for others bad decisions and to bail them out
They are robbed of their money to be told how they can spend it and with whom
The rule of a free people would cause others to rise to the level of those who do best to
out do them if they were free to do so. It is the lack of freedom to do so, not that a people
being free does not make the best rule
Worldwide the depths of ignorance amongst the dark races is mind blowing. In South Africa
after 25 years of black rule which includes the control of state run schools and their
curricula, an acceptable pass rate is now 30%! Knowing 3 out of every 10 things is
acceptable. I mentioned to one of the anthropoids the other day about the excesses of the
Ottoman empire in Eastern Europe and Greece to be told "I don't care what Otto did", there is
literally no hope. The barbarians are in the city.
countries that outstandingly look after their people, such as Cuba
I can say from extensive first hand experience and the testimonials of family, friends,
etc. that not one country in Latin America looks after its people.
@Daemon Well, you
still replied to a comment opening, in our time of violently, unworthily, cultural legal and
social female privilege, with "Be kinder to our women."
Putting the foot down would work. I think the hand outs are at least partly responsible for
the uselessness of the blacks. Enabling is a pretty dangerous thing when done over 8 decades.
Take away the gravy train, it just might force them out of their stupor.
But who knows. It might also push all blacks into open revolt.
I think George Carlin described this the best "the owners aren't interested in people
capable of critical thinking – it's not in their interest. They only want obedient
workers "
The problem in America is not black people, it's white people. Take a look at current pop
culture which is basically homos and race-mixing 24/7. Take a look at the issues that worry
Americans (nooses and bathrooms for transexuals). Look at American celebrities, the
Kartrashians. Look at whom they want to vote, Senile Joe Biden or Trashy Trump (which is the
less bad alternative). Look at all the morbidly obese people moving around in scooters to buy
even more sodas and fast food.
It's not about the Left. It's about punks and hoodlums serving as Janissary to Jewish
Supremacist Power.
Exactly!
And Fearless Freddie knows it. Of course when Fred sees this pointed out to him he
pretends not to notice -- like with so many others, it's much safer for him to go after the
puppets, not the (((puppet-masters))).
(Although Janissaries were highly respected elite troops -- not exactly what we see
here.)
I keep thinking of an old cartoon by Leunig showing a family visiting the museum of lost
manners. The boy is interested in a diorama of a man giving up his chair for a lady. I feel
the same could happen to all of the toppled statues, the only difference is that they will
end up in a museum for lost causes. Every weekend families will visit and sadly reminisce of
a past lost.
@Charlemagne
Universal suffrage is a problem, turning into a popularity contest where only the rich can
compete, but it's that, that it's so easily corrupted, and is, that's the problem.
With election by lot there would have been no world wars.
When the Soviet Union ended it could fall back into various nation states
Soviet Union did not "fall back into nation states", because no such states even existed
before USSR. Soviet Union disintegrated in line with its administrative division, the
equivalent would be America's 50 states going their separate way.
The author forgot about Flynt and other such cities. Also, is it the dictatorship of the
proletariat bombing other nations, notably Arab nations, not quite black, yet close, into
oblivion.
Very interesting article, thanks.
However it has one great deceit aand deficit.
quote
'The Soviet Union spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but lived under the
dictatorship of a gray aristocracy.'
No Fred.
It was not a 'gray' aristocracy.
It was a Jewish one.
The jews created and controlled the USSR for years.
Murdering millions of actual Russians.
Read Solzhenitsyn .
Imprisoning them, torturing them and enslaving them.
The falling of the Berlin wall freed the Russian people more than anyone else, it can be
argued.
It kept the Russians IN – in one almighty Jewish controlled prison.
But even then – a druncken corrupt Yeltsin was placed in charge – a USA/Jewish
puppet.
And the takaway plunder of Russia and its people began – obscene plunder which Putin is
reclaiming as he can.
Many jews then fled.
Not only Fred, did you miss the Jewish connection with Russia – you have managed to
ignore the Jewish connections with BLM and the current racial turmoil.
You seem to have a poor opinion of minorities fair enough – most of us would agree with
what you write.
But you are very coy about the minority with all its financial power and dual citizenships
behind the USSR, and the corruption and breaking of western nations today.
Why?
Um!
Excuse me, I feel the need for a quibble:
" a true dictatorship of the proletariat,". The rioters etc are not the "proletariat", they
are the "Lumpen-proletariat". The Proletariat are working people. They usually have families,
mortgages, car payments. They struggle with health insurance. They may even dream of their
kids going to college. The ultimate challenge with these people is to encourage them towards
class consciousness -- which means roughly, a consciousness of their own interests as a
group.
The "Lumpen-proletariat" are basically social riff-raff. They are the odds & sods. They
tend to live outside or unevenly connected to the "everyday" world. They may not be "bad"
people. Indeed, they may be "respectable". However, they will rarely have a consciousness of
social & political realities, even as they apply to themselves.
@Oliver Elkington
We cannot organize as every time we do the SPLC labels anything white as racist and in comes
the corrupt federally bums of in cognition to throw whites in prison. The writer is correct,
We Are Doomed.
But you are very coy about the minority with all its financial power and dual
citizenships behind the USSR, and the corruption and breaking of western nations today.
Why?
Because behind Fred's leather-jacket-Brando-Wild-One alter-ego, he's just plain
scared.
@SteveK9 The
Chinese response toCovidwas not insane, it was rational.
Having experienced several suspicious plagues among their food animals in recent months,
the Chinese feared they were facing bio-warfare, and made the only rational response. With
recent flareups, they probably fear they're facing phase 2 – and they probably are.
America, on the other hand, destroyed its economy to preserve the banks – setting
fire to the house to keep the furniture warm. And now the rabble, fantastically talented at
burning things, are burning the furniture.
@bluedog Canada is
gone. No glue. Started downhill about the same time as the U.S. – in the 70's/80's.
Yes, they treated the natives terribly, but from what I read at Unz and elsewhere, the
natives did their fair share of raiding and slaving. Such is man, unfortunately.
@Gordon K. Shumway
Unfortunately, the American people are the only people so stupid as to have opened their
doors wide to an influx of immigrants to the point they'll soon become a minority in their
own country. What used to be our core culture is fast disappearing. English is no longer the
lingua franca, but we are now a bi-lingual English and Spanish speaking country. Say bye-bye
America and go back to sleep. It's over, thanks to our "leaders'–an unbroken line of
dumbshit, sellouts!
@Felix Keverich
Russia and the Baltic states existed before, the stans had some clearly identifiable ethnic
groups they belonged to. I don't want to go into the usual impenetrable and pointless debates
about Belarus and Ukraine, but for most part the states that came out of the Soviet Union
were more natural nation states that came out of the Africa post colonialism, the US states
are not close to anything like nation states from the USSR.
@Oliver Elkington
I think it is simply all down to levels of comfort on both sides. For the left, they are
protesting and rioting because the state supports them. There will be no consequences and
ultimately they can return back to their lives as the smoke clears problem free. For the
right, they too are also comfortable and do not want to lose this comfort over fighting back
for what is right. Instead they'd rather 'protest' on the internet. It will take dwindling
levels of comfort to get the right to truly start organising.
@Oliver Elkington
A few years ago some locals in my community had organized a family picnic for residents to
come and celebrate a day of European heritage. All were invited to celebrate, there were
certainly no color restrictions or anything of the sort. This area is heavily Italian,
Polish, Irish and Welsh, all descendants of immigrants who came over to work in the coal
mines. We're talking a day of middle-aged people enjoying ethnic European foods and games for
the kids, tomato casseroles, pierogis and kielbasa.
Then all the Jewish gestapo groups suddenly appeared, denounced it as a day of white
supremacy, SPLC of course weighed in against it, the local politicians caved to the pressure
and finally saw that the park permit for the picnic was pulled. At the time, I found all the
negative reactions to this picnic hard to believe.
But here we are now, denied the right to peaceful assembly while anti-white forces have
full freedom to promote hatred, physical violence, looting and arson.
I don't know what will happen in the future and the state of White Americans is a
problem. But the country isn't going anywhere.
The US is circling the drain. The last I heard over a billion dollars was donated openly
to BLM by big corporations as a reward for instigating riots and looting across the country.
The rulers aren't even bothering to pretend to care about the future of the US.
@Freda Lipshitz
Brilliant, Freda! I found myself laughing out loud on reading your Red-Nexico.
You are right. Good idea. Let the South secede.
Except, why shoul they fuse with Mexico? They could be independent of both.
The basic American problem is the rule of the rich, which is predatory rule, and the gift
America gives them, a tiny few, is vast wealth all in one country. If that wealth was divided
up, part in the Confederacy as an independent country, part in New England as an independent
country, part CA and a few of the nearby states ditto, part WA ditto ditto, Hawaii shunted
off, independent, flyover states picking the nearest of those others to join, the rule of the
rich would be over! Prey on what?
Think. The rule of the super-rich over Cuba? It that why Cuba has free health care? Free
education? No-one in debt? Though under beastly US sanctions for decades?
Split the US up into a few medium-sized countries and SO many problems would be
solved.
Is democracy even a good thing? Last summer I read "The End of Democracy" by a Belgian
named Christophe Buffin de Chosal, and I'm now convinced that it is not.
You need *some* method to get rid of failed politicians that doesn't involve large amounts
of physical destruction.
@IvyMike Racism is
not the problem, Mike. I always appreciate a writer that states the truth, and Mr. Reed has
done a bang-up job in stating the truth about the situation here. (It's the other 95% of his
columns in which he has lots of truth but always some piece of his stupidity thrown in, that
make me comment so much in the threads thereunder.)
About the only minor detail I disagree with in this one is that, even though it's true
that having a complete democracy* with anyone being able to vote HAS been a bad thing, that's
not the Communism. The proto-Commies are the antifa idiots pulling down the statues. The
world has seen this before just over a century ago in Russia, over 70 years ago in China,
etc. Many of us either don't know any history or don't want to open our eyes to recognize
this.
No, they haven't read Marx and Engles, and no, they don't have Mao's little red books.
Just the same, it's the exact same mentality of wanting to tear down traditional society
completely that makes these antifa the modern Commies. Don't get me wrong, they'll be
bulldozed into ditches later by the ones in charge just the same, if this effort is completed
in America, but they don't know that yet. Useful idiots abound right now.
.
* The country was originally organized as a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.
The Zionist Plan or Deep State Plan or NWO Plan { take your pick } is working 100%. The
populace is confused and programmed, and the "NWO Plan " has gotten filthy filthy Rich ,
while leaving the people so dumbed down – that they are blaming one another or some
puppet government people for all the shit going down. The Plan started over 100 yrs ago and
we can look back and see it – 1913 Federal Reserve, Politicians in their back pocket,
WWI , WW II, CIA founded, 1965 Open and Unlimited immigration , JFK and others assassinated,
the Wars, 9/11, . We know who is even doing it – but Nobody is left to Stop Them. The
Top people in the Federal Gov. and the State Govs. are mostly – all in – it can
only runs its course – now. Just like a Virus,
@Red Pill Angel
True, RPA, and what Fred somewhat described, but with not much detail, is that this is part
of the Long March through the institutions that has been going on since the middle 1960s. The
marchers reached their destination, total control, probably 10 years ago.
The European-American is still the majority, so if America falls, whose fault is it?
European-Americans are the majority in a government whose top priorities are themselves,
corporations and a foreign apartheid government. European-Americans have the majority vote
and continually vote for parties and representatives who seem to have little interest in
American prosperity.
European-Americans are the ones who idly stood by in silence within the herd and watched as
their government facilitated Jim Crow, welfare and targeted mass incarceration against the
Black African-American community, and then not understand why there is inequality
Apparently, too many European-Americans don't read history or are not interested in American
heritage, because they don't seem to understand the importance of the first and second
amendments, and that whosoever targets to eliminate these rights is an enemy.
Talk about IQ. Many European-Americans actually believe the propaganda of the Covid-19 hoax
or that erasing one of the most important events in American history will resolve the media
hyped racial tension.
And there are many European-Americans who do not seem to understand that the medical response
to the "epidemic", and the policing against rioting is the responsibility of the State, not
the federal government.
Why is it, that so many European-Americans do not understand that the United States is a
democracy based upon freedom, moral principles and common sense, not a Marxist communist
ideology.
If America fails, it is because too many Europeans don't think and act like they're
Americans.
@ASimpleHistory
Those water systems that only send the lead contamination to our helpless black wards? Must
be in the hundreds. Special valves and pipes yo!
Examples please.
Fred supplies examples of a flood of good will and mawkish stupidity showered on the
diversity and you counter with some penny ante hiccup in the scheme of things to sustain the
fantasy of "In it `Orrid?"
American Africans butt crackers and our precious progressive pansies will soon enough sift
through the rubble and garbage of an amazing experiment and never understand the truth of the
saying that the best is the enemy of the good. Or that a bird in hand is worth two in the
Bush. Thinking white!
Fred you're back in rare form! The irony that the country that has done the most to uplift
the white mans burden, is also the most racist seems well Words can't describe.
The more blacks get, the more racist we are. Time to toss em off the gravy train. Then at
least if we are to be called racist, we are'nt pissing dollar after dollar down the
river!
How bout we try leaving then to their own devices, since you know, blacks are the greatest
builders of civilizations in the history of man kind.
Fred you have accurately and succinctly put into words what pisses sane whites off the most,
the more we give, the bigger the black middle finger at us gets.
@Bragadocious If
someone is sick with Covid, that usually entails a breathing problem. I don't see how people
with breathing difficulties are going to march through the desert for days to show up at a US
emergency room.
There are still plenty of nice peaceful places to live in America. Most of the idiocy we're
witnessing is in the the large urban areas. We lose sight of the geographical immensity of
the US. Even in Southern California, where I live, there are huge sparsely populated areas,
and even more in the north. The first amendment was supposed to allow for freedom of
association, (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) and that includes who we live with and
amongst, in private life. So much for that.
I see the problem more as a political organization issue. The U.S. moved away from a
republic to an empire, and bled the country of resources to maintain that empire to
enormously enrich the few. When the ability to plunder resources diminished, the ruling class
switched to counterfeiting money on a grand scale to steal the wages of labor of the poor
here, and abroad.
So it's a twofold problem. One is the collapse of the global empire, both by resistance of
others (namely China and Russia), overreach, unaffordability, and incompetence. The other is
the social, economic, and cultural collapse at home, caused by years of political, economic
and social engineering, and outright theft by the ruling class.
In the real world (nature) entropy is a bitch. The reality is all our terms for society
are the humanities terms for thermodynamics. Complex systems require a lot of energy and
design to keep intact, let lone expand. The bigger the system the more required, and the more
fragile it gets – particularly when run exclusively from the center. Running an empire
from Washington in the modern world is about as complex as can be imagined. Far more than
Rome had to deal with, and look what happened there.
To me the solution, is a redesign of America's political organization. Forget the empire
and Republic, they're done. Design an organization similar to Switzerland, which is probably
the only true confederation on the planet. Let's return political power back to the states,
eliminate or drastically reduce the powers of the center (ie. Washington), and let the people
in each state decide how they wish to be governed there, and not by Washington. We might find
that there are states that don't want to belong to any larger political unit. Fine. Smaller
is better anyway. Let the pieces fall and let's see what combinations come out of it.
@Grahamsno(G64)
Proof?.
Claiming they went to the moon fifty years ago .
And now they have to buy tickets on Russian rockets .
Something has seriously deteriorated in the US space race.
Of course – a 'claim' is meaningless when you have Kubrick standing by.
Look what can be done with a few sets of boxcutters LOL
" In truth, America has made the greatest effort ever essayed by one race to uplift another.
Reflect: In 1954 an entirely white Supreme Court unanimously ended segregation. Later it
found the use of IQ tests by employers illegal because blacks scored poorly, then found
"affirmative action," racial discrimination against whites, legal (hardly oppression of
blacks, this). An overwhelmingly white Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the
Voting Rights Act the next year." etc etc
Fred, has it ever occurred to you that this was all PLANNED, that it was all ON PURPOSE?
Who in their right mind would sign a mass immigration bill? US, or World, Government would.
Why? Social unrest. Cultural genocide. Divide and conquer. Chaos amongst the rabble.
And the rabble, as we clearly can see now, truly are rabble–unintelligent, thuggish,
and all that. Many of their grandparents, if not all, were measured in speech and action,
humble and perhaps even quite intelligent. No more. Now a great indicator of lack of if not
intelligence then common sense–and true intelligence embraces common sense–is the
modern university graduate.
As I've said for years, Beware the white female masters or doctorate holder!
But Fred, surely you can figure out that all these things don't just happen. Lay your cards
on the table, dude.
@Ann Nonny Mouse
Gov't shouldn't even attempt to look after its citizens.
It's when gov't becomes a social welfare scheme that things go awry. The average citizen
is supposed to be able to stand on his own two feet and compete in a free market. Gov't is
supposed to protect that free market from interference. What we have today is gov't
suffocating the free market and fostering dependency by the millions of stupid voters they
pander after.
Cut off the welfare, 'free stuff' social programs, and get back to basics to change
course, but at this stage that's impossible. The solution is to get rid of the entire Fed Gov
to make the real cancers in the society evaporate. Get rid of the Pelosi's, Schumer's,
Trump's, the Federal Reserve, laws that actually cause discrimination, etc, etc,etc.
Allow the states to become countries and start 50 experiments on how to govern. I predict
that the conservative entities will rapidly fare best and the liberal holes will depopulate
via voting with their feet. Within 2 years, some areas will be humming along nicely while the
rest will have to reexamine their ridiculous policies when infinite funny money is no longer
available to create the fantasy world they wanted to live within.
@Smithsonian_2
"The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places." – Frank
Chodorov
As long as there's some asshat 'ruler' there will be corruption and eventual total decay
as the US is now experiencing. I, for one, need no 'leader'. Anarchism!
Fred, what is it about you? You write an article about the decline of America but the
Americans posting comments on your article are talking about circumcision, foreskin donors
and 'Willie-tampering'. That has to be your fault, something you are doing. It cannot be
attributed to the pathetic imbecility of most Americans even though you point out that the
dumbing-down of education will result in the pathetic imbecility of most Americans, so that
means . . . Oh, forget it. You win, I lose.
This is an aside but, if I may masquerade for a moment as a pathetically-imbecilic
American, I would note that god (or even, God) made an agreement with some of my people that
in return for unlimited but undefined blessings (other than a glass of milk and honey which
tastes like hell if you want to know the truth) they would circumcise all the males so he
could recognise his "children". This 'raises' questions. I would have thought even a minor
god (much less a God) could recognise his children without earthly assistance, especially
that kind of assistance and, unless the people are all naked, how would he know? Would he
say, "Unzip your pants so I can assess your degree of faithfulness?" I once had a girlfriend
who was so inclined, but never a god (much less a God).
I know I risk divine retribution for daring to ask, but what the hell would a god have in
his mind that he would choose THIS method of identifying his faithful? If I were a god
(forget about God here), and wanted a way to recognise my followers, I'm not sure that
'Willie-tampering' would be my ID of choice. A tramp stamp might be okay for the girls, but
for boys I think I might suggest something simple and more publicly-entertaining like
castration with piano-wire and a runaway horse. But let's not lose the main point which is
that any god who chooses to identify his (American and other) faithful by the contents of
their pants, is somebody I want to stay far away from. As with Hillary Clinton, and for much
the same reasons.
If America does fall who is gonna be Israel's henchman? Who's gonna keep stirring the Mid
East pot and the world with wars? And who's gonna protect poor Israel from their proclaimed
"nemesis" Iran?
I can't believe they would let the US self-destruct (actually cause the US to collapse)
because that would leave Israel all alone to defend itself.
@ASimpleHistory
Because middle-Americans don't travel and regard a country on the border of Michigan as a
foreign country, many posters have no clue about Canada. I grew up 40 miles from Ontario and
know it well.
Natives in Northern Canada are so dangerous that you would not want to walk around a small
Northern Ontario town. Going into a bar would be like going into a South Chicago project.
Natives in Canada don't have access to firearms or you would have 700 shootings a year. The
Canadian bush is actually more dangerous than Canadian cities. They're no different than
Aztecs in Phoenix, really.
Canada also has underclasses the US doesn't have. The idea of being mugged by an East
Indian in America would seem absurd. In Brampton it is not uncommon.
[MORE]
Worse yet, Canadian syndicates-like the IRA once was-are linked to political terrorism. Tamil
Tigers and Sikh Separatists flooded Canada in the seventies and eighties and used drug
dealing to fund their movements back home-which created a horrendous problem with middleman
money laundering.
Chinese have assumed control of Vancouver. They've flooded the streets with heroin from
China and East Vancouver has the highest rate of AIDS in North America.
Because most Americans don't travel to UK I'll run down the situation there. Pakistanis
are ruthless and their gangs as bad as Bloods or Crips. Guns and grenade launchers and M-14's
are common in UK and unlike the US, British criminals are more likely to shoot a police
officer.
The idea that there are no guns in Canada or UK is a joke. The cities of Toronto and
London are full of gun-toting ethnic cartels. Albanians and Russian pimping syndicates are
armed to the teeth in UK with firearms which would make a Crip green with envy.
Crime in London and Canada is more multicultural. In the US, blacks and Mexicans rule the
streets. No other gang can get into street level crime. In Canada and UK there are dozens of
street-level gangs of thugs battling it out for drug sales territory, while the Albanians
handle the high-class pimping.
I don't know why, but Pakistanis in America just cannot get into the grooming game. Maybe
its police response time. Tahir hangs around a middle school in the US and the cops are there
in 30 seconds. Or possibly little white girls in the US are culturally programmed to like the
black Alpha pimp-stud and some greasy Pakistani doesn't appeal.
Similarly, gypsies in the US go straight because on the street the blacks would simply
rape the begging little gypsy girls downtown to death. Or they would be shot.
Another aspect is prison. US prisons are so appalling that about 30 years ago the classic
white offenders-cat burglars, chop shop operators, bank robbers-simply stopped committing
crime because of the sexual torture by blacks in prison. Any probation officer will tell you
this.
In Australia, the Italian syndicates in Melbourne are actually more violent and brazen
than in New Jersey. In the US, the Italians are no longer really into violent crime. They're
into white-collar crime. Down Under, some of the Italians still are.
But the bottom-line is that UK blacks are Afro-Caribbean and West African. While it has
been noted that many of the Jamaicans are bad and riots have occurred, there is not the
density of black crime of the US inner-cities in UK. Its bad, of course, but mostly in
London.
Its been theorized that US blacks interactions with macho Irish and Scottish sheepherders
in the US South somehow made them more culturally worse than Africans, but this is only a
theory.
Similarly, Canada has also always had Afro-Caribbean crime. Haitians and Jamaicans brought
pimping and AIDS to Canada.
It was not actually the small number of US blacks who immigrated to Canada who brought the
scourges of pimping and crime but actually the Afro-Caribbeans.
Stryker knows the streets of the world. I've been on all of them.
Interestingly, Spain is a nice country. Much is made of its purported Arab influence, but
it seemed like France to me. Nothing like the Cholos of Phoenix.
Anyhow, for American posters who are so unworldly that they have not been to Canada that
is the rundown.
"When the Soviet Union ended it could fall back into various nation states, America has no
such thing. This makes its collapse incredibly more dangerous . . ."
Yes, although not primarily due to the left-over nuclear missiles. There is something much
more fundamental here. You touched on it, but I'm not sure how well you appreciate your
insight.
The issue is this: If France dissolves, the French people are still French. If America
dissolves, Americans are nothing.
So why saying generally right things about toppling of statures this billionaire wants
reparations. As any billionaire is a potential criminal who obtained his wealth at the expense of
common people what share of his wealth he will contribute?
And slavery in the USA was not the unique exception in the world in XIX century. Arab
countries get rid of slavery only in XX century and no completely. It was reinstalled in Libya
recently thanks to the USA topping of the regime of Colonel Gaddafi .
It's
not going to give a kid whose parents can't afford college, money to go to college. It's not
going to close the labor gap and it's not going to take people off welfare or food stamps
."
It's tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on a racial Titanic. It absolutely means
nothing.
Johnson took a similarly dim view of removing shows like " The Dukes of Hazzard " or
films like " Gone with the Wind " from circulation and firing professors for saying "
all lives matter " instead of " black lives matter ," suggesting these moves are
" an attempt by white Americans to assuage guilt by doing things that make them feel
good " and don't help black people at all.
" Black people laugh at white people who do this ," the BET founder said, pointing
out that black viewers likely made up a significant portion of the viewing audiences of the
canceled shows because " they watch more TV ."
Calling performative apologetics from white celebrities on social media " the silliest
expression of white privilege that exists in this country ," Johnson suggested privileged
white people instead ask black people what they want and listen to their responses. "
Embrace being white and do the right thing, and then you don't have to worry about being sad
because you're white! "
" White Americans seem to think that if they just do sort of emotionally or drastic
things that black people are going to say 'Oh my god, white people love us because they took
down a statue of Stonewall Jackson' ," Johnson said before repurposing a famous quote from
the now-verboten Gone with the Wind: " Frankly, black people don't give a damn.
"
Johnson, who became America's first black billionaire in 2001, has plenty of ideas about
what black people want. He recently called for a $14 trillion reparations package for
descendants of slaves, which works out to about $358,000 for every black American, and believes
such a massive financial boost – not self-flagellating demonstrations from privileged
white people – is what most black people would like to see emerge from the current
climate of racial reckoning.
" Now is the time to go big ," he declared earlier this month, floating the massive
number as protests and riots raged across the US following the police killing of George Floyd.
But while a few of the Democratic presidential candidates had paid lip service to making
reparations part of their platforms early in the race, presumptive nominee Joe Biden has not
climbed aboard that bandwagon – yet.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
An upstate woman and two Brooklyn lawyers were indicted Friday on federal explosives and
arson charges for allegedly tossing Molotov cocktails at NYPD vehicles during George Floyd
protests in New York City.
Samantha Shader, 27, of Catskill, is accused of hurling the makeshift explosive at an
NYPD vehicle occupied by four police officers on early Saturday morning, May 30.
Prosecutors allege Shader bit one of the officer's legs when she was being taken into
custody.
Around the same time, Brooklyn lawyers Urooj Rahman, 31, and Colinford Mattis, 32, were
accused of tossing their own Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied police vehicle in Brooklyn
during a separate attack.
Throw the book at them. This was premeditated, murderous, and seditious.
An
agent provocateur is an undercover agent, sometimes a police officer, who's deployed to join a
protest to provoke protesters into illegal acts or violence so the protest can be discredited
and those protesting are liable for prosecution. It's a classic strategy, and Anders Lee
explores its place in history, both in the recent George Floyd uprisings, and in many instances
of domestic terrorism in the US.
The Venezuelan Embassy protectors have had their felony charges dropped over their protests
defending the international diplomatic order, US law enforcement has targeted journalists
covering the George Floyd uprising, the Biden campaign continues to become more of a carnival
as it lets the Democratic National Committee's candidate continue to talk in public, and
more.
Natalie McGill reports on where the bailout money aimed at hospitals went. Unsurprisingly,
it turns out that already wealthy, predatory metropolitan institutions scooped more funding
than struggling rural hospitals, and McGill wants to know how we can get that money back.
Anders Lee sits down with Lee Camp to talk about Trump's move to criminalize Antifa, the case
of an assassinated former Swedish president that's not only been reopened but potentially also
solved, and more. YOUTUBE Channel Redacted Tonight
Today, in the context of the Black Lives Matter protests, TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich considers the all-American version of "extreme
materialism" that Martin Luther King called out more than half a century ago. And when it
comes to the overwhelming urge to get one's hands on the goods, among the looters of this
moment two groups are almost never mentioned: the Pentagon and the police.
Yet, in 1997, the Department of Defense set up the 1033 program as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act to provide thousands of domestic police forces with "surplus"
equipment of almost every imaginable militarized kind. Since then, thanks to your tax
dollars, it has given away $7.4
billion of such equipment, some of it directly off the battlefields of this country's
forlorn "forever wars."
For items like grenade launchers, mine-resistant armored vehicles, military rifles,
bayonets, body armor, night-vision goggles, and helicopters
, all that police departments have to fork over is the price of delivery. The Pentagon has,
in fact, been so eager to become the Macy's of
militarized hardware that, in 2017, it was even willing to "give $1.2 million worth of
rifles, pipe bombs, and night vision goggles to a fake police department," no questions
asked. That "department" proved to be part of a sting
operation run by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "It was like getting stuff
off of eBay," a GAO official would
say . Only, of course, for free.
The militarization (or, thought of another way, the commercialization) of the police has
been remarkably on pace these last 23 years, while the Pentagon's
ever-soaring budgets for its ever-sinking wars could be thought of as the great American
commercial success story of this century. With more and more taxpayer dollars in its
wallet, it's been on a remarkable looting spree. Ask yourself: has there been a weapons
system it couldn't have, a military base it couldn't establish, a war expense Congress
wouldn't fund even while cutting back on crucial aspects of the domestic budget like
infrastructure
programs or
disease-prevention spending ? No wonder the Pentagon could supply all those police
departments with a cornucopia of goods with which to turn themselves into over-armed
occupying forces in this country.
It's never thought of that way, but the Pentagon and the police have essentially been
looting the coffers of the American taxpayer for a long time now and, in the Trump era, the
process has only intensified .
Nonetheless, as Bacevich points out, even with protests over racism filling the streets of
America, protests over defunding the Pentagon have yet to surface in any significant way.
Perhaps it's finally time. ~ Tom
Martin Luther King's Giant Triplets
By Andrew Bacevich
In the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, Americans are finally – or is it
once again? – confronting the racism that afflicts this country and extends into just
about every corner of our national life. Something fundamental just might be happening.
Yet to state the obvious, we've been
here before. Mass protests in response to racial inequality and discrimination, including
police brutality, have been anything but unknown in the United States. Much the same can be
said of riots targeting black Americans, fomented and exploited by white racists, often
actively or passively abetted by local law enforcement officials. If Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin,
formerly known as H. Rap Brown, was correct in calling violence "as American as
cherry pie," then race-related urban unrest is the apple-filled equivalent.
The optimists among us believe
that "this time is different." I hope events will prove them right. Yet recalling
expectations that Barack Obama's election in 2008 signaled the dawn of a " post-racial America
," I see no reason to expect it to be so. A yawning gap, I fear, separates hope from
reality.
Let me suggest, however, that the nation's current preoccupation with race, as honorable
and necessary as it may be, falls well short of adequately responding to the situation
confronting Americans as they enter the third decade of the twenty-first century. Racism is a
massive problem, but hardly our only one. Indeed, as Martin Luther King sought to remind us
many years ago, there are at least two others of comparable magnitude.
MLK Defines the Problem
In April 1967, at New York City's Riverside Church, Dr. King delivered a sermon that
offered a profound diagnosis of the illnesses afflicting the nation. His analysis remains as
timely today as it was then, perhaps more so.
Americans remember King primarily as a great civil rights leader and indeed he was that.
In his Riverside Church address, however, he turned to matters that went far beyond race. In
an immediate sense, his focus was the ongoing Vietnam War, which he denounced as "madness"
that "must cease." Yet King also used the occasion to summon the nation to "undergo a radical
revolution of values" that would transform the United States "from a thing-oriented society
to a person-oriented society." Only through such a revolution, he declared, would we be able
to overcome "the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism."
The challenge confronting Americans was to dismantle what King referred to as the
"edifice" that produced and sustained each of those giant triplets. Today's protesters,
crusading journalists, and engaged intellectuals make no bones about their determination to
eliminate the first of those giant triplets. Yet they generally treat the other two as, at
best, mere afterthoughts, while the edifice itself, resting on a perverse understanding of
freedom, goes almost entirely ignored.
I'm not suggesting that members of the grand coalition of Americans today fervently
campaigning against racism favor extreme materialism. Many of them merely accept its reality
and move on. Nor am I suggesting that they consciously endorse militarism, although in
confusing "support" for the troops with genuine patriotism some of them do so implicitly.
What I am suggesting is that those calling for fundamental change will go badly astray if
they ignore Dr. King's insistence that each of the giant triplets is intimately tied to the
other two.
Defund the Pentagon?
The protests triggered by the recent murders of George Floyd and other black Americans
have produced widespread demands to "defund the police." Those demands don't come out of
nowhere. While "reform" programs undertaken in innumerable American cities over the course of
many years have demonstrably
enhanced police firepower , they have done little, if anything, to repair relations
between police departments and communities of color.
As an aging middle-class white male, I don't fear cops. I respect the fact that theirs is
a tough job, which I would not want. Yet I realize that my attitude is one more expression of
white privilege, which black men, regardless of their age and economic status, can ill afford
to indulge. So I fully accept the need for radical changes in policing – that's what
"defund" appears to imply – if American cities are ever to have law enforcement
agencies that are effective, humane, and themselves law-abiding.
What I can't fathom is why a similar logic doesn't apply to the armed forces that we
employ to police huge chunks of the world beyond our borders. If Americans have reason to
question the nation's increasingly
militarized approach to law enforcement, then shouldn't they have equal reason to
question this country's thoroughly militarized approach to statecraft?
Consider this: on an annual basis, police officers in the United States kill approximately
1,000 Americans , with blacks
two-and-a-half times more likely than whites to be victimized. Those are appalling
figures, indicative of basic policy gone fundamentally awry. So the outpouring of protest
over the police and demands for change are understandable and justified.
Still, the question must be asked: Why have the nation's post-9/11 wars not prompted
similar expressions of outrage? The unjustified killing of black Americans rightly finds
thousands upon thousands of protesters flooding the streets of major cities. Yet the
loss of thousands of
American soldiers and the physical and psychological wounds sustained by tens of thousands
more in foolhardy wars elicits, at best, shrugs. Throw in the hundreds of
thousands of non-American lives taken in those military campaigns and the
trillions of taxpayer dollars they have consumed and you have a catastrophe that easily
exceeds in scale the myriad race-related protests and riots that have roiled American cities
in the recent past.
With their eyes fixed on elections that are now just months away, politicians of all
stripes spare no effort to show that they "get it" on the issue of race and policing. Race
may well play a large role in determining who wins the White House this November and which
party controls Congress. It should. Yet while the election's final outcome may be uncertain,
this much is not: neither the American
propensity for war, nor the
bloated size of the Pentagon budget, nor the dubious habit of maintaining a sprawling
network of military bases across much of the planet will receive serious scrutiny during
the political season now underway. Militarism will escape unscathed.
At Riverside Church, King described the U.S. government as "the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world today." So it unquestionably remains, perpetrating immeasurably more
violence than any other great power and with remarkably little to show in return. Why, then,
except on the easily ignored fringes of American politics, are there no demands to "defund"
the Pentagon?
King considered the Vietnam War an abomination. At that time, more than a few Americans
agreed with him and vigorously demonstrated against the conflict's continuation. That today's
demonstrators have seemingly chosen to file away our post-9/11 military misadventures under
the heading of regrettable but forgettable is itself an abomination. While their sensitivity
to racism is admirable, their indifference to war is nothing short of disheartening.
In 1967, Dr. King warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money
on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." During
the intervening decades, his charge has lost none of its sting or aptness.
America's National Signature
Given their size and duration, the protests occurring in the wake of the murder of George
Floyd have been remarkably peaceful. That said, some of them did, early on, include rioters
who resorted to looting. Smashing windows and ransacking stores, they walked off not with
milk and bread for the hungry, but with shopping bags filled with
high-end swag – designer shoes and sneakers, purses, clothing, and jewelry lifted
from
stores like Prada and Alexander McQueen. Also stolen were smart phones,
handguns , even automobiles . In-store
surveillance systems recorded
scenes reminiscent of Black Friday doorbuster sales, though without anyone bothering to
pass through a checkout counter. Some looters quickly attempted to monetize their hauls by
offering to sell purloined items online.
Certain right-wing commentators wasted no time in using the looting to tar the protest
movement as little more than an expression of nihilism. Tucker Carlson of Fox News was
particularly
emphatic on this point. Americans taking to the streets in response to George Floyd's
murder, he said, "reject society itself."
"Reason and process and precedent mean nothing to them. They use violence to get what they
want immediately. People like this don't bother to work. They don't volunteer or pay taxes to
help other people. They live for themselves. They do exactly what they feel like doing On
television, hour by hour, we watch these people – criminal mobs – destroy what
the rest of us have built "
To explain such selfish and destructive misconduct, Carlson had an answer readily at
hand:
"The ideologues will tell you that the problem is race relations, or capitalism, or police
brutality, or global warming. But only on the surface. The real cause is deeper than that and
it's far darker. What you're watching is the ancient battle between those who have a stake in
society, and would like to preserve it, and those who don't, and seek to destroy it.
This is vile, hateful stuff, and entirely wrong – except perhaps on one point. In
attributing the looting to a deeper cause, Carlson was onto something, even if his effort to
pinpoint that cause was wildly off the mark.
I won't try to unravel the specific motives of those who saw an opportunity in the
protests against racism to help themselves to goods that were not theirs. How much was
righteous anger turned to rage and how much cynical opportunism is beyond my ability to
know.
This much, however, can be said for certain: the grab-all-you-can-get impulse so vividly
on display was as all-American as fireworks on the Fourth of July. Those looters, after all,
merely wanted more stuff. What could be more American than that? In this country, after all,
stuff carries with it the possibility of personal fulfillment, of achieving some version of
happiness or status.
The looters that Tucker Carlson targeted with his ire were doing anything but "rejecting
society itself." They were merely helping themselves to what this society today has on offer
for those with sufficient cash and credit cards in their wallets. In a sense, they were
treating themselves to a tiny sip of what passes these days for the American Dream.
With the exception of cloistered nuns, hippies, and other vanishing breeds, virtually all
Americans have been conditioned to buy into the proposition that stuff correlates with the
good life. Unconvinced? Check out the videos from last year's Black Friday and then consider
the intense, if unsurprising, interest of economists and journalists in tracking the
latest
consumer spending trends . At least until Covid-19 came along, consumer spending served
as the authoritative measure of the nation's overall health.
The primary civic obligation of US citizens today is not to vote or pay taxes. And it's
certainly not to defend the country, a task offloaded onto those who can be enticed to enlist
(with minorities vastly
overrepresented ) in the so-called All-Volunteer Military. No, the primary obligation of
citizenship is to spend.
Ours is not a nation of mystics, philosophers, poets, artisans, or Thomas Jefferson's
yeomen farmers. We are now a nation of citizen-consumers, held in thrall to the extreme
materialism that Dr. King decried. This, not a commitment to liberty or democracy, has become
our true national signature and our chief contribution to late modernity.
Tearing Down the Edifice
At Riverside Church, King reminded his listeners that the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, which he had helped to found a decade earlier, had chosen this as its motto: "To
save the soul of America." The soul of a nation corrupted by racism, militarism, and extreme
materialism represented King's ultimate concern. Vietnam, he said, was "but a symptom of a
far deeper malady within the American spirit."
In a tone-deaf
editorial criticizing his Riverside Church sermon, the New York Times chastised
King for "fusing two public problems" – racism and the Vietnam War – "that are
distinct and separate." Yet part of King's genius lay in his ability to recognize the
interconnectedness of matters that Times editors, as oblivious to deeper maladies then
as they are today, wish to keep separate. King sought to tear down the edifice that sustained
all three of those giant triplets. Indeed, it is all but certain that, were he alive now, he
would call similar attention to a fourth related factor: climate change denial. The refusal
to treat seriously the threat posed by climate change underwrites the persistence of racism,
militarism, and extreme materialism.
During the course of his sermon, King quoted this sentence from the statement of a group
that called itself the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam: "A time comes when silence
is betrayal." Regarding race, it appears that the
great majority of Americans have now rejected such silence. This is good. It remains an
open question, however, when their silent acceptance of militarism, materialism, and the
abuse of Planet Earth will end.
The anti-rascist identity of the recent protests rests on a much larger base of class warfare waged over the past 40 years
against the entire population led by a determined oligarchy and enforced by their political, media and militarized police retainers.
This same oligarchy, with a despicable zeal and revolting media-orchestrated campaign–co-branding the movement with it's usual
corporate perpetrators– distorts escalating carceral and economic violence solely through a lens of racial conflict and their
time-tested toothless reforms. A few unlucky "peace officers" may have to TOFTT until the furor recedes, can't be helped.
Crowding out debt relief, single payer health, living wages, affordable housing and actual justice reform from the debate that
would benefit African Americans more than any other demographic is the goal.
The handful of Emperors far prefer kabuki theater and random ritual Seppuku than facing the rage of millions of staring down
the barrel of zero income, debt, bankruptcy, evictions and dispossession. The Praetorians will follow the money as always.
I suppose we'll get some boulevards re-named and a paid Juneteenth holiday to compensate for the destruction 100+ years of
labor rights struggle, so there's that..
Analysis carried out by the Pew Research Center has revealed that just one in six protesters
turning out at BLM demonstrations in the US are actually black.
The research notes that the plurality of those present at the gatherings have been white
people.
The full breakdown reveals that just 17 percent of protesters were black, while 46 percent
were white.
A further 22 percent were Hispanic, with eight percent being Asian, the analysis highlights.
Perhaps even more telling is the demographic breakdown in terms of political affiliation.
Almost four out of every five "protesters" identified as Democrats or Democrat-leaning, with
fewer than 17 percent identifying as Republicans.
The findings dovetail with comments made by BET Founder Robert Johnson yesterday, who noted
that most black Americans "laugh" at white people attempting to bring down monuments and cancel
everything they deem to be "racist". Johnson said that white people "have the mistaken
assumption that black people are sitting around cheering for them saying 'Oh, my God, look at
these white people. They're doing something so important to us. They're taking down the statue
of a Civil War general who fought for the South."
"You know, black people, in my opinion, black people laugh at white people who do this the
same way we laugh at white people who say we got to take off the TV shows." Johnson said in an
interview with Fox News.
"Look, the people who are basically tearing down statues, trying to make a statement are
basically borderline anarchists, the way I look at it," he continued, adding "They really
have no agenda other than the idea we're going to topple a statue."
"It's not going to give a kid whose parents can't afford college money to go to college.
It's not going to close the labor gap between what white workers are paid and what black
workers are paid. And it's not going to take people off welfare or food stamps." Johnson
urged.
"It's "tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on a racial titanic. It absolutely means
nothing." Johnson asserted.
At the start of French Revolution, Bertrand Barère declared, "The revolutions of a
barbarous people destroy all monuments, and the very trace of the arts seems to be effaced. The
revolutions of an enlightened people conserve the fine arts, and embellish them [ ]"
Soon after, though, thousands of French statues were wrecked, and many heads tumbled into
baskets. Barère, "The tree of liberty grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants."
The Anacreon of the Guillotine was lucky to escape with his own noggin.
Again, the defeated must watch impotently as their heroes are decapitated or come crashing
down. At least they still have their own necks, for the moment, at least.
Washington, Jefferson, Grant and Francis Scott Key have been toppled, and even a likeness of
Cervantes had red paint splashed on its eyes. "BASTARD" was scrawled on its pedestal. The woke
vandal didn't know that here was no conquistador or slave owner, but a slave of five years, not
to mention a seminal writer in the Western canon.
Ah, but "seminal," "Western" and "canon" are evil words now, you see, so maybe he did know,
for this is, at bottom, an assault on every pillar, brick, cornice and baseboard of Western
civilization. Burn it all down, for it is uniquely racist, sexist, genocidal and transphobic. I
mean, for thousands of years, evil whites absolutely resisted the installation of all-gender
shit holes.
Shut up already, and listen to Susan Sontag, "If America is the culmination of Western white
civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something
terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go
that far . The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary
government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine
ballets, et al, don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The
white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone -- its ideologies
and inventions -- which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has
upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life
itself."
Later, Sontag regretted offending cancer patients with her poor choice of metaphor.
It's essential that we be exorcised from "dead white men." I remember when this idiotic term
started to circulate. I had just dropped out of art school. While drinking Rolling Rock in
smoky McGlinchey's
in Philadelphia, I told another art fag that he should know his art history, for how can you do
anything if you have no idea what's been achieved? Leering, this cipher smugly growled,
"They're just dead white men, man!"
In 2015, I taught for a semester at Leipzig University, so nearly each day, I'd walk by a
hideous building that crudely approximated the destroyed Paulinerkirche. Built in 1231, this
church survived all the vicissitudes, upheavals and wars down the centuries, only to be
dynamited by Communists in 1968. So what if Martin Luther had officiated there, and Bach was a
musical director? Of course, its rich history only made it more delicious to blow up, for
iconoclasm is the orgasm of "progressives," and that's why I've never identified as one.
There's one Leipzig neighborhood, Connewitz, that's famous across Germany as the center of
progressive politics, most notably the antifa movement, and guess what? It is thoroughly
defaced
with graffiti
that are often anti-cop
or anti-Germany
. During clashes with police that Connewitzers instigate, shop windows are gleefully broken not
just at multinationals, but mom-and-pops, because, you know, once you go berserk, it's hard to
stop. Reflecting on this in 2015, I knew it would only escalate and spread beyond Germany, and
it has. Seeing photos of Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, I immediately thought of
Connewitz
.
When I wrote recently about the need for liberated zones, I meant, first of, the defense of
your own communities, as happened in Philadelphia's Fishtown and Italian Market, where locals
banded together to block an invasion of vandals and looters.
Here in South Korea, local monuments and mores are safe. Here in Busan, there's a huge
statue honoring General Jeong Bal, who was killed by Japanese invaders in 1592. Losing with
dignity is worthy of remembrance, though some contend he actually ran away. Historical debates
are healthy.
More interesting to me are five sculptures of war refugees by Lee Hyun-woo, near the 40-Step
Stairway. It was a shanty town during the Korean War, when Busan was a temporary capital after
Seoul was overrun by Chinese and North Korean troops.
Depicted without hokiness, these are admirably realistic figures of a mother breastfeeding
her baby while her naked son stood by, crying; two girls carrying
water , one with a shoulder pole and the other with a jar on her head; two boys covering
their ears as a man makes popcorn with a bomb-like
contraption; a fedora-wearing accordionist
, sitting on a bench; and two exhausted porters at
rest . As public sculptures, they're perfect, for they're gracefully inserted into the
environment as they dignify local history. Informative and fortifying, these bronze ghosts
mingle with contemporary Koreans.
Across a Japanese-built bridge not far away, there's a statue of Hyeon
In . You can sit on a stone bench next to the smiling, suited singer, and hear his songs
eternally broadcast from a bible-sized speaker.
In 1949, he made every man, woman, child and dog sob with his rendition of "Seoul's Night
Music." "Walking through Chungmuro under a spring rain / Tears flowing down the window panes."
Oh, stop, stop! You're murdering me! I can't take it! A true legend.
As a refugee in Busan, Hyeon In wrote "Be Strong, Guem-soon." It's a message to his sister
to stay strong until they meet again.
ORDER IT NOW
There is a street
dedicated to the painter Lee Jung-soeb
. He's known for gestural paintings of bulls, and playful drawings of boys hugging fish
and crabs pinching penises
. Educated in Tokyo, his brief career started just after World War II and lasted through the
Korean War.
Living all over, he starved, suffered from schizophrenia, drank too much and died in 1956 of
hepatitis, at age 40 and alone, in a Red Cross Hospital. His wife and kids had been sent to
Tokyo to escape the fighting. Although peripheral to art history, Jung-soeb matters to Koreans,
and that's enough. Meaning is local
, above all.
Honoring their own culture and history, South Koreans also appreciate the finest from
elsewhere. There are upcoming concerts of Saint
Saen , Brahms, Beethoven and Vaughan
Williams .
Rather bizarrely, Jin Ramen has a Joan Miro edition, and this made no sense to me until I
noticed the Miroesque zigzags, wiggly lines and goofy shapes floating on its bright yellow
packaging .
The objective is not to present convincing facsimiles of great paintings, but merely to
pique interest for further investigation. It's similar to a street being named after a writer,
painter, composer or scientist, as happens quite routinely in Paris, for example, but almost
never seen in America, a country with a long, aggressive streak of anti-intellectualism.
We're no longer talking about joe sixpacks sneering at pretentious bullshit, however. Thanks
to Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, Rush Limbaugh, Honey Boo Boo, gangsta rap and antifa, etc.,
there is now a pandemic of cocksure loutishness, with frequent eruptions into violent
barbarism. Ironically, the most militant driver of American anti-intellectualism is the
academy, for nowhere else has thinking ceased more completely.
If we're in a revolution, it's one of enlightened barbarism, or woke savagery, carefully
engineered down the decades. Yo massas enjoy the spectacle of y'all clawing at each other.
At Unz, there is a recent article by the Nation of Islam Research Group, "How Farrakhan
Solved the Crime and Drug Problem And How the Jews Attacked
Him ." Whatever its flaws or biases, it is a fascinating expose of how Jews sabotaged an
effort of blacks to help themselves. Immediately, I thought of the Jewish campaign against
Craig Nelse
n, who, against all odds, is desperately trying to save the most troubled, and even suicidal,
white youths.
Ordinary people don't have any extraordinary vision, yet they shape the nation with their
votes. They see the world with a jumble of inane emotional thought. The arts, sciences and
philosophy mean nothing to them. Their thoughts are adrift in emotional nonsense, like our
nation.
"... He pointed out that knocking over a statue will not "close the wealth gap," "give a kid whose parent's can't afford a college money to go to college," "close the labor gap between what white workers are paid and what black workers are paid" or "take people off welfare or food stamps." ..."
"... Johnson said that whites who seek to "assuage guilt by doing things that make them feel good" would be much more reluctant to support payments for blacks. ..."
"... Referring to actions such as "changing names, toppling statues, [and] firing professors because they said all lives matter," Johnson explained that "it just shows to me that white America is continually ... incapable of recognizing that black people have their own ideas and thought about what's in their best interests." ..."
"... "Give us the belief that you respect our opinion. You go out and do something and destroy something, fire somebody because you think it hurts us. Why don't you ask us first if it hurts us before you go and say 'Oh, I gotta do something for the negroes to make them feel better.' Well ask us if we want you to do that to make us feel better," he said. ..."
"... Johnson likened white people's actions attempting to make black people "feel good" to "rearranging the deck chairs on a racial Titanic. It absolutely means nothing," he said. ..."
BET founder Robert Johnson during a Wednesday interview with Fox News
described people toppling statues as "borderline anarchists" and pushed back against the idea
that black people support such behavior, suggesting instead that they "laugh" at those who
knock down the statues.
"You know black people, in my opinion, black people laugh at white people who do this, the
same way we laugh at white people who say we got to take off the TV shows," he said
mentioning the "Dukes of Hazard," a decades-old television program that has come under fire
for featuring a car emblazoned with a Confederate flag graphic.
He pointed out that knocking over a statue will not "close the wealth gap," "give a kid
whose parent's can't afford a college money to go to college," "close the labor gap between
what white workers are paid and what black workers are paid" or "take people off welfare or
food stamps."
Johnson said that whites who seek to "assuage guilt by doing things that make them feel
good" would be much more reluctant to support payments for blacks.
Referring to actions such as "changing names, toppling statues, [and] firing professors
because they said all lives matter," Johnson explained that "it just shows to me that white
America is continually ... incapable of recognizing that black people have their own ideas and
thought about what's in their best interests."
He suggested that black people should be consulted before people take actions like tearing
down statues or firing someone for a comment they have made.
"Give us the belief that you respect our opinion. You go out and do something and destroy
something, fire somebody because you think it hurts us. Why don't you ask us first if it
hurts us before you go and say 'Oh, I gotta do something for the negroes to make them feel
better.' Well ask us if we want you to do that to make us feel better," he said.
Johnson likened white people's actions attempting to make black people "feel good" to
"rearranging the deck chairs on a racial Titanic. It absolutely means nothing," he said.
Johnson's comments come as debates rage across the country in the aftermath of the death of
George Floyd -- in some cases protestors have defaced and toppled statues. President Trump has
come out against changing the names of military installations named after Confederate
leaders.
Another is the continuation of the CHOP or CHAZ in Seattle, which, I gather, will be ended
fairly soon one way or another. Initially sort of interesting, the area has been hit with
shootings over the last four nights, with one over the weekend killing 19-year old Lorenzo
Anderson.
These are apparently not the result of outside white boogaloo racists attacking them but
coming from inside this area.
There so far has been zero investigation of or effort to find Anderson's murderer and arrest
him. The only report I have seen is that Anderson was advocating people not to set off
fireworks due to a possible fire hazard. This appears to have what got him killed, although so
far there is little solid information. But, sorry, this experiment should not end and not be
repeated anywhere else.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
Actually both nationalists and BLM are noted fighters with icons of the past. Especially
during "color revolutions"
They want their own version of history and can't accept any alternatives. That confirm the
saying that that history is the future overturned into the past.
Notable quotes:
"... And all over Britain, statues of forgotten politicians, merchants, generals, and admirals (and now the blue plaques that commemorate them) are being investigated, to see if they in some way celebrate a wicked past. Even the looming sculpture of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square has been first scrawled on by protestors (who also defaced a nearby monument to Abraham Lincoln) and then hidden in a box by Greater London's feeble authorities ..."
"... This is a good indication of the state of modern Britain, teetering on the edge of a cultural revolution so severe that its greatest modern figure has lost his power as a unifying force and memory ..."
"... IdPol is tolerated and even promoted because it does not make any substantive changes. It does not affect economic relations, much less take money out of rich people's pockets. ..."
Pulling statues down or calling for the removal of "problematic" portraits isn't motivated
by a desire to forget the past, Michel Foucault argued. It is a way of returning to it and
reigniting its conflicts . Blake Smith
in The Washington Examiner : "
What we are in the habit of calling 'identity politics,' and particularly political
movements based on (somewhat contradictory) appeals to racial solidarity and anti-racism,
depend on a 'certain way of making historical knowledge work within political struggle.' So
argued Foucault in Society Must Be Defended , a 1976 book based on a lecture series
about 'political historicism.'
Many on the American Right hold Foucault, along with his French postmodernist
contemporaries, partly responsible for the emergence of identity politics. It would be more
accurate to say that Foucault was one of the first, and sharpest, analysts of the way
identity-based political movements appeal to history and ignite what he called 'race war.' . .
.
Hiding their crimes with myths, the oppressors have made the oppressed forget who they are
and what they have suffered. But the signs of that historical violence are all around us -- in
statues, place names, and everyday language. Purging the culture of these signs is not so much
an ethical demand that the past conform to present values as it is a way of plunging the
present back into past conflicts, which the oppressed now stand a chance of winning."
Peter Hitchens makes a similar point in a short piece on iconoclasm in England in First Things :
"It is the Rhodes statue that is controversial. But this is no longer really about Rhodes.
In the last few days it has been under police guard. Not long ago a large demonstration,
wholly ignoring supposed rules about avoiding viral infection, gathered beneath it while
shouting about decolonization, as if Britain still had an empire. Perhaps they wish it was
so. People need enemies, and dismantled empires are nothing like as good for this purpose as
living, breathing ones . . .
And all over Britain, statues of forgotten politicians, merchants, generals, and
admirals (and now the blue plaques that commemorate them) are being investigated, to see if
they in some way celebrate a wicked past. Even the looming sculpture of Winston Churchill in
Parliament Square has been first scrawled on by protestors (who also defaced a nearby monument
to Abraham Lincoln) and then hidden in a box by Greater London's feeble authorities .
This is a good indication of the state of modern Britain, teetering on the edge of a
cultural revolution so severe that its greatest modern figure has lost his power as a unifying
force and memory ."
I don't know about France, but here it seems to be about normalizing a new process. Gangs
of thugs are being allowed and even encouraged to go into certain neighborhoods to
intimidate and attack those who live there, to break, burn, and deface other people's
property with impunity.
It combines Orwell's "two minute hate" with the kind of behavior we condemned when it
was done by the Ku Klux Klan.
If renaming parks and boulevards and appointing blue ribbon commissions were enough to fix
anything, you'd think that everything would be fixed by now.
IdPol is tolerated and even promoted because it does not make any substantive
changes. It does not affect economic relations, much less take money out of rich people's
pockets.
So many movements get sidetracked by purely symbolic actions on the one hand - "Let's
rename every avenue in Harlem, and 125th Street, too!" (the black New York city councilman
behind those resolutions was a joke in the local black activist community) - and corporate
and elite funding whitewashed through foundations and NGO's on the other. In the 70's,
affirmative action was used to build up and buy off the black middle class while working
class jobs for blacks were gradually disappearing, and today it's Diversity, Inc. jobs.
The Establishment is very good at buying off some, co-opting others, assassinating a
few, and marginalizing the rest, or at least waiting for them to get tired of kicking
against the pricks. Judging from its track record at surviving this long, the Establishment
also is very good at figuring out who gets which treatment.
Its how the activists of the Civil Rights Movement, many of whom once did genuinely
brave, even heroic things, were gradually co-opted into corrupt operators of political
machines. It's how fire-eating campus radicals were neutered into tenure-seekers and meek
supporters of "changing the system from within".
For that matter, the history of the Tea Party is also instructive.
Hey, this is America. Not Europe. In Europe at least it's about "ideas". In America it's
about------------MONEY!! And celebrity.
Only in America can a race hustler/shakedown artist (and part time FBI informant) like
Al Sharpton get a permanent gig on a major so-called "news network?" Only in America can a
real estate developer and "reality TV host" become president. Not that the office means
anything anymore (except to the Chattering Class) but, that's another story.
"Do Germans honor their ancestors who fought for the cause of the Nazis. No, they do not."
Where do you get "Nazis" from? Confederates weren't "Nazis".
Most of these statues are of Americans who saw more service in the US Army than the
Confederate one. Most weren't fighting to preserve slavery. The typical southern soldier
didn't even own any slaves. They were fighting an invasion, they did it bravely and
honorably. We're proud of them, and we built statues to their memories, in part as proxies
for the hundreds of thousands of southern soldiers and others who died during the worst war
in our history.
Every Christmas Eve, I light a candle on the grave of my grandmother's grandfather, who
fought for the Confederacy in the Battle of Port Hudson, and elsewhere. He owned no slaves.
He was fighting an invasion, as you say. I am glad that the South lost, because their cause
was unjust. But I honor the bravery of my ancestor.
What you do on Christmas Eve is your own business. That’s not the same as a monument
to stonewall Jackson erected in 1921 during the raise of the KKK or monuments erected in
the 50’s. Clearly lots of people who are southerners don’t like those statues,
particularly all those black people. They never liked them and wouldn’t have agreed
to erecting them if they had a say at the time of construction. Many of these statues are
now in majority black cities like the ones taken down in New Orleans. Those black people
are under no obligation to honor any confederate in the public spaces they occupy. From
what I’ve read, it sound like they always viewed it as a slap in the face.
"Race war" is a misnomer. Yes, there are plenty of black people in some of the mobs, but
regarding "iconoclasm", the videos of the monument vandals show mostly what look like rich,
overweight white kids from Scarsdale or the Upper West Side, probably using mommy's credit
card to fund their window-smashing, statue-toppling, and building-burning expeditions. The
toll of their destruction and violence is terrible, but I can't believe it's really that
hard to catch and imprison them.
Why are they still running amok? When will the authorities act to protect and defend the
people and property of their cities and states?
The people who are angry about the pulling down and desecration of Confederate statues are
the same people who cheered when statues of Lenin and other Soviet dignitaries were pulled
down and desecrated when the USSR fell or when statues of Saddam Hussein fell during the
Iraq War II. Hypocritical much??
"Earlier
today, police officers from the 75th Precinct responded to a call of a male shot in front of
334 Milford Street. When they arrived, they discovered a 35-year-old male with a gunshot wound
to the neck," the NYPD's Chief of Detectives Rodney Harrison tweeted , along with
video of the disturbing incident.
Earlier today, police officers from the 75th Precinct responded to a call of a male shot
in front of 334 Milford Street. When they arrived, they discovered a 35-year-old male with a
gunshot wound to the neck. pic.twitter.com/wkkzIiAdzu
-- Chief Rodney Harrison
(@NYPDDetectives) June 20,
2020
The footage shows a man wiping down the tire of his car when a passerby stops and fires a
shot into the back of his neck. The man washing his car falls, and the shooter proceeds to
continue his walk down the street. There is no known motive for the crime, and the killer is at
large.
It's not the only violent video coming out of the city to have received serious attention
online, as a clip of a seemingly random attack on an elderly woman has also gone viral.
The clip shows a young black man passing an older woman on the street when he turns and
pushes her. Her head narrowly misses a fire hydrant as she falls, and the attacker simply
continues his stroll down Third Avenue.
Rashid Brimmage, a 31-year-old sex offender, was identified by police as the man
in the video and was apprehended. He has been arrested over 100 times in the past.
The crimes are part of a larger trend in New York City, which has seen an increase in the
most violent crimes.
The crimes are part of a larger trend in New York City, which has seen an increase
in the most violent crimes.
Homicides for the month of May were up by a
whopping 79.1 percent from the same time last year. Shootings, meanwhile, increased over 60
percent. Auto theft and burglaries also went up.
The man who asked 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' now wonders what's the matter with
Democrats - The Washington Post
In 2004, Thomas Frank published "What's The Matter with Kansas," a book asking why so many
working-class and poor white Americans in the heartland had taken to voting for a party that in
both word and deed advanced policies of great value to the rich. In short, the question was:
Why were these folks Republicans when Republicans weren't with them?
Frank's book became a kind of cultural touchstone, or at least a shorthand reference for
what lots of political analysts, consultants and certainly Democratic politicians and their
staffers had talked out behind closed doors for years. "What's The Matter with Kansas" didn't
delve deeply into the white-identity politics, race-based sense of economic entitlement,
anxiety and resentment that seem to play such a prominent role in the 2016 campaign, but it
certainly gave a lot of people a lot to think about.
Now, Frank is out with a book called "Listen, Liberal" that seems about as confrontational
as that title sounds. This time, people on the other side of the political aisle -- Democrats
and self-described progressives -- face Frank's frank assessment.
Since the 1970s and even more markedly during President Bill Clinton's tenure in the
1990s, Democrats have played a central role in trade deals that sped up the departure of
manufacturing jobs from the United States and also in rolling back the social safety net.
Clinton proudly signed the biggest welfare reform package in decades, all based on the idea
that those on welfare, not that the program itself, was in dire need of reform.
Today, the share of people receiving cash welfare assistance has dropped precipitously, even
during the worst of the Great Recession. In other words, that's not because people's incomes
otherwise grew or they didn't need the help.
It's mostly because states have made it increasingly difficult to access cash assistance,
freeing state lawmakers to redirect the federal block grants dispatched to cover these benefits
to finance other state needs,
according to a 2015 analysis released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . In
2014, the report found, states spent more of their federal welfare block grants on these other
programs and costs -- often meaning they plugged various state budget gaps -- than they did
basic cash welfare assistance.
And those who are receiving cash aid are getting a lot less. After accounting for inflation,
cash welfare benefits slid 35 percent between 1990 and 2015 . And most year-to-year
increases in welfare benefits paid to families are so small it's hard to imagine the
mathematical basis on which they were set. For instance, in 2014 in South Carolina, a poor
family of three that met all program guidelines could receive up to $277 a month. In 2015, that
figure climbed all of $3 to $280.
That may sound like good news to those who want to shrink public budgets no matter the cost,
or philosophically object to the very existence of cash public assistance. But, in the past,
that did not include the bulk of Democrats, Frank argues. Democrats used to be the party that
defended the social safety net so that it might help those in need climb back toward
independence and solvency but also aggressively championed a wider array of policies protecting
American jobs, worker safety, wages and the like. That made unions a natural and central part
of Democratic coalition.
Democrats used to battle the primary drivers of economic inequality, Frank argues. Now
sometimes, they advance them.
In
a Q&A with In These Times' Tobita Chow published this week, Frank goes even further in
pinning the blame on Democrats who followed Clinton in the 1990s. Frank's is a critique that
certainly includes -- no, calls out -- the Obama administration, too. The Obama White House
would almost certainly counter that things like the recent reform in overtime pay rules and the
Affordable Care Act have been of great benefit to the middle and working classes as well as the
poor.
But Frank has some other complaints. Here's a sample from the worthwhile Q&A:
Q: The book is about how the Democratic Party turned its back on working people and now
pursues policies that actually increase inequality. What are the policies or ideological
commitments in the Democratic Party that make you think this?
A: The first piece of evidence is what's happened since the financial crisis. This is the
great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a
remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was
the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and
the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top
10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he
wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he
wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10
percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were
entirely at his mercy.
He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in
the '30s. But he chose not to....
There's so much interesting stuff in this Q&A, we are going to strongly suggest you give
it a read.
Just click here . Nina 1 5/25/2016 8:59 PM EDT [Edited]
Well, yes. The Democratic party and its representatives turned its back on working class
America and it was the bigger betrayal because working class America thought the Democrats
were better than that. Not too many people think income inequality just "happened" despite
the liberal government in power: there is no way it could have happened without the collusion
and cooperation of the government. The government, with big business, created this by
singular lack of policy to address it. And that is how you end up with Donald Trump. The
reasoning is, "How much worse could he be?"
"... Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, "democracy" NGOs and other groups since the 1980's. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order. ..."
"... F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. ..."
Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led
regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, "democracy" NGOs
and other groups since the 1980's. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish
communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with
heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied
those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous
organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous
moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to
not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US
Constitutional order.
If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman
pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd , and look at what has taken place
across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were
well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.
The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained
violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent
protests -- Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed
uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars,
burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and
other social media to coordinate "hit-and-run" swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.
What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of
primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is
unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that
toppled Milosevic in 2000.
Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow
In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university
students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various
offshoots was created in the 1980's by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow
specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get
their money from Congress and from USAID.
In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in
Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović,
using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of
the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events,
the Washington Post wrote, "US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in
virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of
opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US
taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint
used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across
Serbia."
Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid
of 'intelligence helmet' video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their
environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell
phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation.
Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that
mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the
youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the
scenes.
The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange
Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution.
Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all
cases the NED was involved
with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.
After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training
center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally
present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also
Soros money was reported.
Antifa and BLM
The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since
May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we
understand the CIA's Color Revolution playbook.
The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and
state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even
to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the
heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.
In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken
over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of
organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations.
In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are
all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic
Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black
Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.
To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has
been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous
organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa "cells"
join up with BLM chapters.
FRSO: Follow the Money
BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to
protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white
Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi
were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road
Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States
formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.
On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, "The time is now to
join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization If you have been
out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you've been thinking about the
difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this
country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and
oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The
unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism
is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road
Socialist Organization is
working for ."
In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now
being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of
amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the
self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not
so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of
well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.
Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front
groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of
Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward
Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.
The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very
established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of
George Soros's major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote
Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and
curiously , Ben
& Jerry's Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.
Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where
Obama former "green jobs czar" Van Jones, a self-described "communist" and "rowdy black
nationalist," now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City
Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009
received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations
and again, Ben & Jerry's ($50,000). And Garza's SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712
"organizers" in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller
Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among
others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a "multi-racial
organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and
policy to catalyze social change." It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012
and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and
other major
foundations .
Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi
headed the FRSO's Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a "staff" of two it got
money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations
for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry's ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group .
The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against
capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project,
which describes itself as "a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization." Its
board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a
former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project
in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford
($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5
million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).
Major Money and ActBlue
By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump,
Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford
Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund
(BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for
Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already
given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement . This was serious foundation money.
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the
Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described
their role: "The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to
organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and
immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national
conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America."
The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in
2016 called for "defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for
illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a
universal basic income, and
free college for blacks ."
Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the
donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to
"democrats and progressives." As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign
of Joe Biden.
That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple,
Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue
under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a
Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so
confident of support from black voters. What is clear from only this account of the crucial
role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is
a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The
role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial
companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper
and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would
suggest.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in
politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics,
exclusively for the online magazine "New
Eastern Outlook" where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The burgeoning
'cancel culture' has forced Amazon to ax an ad campaign for a book by a Wall Street Journal
author which is critical of liberal views on transgender identity, its publishing company has
said.
People who post of Twitter are stupid by definition, but people who fire employees for
posting on Twitter are trying to replicate excesses of Stalinism (and, in way, McCarthysm) on a
farce level. As in Marx "history repeats: first as tragedy, the second as farce"
By classifying the (somewhat incorrect; Obama was elected not only because he was half black,
but also because he was half--CIA ;-) Twit below as the cry "fire" in crowded theater, we really
try to replay the atmosphere of Stalinist Russia on a new level.
Notable quotes:
"... Austin Symphony Trombonist Fired Over Racist Comments , The Violin Channel, June 1, 2020 ..."
Have you checked out the 1/2 black president swine flu H1N1, and EBOLA?
What has your 1/2 black president done for you??
The ONLY REASON he was elected was because he is 1/2 black.
People voted on racist principles, not on the real issues . The BLACKS are looting and
destroying their environment. They deserve what
they get. Playing the RACE CARD IS RACIST.
Symphony orchestra spokes-critter Anthony Corroa [ Email him
]announced the firing of Ms. Salas in the dreary schoolmarmish jargon of corporate wokeness:
This language is not reflective of who we are as an organization." And "there is no
place for hate within our organization."
Get short URL No sooner did Jacob Frey, the Mayor of Minneapolis, apologize
to the black community for the killing of George Floyd than everyone felt they had to say sorry for the sins of their fathers, erasing
the meaning of sincere apology. I've stopped counting the number of apologies issued by public figures, business institutions and
celebrities in recent weeks. It's sometimes difficult to avoid the conclusion that a public apology has become a public-relations
exercise. Why else would the Greene King pub chain and Lloyd's of London apologize for the links to the slave trade – a historical
event that occurred centuries ago? Moral cowardice and the easy way out
Moral cowardice is another of the driving forces fueling the proliferation of public apologies. Apology has become weaponized
to the point that very few politicians possess the strength of character to stand by their words. I remember when, last November,
the Mayor of Middlesbrough, Andy Preston, apologized 'unreservedly' to the mental-health charity Mind for calling a Facebook commenter
a ' nutter
'. There's something truly scary about a world in which people wish to censor others for using a word the vast majority of human
beings find unobjectionable. But what is even more chilling is that the mayor felt obliged to grovel and apologize.
The elites' addiction to apology has been evident since the 1990s. During that decade, the then US president, Bill Clinton, publicly
apologized to his nation's black community for slavery. Meanwhile, the former British prime minister Tony Blair turned public apology
into a veritable art form. He took it upon himself to apologize for Britain's role in the slave trade. He also issued an apology
in 1997 for his nation's responsibility for the Irish potato famine of the 19th
century
. It is evident that Western political elites are far better at apologizing for the 'bad old days' than inspiring the public
about their nation's past – or even present.
Knee-jerk knee-bending
Since the outbreak of the present wave of Black Lives Matter protests, the issuing of a public apology has become almost a routine
response to the mere hint that you should take the knee and grovel.
Typically, whenever an individual is called out and denounced for their language, an apology swiftly follows. But in the current
climate, there can be no 'mistakes', because your words will come back to bite you. Just about any gesture or statement can be branded
as not just insensitive but racist. Poor Karol G, the Colombian reggaeton singer, who, in response to the protest following George
Floyd's death, tweeted a now-deleted picture of her black-and-white coated dog with the caption 'The perfect example that Black and
White TOGETHER look beautiful', along with the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. After she was denounced and ridiculed, she issued an immediate
statement of apology. "I want to make clear that my intentions were right in the photo I posted earlier. I meant to say that racism
is terrible and that I cannot begin to understand it," she
pleaded .
As Rachel Yang wrote recently on the arts website Entertainment Weekly, '2020 has turned out to be an unpredictable year, to say
the least, but one thing we can always count on is celebrities needing to issue apologies for their
behavior '.
Never enough
Experience shows that often an apology is not enough, as if those who demand them get ever more high in their addiction to humiliation
and, enjoying it, seek to up the dose. Take the case of LA Galaxy football player Aleksandar Katai. His club forced him to issue
an apology, not for anything that he did, but because his wife Tea posted a statement calling protestors "
disgusting cattle
" ! Poor Katai took the knee and pledged that both he and his family would "take the necessary actions to learn, understand,
listen, and support the black community." However, not even this act of self-abasement helped him. He was dropped from the squad
because of a statement made by his wife.
Western society's addiction to public apology is a reflection of the fact that its political and cultural elite does not believe
in itself – or at least it has no idea what to believe in. The speed with which individuals apologize for a statement they made a
few hours before exposes both their lack of firm conviction and their moral cowardice. When an apology is a response to a very public
ultimatum, it's almost never a genuine act of reflection and contrition. Rather, it has become an empty ritual that denudes their
apology of meaning.
As I write these lines, the UK's Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is facing calls to apologize for stating that taking the knee
is a gesture copied from the TV drama 'Game of Thrones'. He added that he would take the knee for only two people: 'the Queen and
the Mrs, when I asked her to marry me '. After an outburst
of criticism, Raab tried to soothe the mob baying for his blood by indicating that he has "full respect for BLM campaigners,"
but didn't issue the now-mandatory apology.
It took just a few minutes for the all too readily offended Twitterati to pile in to demand an apology. The acting leader of the
Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, led the way with a post on Twitter demanding that Raab issue a '
fulsome apology '.
Davey knows a thing or two about the meaningless issuing of an apology. Last June, he apologized for writing that his electoral
strategy was to "decapitate that blond head," referring to PM Boris Johnson.
Back in 1976, Elton John released a song titled 'Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word'. A song titled 'The Hardest Word Not to Say
is Sorry' would be altogether more fitting for the 2020s.
Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in
Canterbury. Author of How Fear
Works : The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century. Follow him on Twitter
@Furedibyte
"... While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system alive and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system. ..."
"... a class level lower than the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate, and growing, distribution of wealth and income in the US. ..."
"... It was not the status or material wealth causing the harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal, having little status, and the resulting shame. ..."
"... In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals manage to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress the protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network. ..."
"... This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, “Floydgate” can be viewed as a variation on the same theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and social protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence against blacks. ..."
...A while back, I was researching the issues you state in your last paragraph. Was about ten pages into it and had to stop
as I was drawn out of state and country.
From my research.
While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system
alive and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system.
This distraction of a class level lower than the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate,
and growing, distribution of wealth and income in the US.
For the lower class, an allowed luxury, a place in the hierarchy and a sure form of self esteem insurance.
Sennett and Cobb (1972) observed that class distinction sets up a contest between upper and lower class with the lower social
class always losing and promulgating a perception amongst themselves the educated and upper classes are in a position to judge
and draw a conclusion of them being less than equal.
The hidden injury is in the regard to the person perceiving himself as a piece of the woodwork or seen as a function such as
"George the Porter."
It was not the status or material wealth causing the harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal,
having little status, and the resulting shame.
The answer for many was violence.
James Gilligan wrote "Violence; Reflections on A National Epidemic." He worked as a prison psychiatrist and talked with many
of the inmates of the issues of inequality and feeling less than those around them. His finding are in his book which is not a
long read and adds to the discussion.
A little John Adams for you.
"The poor man's conscience is clear . . . he does not feel guilty and has no reason to . . . yet, he is ashamed. Mankind
takes no notice of him. He rambles unheeded.
In the midst of a crowd; at a church; in the market . . . he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar.
He is not disapproved, censured, or reproached; he is not seen . . . To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable."
likbez June 19, 2020 1:25 pm
That’s a very important observation. Racism, especially directed toward blacks, along with “identity wedge,” is a perfect tool
for disarming poor white, and suppressing their struggle for a better standard of living, which considerably dropped under neoliberalism.
In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals
manage to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress
the protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network.
This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, “Floydgate” can be viewed as a variation on
the same theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and
social protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence
against blacks.
This is another way to explain “What’s the matter with Kansas” effect.
"... Some argued that complex historical figures require an honest judgment. "History is grey and while we should be thankful for Churchill's leadership during WW2 – he was far from perfect, and to many downright awful," ..."
People were left "speechless" after a photoshopped image of a statue of British wartime
leader Winston Churchill emerged online. The monument was vandalized during protests against
racism and police brutality last week. The statue outside the British Parliament building was
boarded up for protection against vandalism. Now an image has been circulating on social media
showing the words "Don't open, racist inside" written on the boards covering the
monument.
-- You're not meant to think the
statue thing is real (@rdouglasjohnson) June 12,
2020
While commenters online were quick to point out that the phrase was digitally added to the
original photo, there has been growing outrage over the treatment of the statue by protesters.
While some view Churchill as a symbol of colonialism, many regard him as one of the greatest
British statesmen, who led the nation to victory in WWII. "I'm speechless," one Twitter
user said, commenting on the photoshopped image. "This man is one of the reasons Britain and
most of Europe didn't end up under Nazi control, and this is how y'all thank him," another
wrote
.
Some argued that complex historical figures require an honest judgment. "History is grey
and while we should be thankful for Churchill's leadership during WW2 – he was far from
perfect, and to many downright awful," a person wrote online.
Officials also
defended the statue. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that boarding it up was "absurd and
shameful," while Home Secretary Priti Patel called for the coverings to be removed. "We
should free Churchill, a hero of our nation, who fought against fascism and racism in this
country and Europe," she said.
@Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) June 16, 2020 4:00 pm
> the Democratic Party depends upon the problems of racial discrimination to win
elections. It is a Catch-22 dilemma.
Yes. Thanks you. This is clearly Catch-22 situation as the global crisis of neoliberalism
and neoliberal globalization is overlaid on the current racial riots and COVID-19 level of
unemployment.
I do not pretend that I see it right. Only time will tell. But here is my view:
IMHO the developments of neoliberalism in the US generated a social system radically
different from the neoliberal utopia of the benign rule of the financial oligarchy over
politically neutered by free-market ideology and brainwashed "homo homini lupus est"
neoliberal rationality population. Which should passively submit to the "depoliticized"
version of the National Security State and act strictly as a consumer and passive voter.
Kind of replay of the political reality of Stalinism (with the neoliberal deification of
"free market" and competition as the replacement of Marxism; in both case playing the role of
state-enforced secular religion questioning of which is a punishable heresy )
Unlike Stalinism, Neoliberalism enforces its secular-religious doctrine on a new "inverted
totalitarianism" level with minimal physical repression of dissidents. MSM brainwashing,
defunding, ostracism and shunning are the main tools.
The use of external enemy as the scapegoat is the same under both Stalinism and late
neoliberalism with the accusation of being a "foreign agent" as a natural part of the dirty
fight of various factions of oligarchy for power.
Despite Hayek's hope about politically neutered population ruled by financial oligarchy
neoliberalism intensified the rancorous resentment already present in modern culture.
Now we see a kind of return of the repressed under neoliberalism violent social protests
that the neoliberals always opposed, and which they deformed with the injection of a heavy
doze of identity politics.
As a result, we now have clear resurgence of the far-right nationalism and simultaneously
the rise of "woke" far left with its radical feminism, anarchism, LGBT, and a one-dimensional
"anti-racism" (strictly white vs black as it if is the only one in existence and black racism
a la South Africa or Rhodesia does not exists ).
In a way, this is a return to the very dangerous and unpredictable social situation that
existed in late 1920th on a new level, but without Marxists as a political player. A very
dangerous level with elements of Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451.": Toppling of statues is not
that different from book burning.
Pelosi wearing an African scarf looks like a failed attempt of neoliberal Dems to get it
under control of a monster that they created via identity politics.
Neoliberal political culture and systemic impoverishment of the lower 80% of the
population create the economic conditions for enduring racism and glaring economic
inequality.
Add to this identity politics, used as the "divide and conquer" strategy for the political
isolation and partial cooptation (despite clear oppression on the part of neoliberals) of the
white working-class ("What's the matter with Kansas" effect ) and the mixture becomes clearly
explosive.
The US financial oligarchy is no less evil than either Italian or Kosher-Nostra mafia.
They are completely ruthless. And that means that they still might be able to swipe this
under the rug: one way, or another. Racial protests, or coming to power of radical far-right
does not threaten their power, but possible disintegration of the state in Ukrainian Maidan
fashion clearly does.
So how events will unfold in completely unclear. I just try to provide my 2c within the
adopted framework of analysis.
Recall, it was just days ago that
we pointed out Cornell professor and friend of Zero Hedge Dave Collum was publicly shamed
by Cornell for daring to express the "wrong" opinion about current events on social media. Now,
there's a second Cornell professor coming under fire for his critique of the Black Lives Matter
movement.
Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson has challenged any student or faculty
member to a public debate about the Black Lives Matter movement after he says liberals on
campus have launched a "coordinated effort" to have him fired from his job. At least 15 emails
from alumni have been sent to the dean, demanding that action be taken, according to Fox News
.
"There is an effort underway to get me fired at Cornell Law School, where I've worked since
November 2007, or if not fired, at least denounced publicly by the school,"
Jacobson wrote on Thursday . "I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am
racist."
Jacobson founded the website Legal
Insurrection and says he's had an "awkward relationship" with the university for years as a
result. The recent outrage comes as a result of two posts he recently made on his site:
"Those posts accurately detail the history of how the Black Lives Matters Movement started,
and the agenda of the founders which is playing out in the cultural purge and rioting taking
place now," Jacobson said.
He recently wrote on his blog: "Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being
the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce. For over 12 years, the Cornell cat did not pounce.
Though there were frequent and aggressive attempts by outsiders to get me fired, including
threats and harassment, it always came from off campus."
"Not until now, to the best of my knowledge, has there been an effort from inside the
Cornell community to get me fired," he says.
"The effort appears coordinated, as some of the emails were in a template form. All of the
emails as of Monday were from graduates within the past 10 years," he continued. Jacobson's
"clinical faculty colleagues, apparently in consultation with the Black Law Students
Association" drafted and published a letter denouncing 'commentators, some of them attached to
Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter.'"
Cornell
responded , backhandedly defending the Professor's right to his own opinion:
"...the Law School's commitment to academic freedom does not constitute endorsement or
approval of individual faculty speech. But to take disciplinary action against him for the
views he has expressed would fatally pit our values against one another in ways that would
corrode our ability to operate as an academic institution."
"This is not just about me. It's about the intellectual freedom and vibrancy of Cornell and
other higher education institutions, and the society at large. Open inquiry and debate are core
features of a vibrant intellectual community," he stated.
"I challenge a representative of those student groups and a faculty member of their choosing
to a public debate at the law school regarding the Black Lives Matter Movement, so that I can
present my argument and confront the false allegations in real-time rather than having to
respond to baseless community email blasts."
"I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am racist, and I greatly resent any
attempt to leverage meritless accusations in hopes of causing me reputational harm. While such
efforts might succeed in scaring others in a similar position, I will not be intimidated,"
Jacobson concluded.
So let's go back to the basics: corporations are about money, that is a truism. Yes,
sometimes corporations try to present a "human face", but this is nothing more than a marketing
trick destined to create consumer loyalty. Now I don't believe for one second that the
mega-corporations listed above expect to make much money from supporting the riots, at least
not in a direct way. Nor do I believe that these corporations are trying to impersonate a
conscience because they fear a Black consumer boycott (what was true in
Tuskegee in the late 1950s is not true today, if only because of the completely
different scale of the protests).
So if not money – what is at stake here?
Power.
Specifically, the US deep state – at a major faction within that deep state – is
clearly desperate to get rid of Trump (and not for the right reasons, of which there are
plenty).
Another victory of the "coalition of minorities" and another defeat for Trump
There are plenty of signs that illustrate that Trump is even losing control of the
Executive, including Secretary
Esper contradicting Trump on what is a key issue – restoring law and order
– or the
US Ambassador to South Korea voicing support for BLM (I consider that these actions by
top officials against their own Commander in Chief border on treason). Needless to say, the
pro-Dems
neo-libs at Slate immediately began dreaming about, and calling for, a military revolt
against Trump.
Last but not least, we now have a "free zone" in Seattle, the notorious Capitol Hill
Autonomous Zone, "CHAZ" aka "CHOP" where, among other "curiosities", Whites are told to give
10 bucks to a Black person . This means that until law and order are restored to what
is now the CHAZ, the United States has lost its sovereignty over a part of one of its cities.
That is a "black eye" for any US President who, after all, is the leader of the Executive
branch of government and the Commander in Chief of a military supposed (in theory only, of
course) to defend the United States against all enemies.
What do all of these developments have in common?
They are designed to show that Trump has lost control of the country and that all good and
decent people now stand united against him.
There are several major problems with this plan.
For one thing, this is all completely illegal. What began as a typical race riot is now
openly turning into sedition.
The second major problem of this plan is that it relies on what I call a "coalition of
minorities" to achieve its goal, it is therefore ignoring the will of the majority of the
people. This can backfire, especially if the chaos and violence continue to spread.
Next, there is the "Golem/Frankenstein" issue: it is much easier to launch a wildfire than
to contain or suppress it. Nancy Pelosi might be dumb enough to think that she and her gang can
control the likes of Raz
Simone , but history shows that when the state abdicates its monopoly on violence,
anarchy ensues.
By the way, it is important to note here that Trump, at least so far, has not taken the bait
and has not used federal forces to reimpose law and order in Seattle, Atlanta or elsewhere.
He must realize that liberating the so-called CHAZ might result in a bloodbath (there appear
to be plenty of weapons inside the CHAZ) and that the Democrats are dreaming about blaming him
for a bloodbath. Trump's strategy, at least so far, appears to let the lawlessness continue and
blame the Democrats for it.
ORDER IT NOW
While Trump's strategy makes sense, it also is inherently very dangerous because if the
state cannot reimpose law and order, then all sorts of "volunteers" might decide to give it a
shot (literally). Check out this headline " Bikers
For Trump Organizing to Retake Seattle On July 4th ". Whether these bikers will
actually try to take over the CHAZ or not, even the fact that they are preparing to do so
shows, yet again, that the state has lost its monopoly on violence.
"... These mobs of hating, condemning, moralizing, groupthink hypocrites are modern-day Nazis. They don't wear uniforms or have guns, but their weapon of online psychological abuse is proving frighteningly effective. ..."
"... Psychological abuse is one of their classic methods, as they exploit a person's fear of ending up alone against a crowd. Instead of a prison cell or a concentration camp, they put people in social isolation. They can even prevent the victim from being employed – classic state repression of an individual. ..."
"... Without work, the geniuses will fade into obscurity, and the new PC brigade will make them kneel in solidarity. Individually, members of these combat units of political correctness are often smart and sophisticated people, but when they close ranks in the fight for or against something, they turn into an ignorant and aggressive mob. ..."
"... China has been testing a new system in several provinces via which the citizens and their community are encouraged to assess the social behavior of individuals by assigning scores for respecting the rules and values practiced in this society. If you don't achieve a high score, your ranking is low and your prospects are limited. Isn't this just perfect for the new stormtroopers?! It's a modern reincarnation of the Munich gang, when a mediocre, covetous burgher pretends to be a civilized, progressive thinker. ..."
"... They put labels on everyone who disagrees. They love drama and straightforwardness. But they are incapable of engaging in rational argument. It's only natural that they began with declaring lofty values and ended with riots. They have started fires and justified arson. But you can't rein in the freedom to love or hate using a set of rules established by the new ethics committee. Today, being free means being outside this mob of attacking, hating, condemning, moralizing, angry hypocrites. ..."
These mobs of hating, condemning, moralizing, groupthink hypocrites are modern-day Nazis. They don't wear
uniforms or have guns, but their weapon of online psychological abuse is proving frighteningly effective.
Totalitarianism didn't disappear when the Nazis were defeated. It hid, stealthily, only to come back
later. The US and Europe intuitively built a new elaborate type of dictatorship. The state delegated the
functions of surveillance, persecution, isolation and judgment to society. Initially, it looked very
innocent: fighting against intolerance, defending the mistreated and the oppressed. Noble goals.
But
with time, these values turned into idols, while intolerance of evil transformed into intolerance of a
different opinion. And social media is making things worse. Public opinion is now a repressive machine
that gangs up on people, booing and destroying anyone who dares to challenge its value system and moral
compass.
The staff members of this repressive machine do not wear uniforms, they don't carry batons or tasers,
but they have other weapons, such as herd instinct and groupthink, as well as deep insecurities and a
desire to dominate – at least intellectually.
Psychological abuse is one of their classic methods, as they exploit a person's fear of ending up
alone against a crowd. Instead of a prison cell or a concentration camp, they put people in social
isolation. They can even prevent the victim from being employed – classic state repression of an
individual.
In a Nazi state, a creative type such as Lars von Trier could lose his job and life over his
"degenerate art." In the beautiful modern state that people with beautiful faces are building, a Lars von
Trier could lose his job, because he can be a politically incorrect troll who sometimes supports the
wrong value system. And a Robert Lepage won't get funding for his new theatrical production, because all
the parts in the previous one were played by white actors.
You no longer need to take their lives.
Without work, the geniuses will fade into obscurity, and the
new PC brigade will make them kneel in solidarity. Individually, members of these combat units of
political correctness are often smart and sophisticated people, but when they close ranks in the fight
for or against something, they turn into an ignorant and aggressive mob.
And there's no point arguing with them. They have only one criterion: are you with us or not? That's
an ideal tool for the new way of abusing individuals – it's not physical, it's psychological.
China has been testing a new system in several provinces via which the citizens and their community
are encouraged to assess the social behavior of individuals by assigning scores for respecting the rules
and values practiced in this society. If you don't achieve a high score, your ranking is low and your
prospects are limited. Isn't this just perfect for the new stormtroopers?! It's a modern reincarnation of
the Munich gang, when a mediocre, covetous burgher pretends to be a civilized, progressive thinker.
They put labels on everyone who disagrees. They love drama and straightforwardness. But they are
incapable of engaging in rational argument. It's only natural that they began with declaring lofty values
and ended with riots. They have started fires and justified arson. But you can't rein in the freedom to
love or hate using a set of rules established by the new ethics committee. Today, being free means being
outside this mob of attacking, hating, condemning, moralizing, angry hypocrites.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Konstantin Bogomolov is an award-winning Russian theater director, actor, author and
poet.
The hatred against anything w hite is all prevalent and only getting worse. It will only lead to more anti w hite violence.
To look at your future, look at South Africa.
The book burners are at it again. Remember when Democrats keep telling us how the religious right was nothing but a
bunch of dangerous authoritarians. Well, this is certainly awkward.
If this was a Chinese admiral or diplomat, the tone of the comments here would be completely
different: "whistleblower", "Chinese totalitarianism collapsing", "we should support him", "the
Chinese should reform", "Xi Jinping should be removed from power" etc. etc.
...In general, USG is very happy if an ambassador is in blatant insubordination, e.g.
supporting a FAILED coup against his own government. Could it misled some ambassadors that it
is OK?
In short, there are good and bad types of hypocrisy, and USG should have some (online?)
courses, so passing quizzes in Hypocrisy.1, Hypocrisy.2 and Hypocrisy.3 would be a
prerequisite before granting a post (the higher the post, the more quizzes may be
needed).
Police in various American cities especially on the East and West coasts have stood down while fanatical mobs of
leftists unilaterally determine which public monuments and statues should be toppled, destroyed, and
in
some cases beheaded
--
as
in
the
recent "beheading" of a Christopher Columbus statue at a public park in Boston
.
It didn't take long for the woke mobs to
target
statues of the founding fathers and American Constitutional framers
in the past days.
In Portland
over
the weekend
, a large bronze Thomas Jefferson statue that was a central feature of Jefferson High School campus was
pulled down after Black Lives Matter protests there.
Like others across the nation, the Jefferson statue was further defaced with the words "slave owner" and "George Floyd"
spray-painted across the base.
But given that increasingly even Abraham Lincoln statues are being targeted, it reveals that neither the Confederacy nor
early colonial and American slaveholders are the targets, but all symbols of US history itself.
They make no distinction between Confederate and Union, abolitionist and pro-slavery, 15th-century figures and 20th.
They don't care when a monument was erected, who built it, or why.
They have not come to debate or persuade
their fellow citizens to relocate these statues to museums or private property.
They
believe the debate is over and that they have won.
Their target is not the Confederacy. It is the United States.
They mean to destroy symbols of American
history writ large, because to them all of American history is racist and genocidal. Their goal is not to cleanse a
nation they love of monuments to Confederate traitors who tried to secede, but to cleanse their consciences of ever
having loved such an evil and irredeemably racist country in the first place.
Rioters in Philly deface a statue of Matthias Baldwin, an early abolitionist who fought against
slavery 30 years before it ended.
Even leading abolitionist figures from history are targeted
,
astoundingly
:
That is why you see mobs defacing statues of abolitionists like Matthias Baldwin and Union war heroes like Adm. David
Farragut and Gen. George Thomas.
That is why the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution in
Philadelphia
was
vandalized
this past weekend with the words "committed genocide." That is why statues of Christopher Columbus
were torn down or beheaded in three cities last week.
A
"peaceful"
protest took place
at Central Park in Whittier on Sunday, or so we are told. It appears that initially the statue
was safe, but by the end of it the Quaker abolitionist considered key in the 19th century movement for equal
rights wasn't spared by the 'woke' mob.
John Greenleaf, whose statue now sits damaged and vandalized, including with the spray-painted letters "BLM", was among
the
most prominent literary voices leading the fight to end slavery even decades before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
in 1863
.
If even memorials to famous abolitionists won't be spared, what will?
* * *
Many commentators have noticed that the statue-destroying leftist mobs in both the US and UK have something in common
with a certain Mideast terror group...
Before and after
: the 6th century Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban using dynamite in
2001.
Someone Else
,
16 minutes ago
The
President has always been a respected figurehead no matter who he was. There were many times in my 62
years that the guy I didn't support became President. But he WAS President. And he was treated with
respect and dignity.
You
can't look at a newspaper today without seeing a headline like "President Lies About Russia". "Fact
Checkers" call him a liar in real time before he can even finish a speech. The press openly mocks him
and holds him in contempt on every issue. It seems that the only "media outlet" that universally
endorses the President is fringical "Info Wars" and for it they are banned from Facebook and Twitter.
If
we can't show our current elected President the respect he deserves for simply BEING our elected
President - why are we surprised to discover people attack statues?
Refuse-Resist
,
7 minutes ago
He may be one of the only Americans in the entire edifice.
stuvian
,
22 minutes ago
peak stupidity has arrived
Someone Else
,
34 minutes ago
The mistake is in thinking that these riots are principled. This is not about slavery. This is about
destroying stuff.
They don't want reparations out of a sense of fairness. They want reparations out of a sense of monetary
gain, whatever the reason.
They don't attack Apple stores and Nike stores to strike out against evil corporatists. They do it
because they want free shoes, apparel and Mac Book Pros.
The
poor want to destroy the rich and to take their stuff. Don't look for anything noble or righteous
there. It doesn't exist.
Goodsport 1945
,
1 hour ago
This is not a movement about slavery or oppression. The intent is to destroy our nation. There will
never be a one world government until living standards in the US are brought down to that of the rest of
the world.
The
Globalists, Liberals, Socialists and Communists who fund, encourage and protect these criminals have
become the biggest threat to our freedom since the War of Independence.
Someday this will all become apparent to the majority, but by then it might be too late to avoid a civil
war.
Refuse-Resist
,
1 hour ago
YES. We must stand together for our children and grandchildren.
Failure to do so will end them up in a North American version of South Africa.
iadr
,
1 hour ago
IDK.
Statues have always seemed kind of icky to me.
They purport to honor the ideas/ideals of someone, but I can't see how that's true. It requires an
absurd and patently obviously immature association with the corporal form of someone to represent their
ideas. It was, and is, a dumb idea.
But
I don't think more than a few percent of "activists" currently can reason in the way of this analysis, or
even have the self knowledge to discern where their hate of power symbols arises from (an incredibly
complex topic).
So
there are statues and they are up. I'd leave them up, but I'm not really tied to the idea by more than
the thinnest thread.
If
we "win" in the long term.... do we, in 50 years leave up the statue of Rev Al Sharpton? do we leave up a
statue of some cross dressing idiot because it means something to some people? Do we leave up a statue of
some defender/symbol of financialization- a Ray Dalio or a Ken Griffin? Someone who represents the
concentration and corruption of power in the .1% in this era?, or another era (eg. Rockefeller)?
Of
current statuary, I know enough philosophy/sociology/history/ethics to rank by worthiness - in
my
value system
, of long term defence. Conversely I see how many of the "famous" of the past are
simply sociopaths who got lucky,
who
spotted their era's version of a cheat code
.
I
think the reactionary articles on the statue topic are way beneath the standard we have here at ZH, and
are tabloidish.
I
think the vandals should stop, yes. And that they are shallower *by far* than the people who put up the
statues, but also and lastly: that maybe there's a third way besides prostrating one's self in defence of
some flawed character from a wholly different era.
ItsAllBollocks
,
1 hour ago
They're not destroying your statues, they're destroying your history.
The crazy part is you're letting them.
The question is, why?
Scipio Africanuz
,
3 hours ago
As
averred, there'll always be saboteurs and provocateurs amongst any mass protest, it's a feature, not a
bug and why?
To
discredit the peaceful protesters is why.. In
this case however, you have sabotage and provocation combined with illiteracy to create a volatile mix..
It's easy to observe that vandalizing anti-slavery advocates, is either illiteracy, sabotage, or
provocation..
The
interesting thing however, is the energetic attempts to tar all the protesters as anti-white or anyi-America..
What's going on, are attempts by political forces to discredit the grievances of legitimate protesters,
and it's quite transparent too..
Unfortunately, since quite a lot of Americans no longer engage in critical thinking, they'll fail to ask
the obvious questions such as who benefits from vandalizing anti-slavery monuments..
Or
even that of Jefferson, from whom protesters draw the legitimacy of their protests..
Anyhow, the folks sowing the chaos on both sides, are going down hard, they've passed their best before
dates of utility..
Now, they're simply parasites..
Cheers...
Sick Monkey
,
3 hours ago
This is why we need law enforcement. Cull the parasites. We do it with predators when their numbers
climb and start attacking innocents. The alternative is chaos. Can't invest in a society that lets
predators roam free.
djez
,
2 hours ago
"Unfortunately, since quite a lot of Americans no longer engage in critical thinking, they'll fail to
ask the obvious questions such as who benefits from vandalizing anti-slavery monuments.."
Well said. I have just been explaining the meaning of critical thinking to my 13 year old daughter and
recommended she apply it the next time one of her teachers raises the BLM subject, rather than going
along with what she is being told that racism is a huge problem. It's not. We just had a black
president. The issue is not racism, it's the image that social media has developed that everybody else
is having a great time and long loads of assets. You sit there reading all day that everybody else has
a "lovely lunch with the girls" and dripping in Cartier or "rolling with my bitches in my Mercedes"
and you will crack up at why your life is so $hit.
So I say again, if they read books instead of Facebook the world would be a better place.
I have to disagree. Small minorities taking it upon themselves to topple and destroy statues is not democracy. You may conflate
the image of the toppled statue with a popular revolt but that is because we've never seen as disarmed and atomised population
as we have reached now who have as yet not begun a backlash against the unending mission creep we see in this movement.
In some cases, like in towns and cities that have developed significant black majority populations, the removal of confederate
monuments that was blocked by the state from happening democratically may have a case.
But the statues in Britain and elsewhere in Europe are often much older in general and not controversial. They are often prominent
parts of the public space that are well-loved. A statue's meaning can change with time and right now these statues are increasingly
being targeted not because they irredeemably cause offense but because they are tied to ethnic enemies of the core of these protests.
The Columbus statues are a good example. The one in Virginia was initially opposed in 1925 by Virginians of old stock Anglo
settler ancestry and prominently by a politician who turned out to be tied to the KKK, causing the situation to become a national
one in the US leading to pressure that lead to the statue being erected. To all parties involved this wasn't really a statue of
Columbus, it was an ethnic totem. Almost 100 years later and the context of the statue being an ethnic totem for Italian-Americans
is not visible to the protestors, to them it's a totem of white America and European colonisation. The context of the statue being
originally placed as an ethnic marker in opposition with America's existing identity (A kind of activism very similar to what
they're doing) was invisible to them. Who was right? Were the Anglos in the 1920s right? Were the Italian immigrants right? Were
the local Native American groups right? Were the BLM protestors right?
In 1925, Frank Realmuto (a Richmond barber) organized a campaign to donate a statue of Christopher Columbus to Richmond's
Monument Avenue; this campaign was supported by Richmond's approximately 1,000 Italian-American residents. In May 1925, the
Richmond City Council rejected a proposal to donate land for the statue alongside Monument Avenue on the basis that Columbus
was both a foreigner and a Catholic; most of the council members believed that putting Columbus near monuments to revered Confederate
figures would be inappropriate. This decision was widely criticized in newspaper editorials published across the United States,
especially when it came to light that an opponent of the statue who spoke at the meeting was a member of a coalition that included
the Ku Klux Klan. In June 1925, a committee of the Richmond city council decided to allocate land near Byrd Park for the statue.
Fundraising began in February 1926 while Ferruccio Legnaioli, an Italian immigrant to Richmond, was selected to design the
statue. Ground was broken in June 1926.
For decades, members Richmond's Italian-American community gathered near the statue on the eve of Columbus Day to celebrate
Columbus and their culture. During the 2010s, the statue was repeatedly vandalized; these vandalizations coincided with increased
opposition to Columbus Day and efforts to recognize indigenous peoples. On June 9, 2020, the statue was torn down, spray-painted,
set on fire, and thrown into a nearby lake by individuals protesting the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.
The destruction of these statues is basically a form of ethnic provocation and is not conductive to any kind of social solidarity
that Johnathan supports. So far I've seen zero mentions of Palestine in all the hubbub about racism. Indeed, with all the noise
about identity politics which often prominently includes Muslims and arabs and even a surprising number of people of Palestinian
descent in the US, I don't see any mention of Palestinians.
Churchill wasn't a very sympathetic man, yet the statue of him isn't about that. He is a personification of WW2 and Britain.
People who fully know all about his deficiencies and crimes walk past and feel fine or even a little comforted because it's not
a statue celebrating those things or perhaps even really the man himself but the idea of him. And that is partly why the protestors
want to destroy it. Nobody is really offended by it because nobody really thinks about those aspects of his character, not even
the protestors. I fear the protestors are attacking it because of what it does represent.
But it goes further because this is centering an effective non-English perspective about the English perspective. You can't
understand the notion of 'decolonisation' of London otherwise.
Ultimately the destruction of these statues feels very similar to the destruction of place names and monuments by the Israelis
after 1948. All of this is the greatest bonfire of social solidarity the West has ever seen and all it will lead to more victories
for oligarchy and neoliberalism. All of it will beat people down and make them hunker down.
Just the title – tearing down statues, is the same as burning books, or burying scholars.
History is history – deal with it or STFU. Honestly, debate is about considering what has been, what is now, and what will
or could be in the future. Without having signs to what has been, knowing what is now is difficult. And knowing how to forge the
future, is a lost cause.
Brits built statues to Churchill – he was a genocidal, forgerist, drunk maniac. Germans built statues to Hitler – he was an
aggressor, perhaps genocidal (to the Slavs). Russians built monument to Lenin – he wasn't genocidal, just indifferent to murdering
some decent fraction of any people's to get his goal.
But those people, whether in understanding, or in failure of understanding, built statues to them. Both serve as lessons –
either as a lesson to the power of propaganda, or herd behaviour. Even without those two, statues to moral decay shine a light
on that condition.
'the fool is not the one who doesn't know, but the one that does not want to know' – someone else (if anyone knows! )
Now that I've read it – it is as if the author believes that only positive lessons, pats on the back, can serve as lessons to
the individual or society.
In my experience however, error is what offers both progress. Or suffering – if the lesson from the error is not learnt.
Success is heady. Statues of heroes and heroes only bring pride, a deadly emotion. We must remember the faults of humanity,
and what better way than through the errors of our predecessors? Christians put up statues to slavers, rapists, murderers. Is
this not enough for reflection? Can't we stand around a statue of Churchil, and debate power by considering he wished to drop
10 million Anthrax bombs on Northern Germany in a drunken stupor? How would this be possible without the statues?
The author is a babe, an infant – that in shuttering his eyes with his hands, believes all the danger and evil disappears from
the experience that is in front of him.
It seems Bristol's political class today are little more responsive to the popular will than they were 200 years ago.
Bristol's political class today is full of minorities, including the mayor who is a negro, all of them much hated for their
corruption, incompetence, and favouritism to their own minorities. Bristolians love their trees, but minorities don't seem to
like leafy suburbs, so they have all the trees cut down. If they had cared a hoot about Colston's statue, they could have had
it moved to a museum any time they wished.
The people who threw Colston in the docks appear to be largely white children, probably at Bristol University, which has become
a cancer growing on the city, a vast and ravenous corporation buying up property using tuition fees from the wealthy ruling classes
of other countries. Their act of vandalism was motivated by empty and ignorant slogans, impatience with actual democracy, and
a total intolerance of opinion which differs from their own. Also by a pathetic urge to mimic what's going on in the US.
This lawlessness and its encouragement by the minority power holders will have been noted by hitherto law-abiding people. Nobody
should be surprised if the next figure to go into the docks is Bristol's black mayor, accompanied by some brown councillors.
"Tearing Down Statues Isn't Vandalism. It's at the Heart of the Democratic Tradition"
Hey Jonathan Cook:
Sure!
Let's tear down ALL statues glossing over historical crimes & hypocrisy -- prioritizing the most notorious hagiography of all
-- the ubiquitous idolatry of "Holocaust" industry shysters.
@Beavertales I have read several claims, seemingly credible, that George Soros funds BLM and supports their violent rioting.
It is also documented, rebellious Jewish sources, that the Jews collectively hate non-Jews and and are at war with, seek to subvert,
the societies in which they, the Jews, live. It happened historically, e.g. the Cyrene uprising in the 2nd century AD whose largely
successful objective was widespread massacres of Gentiles. There seems reason to believe organized subversions of society, BLM,
LGTQXYZ and more have that connection.
We have here the current article by the Le Pen woman pointing out that permanent victimhood is behind BLM and the like. But
that, being eternal victims and so eternally hating, is notoriously Jewish.
The Holocaust museums everywhere are central to that victimhood and it is not permitted to examine the truth of the Holocaust,
though some have dared and say it's largely devoid of credibility.
So yes, you are right. One of the answers to the current turmoil plus the other things you mention, USS Liberty etc., is that
the Holocaust museum in Washington should be stormed by Americans.
Disclaimer: I am not an American.
But the time is long overdue for fair and balanced and open and loud reaction to the eternal Jewish war against society.
Those who allow the tearing-down are projecting their own mindset of rationality and
compromise onto those doing the tearing-down. They are assuming that that the statue-removers
will be placated.
But exactly the opposite is true; they will be not placated, but rather, encouraged to
escalate to the next kind of tear-down. Among those making the error is Mr. Trump, a
dealmaker, who will think he has made a deal; that this is a "deal" situation. The statues
are just the tip of the iceberg.
"... Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted. ..."
"... Today, we find Lincoln statues desecrated . Neither has the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed. To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time. ..."
"... Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor to keep themselves going. ..."
"... Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.) ..."
"... But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source did not stop at black people, after all. ..."
"... Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss. ..."
"... Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay. ..."
"... We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free labor looks different. ..."
"... It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything to protect their right to abuse cheap labor. ..."
"... At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. ..."
"... I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. ..."
"... Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks. Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism. ..."
"... Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. ..."
"... They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called " Blue Collar ." ..."
"... "That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young, the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place." ..."
"... The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models ..."
Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted.
Former injured Amazon employees join labor organizers and community activists to demonstrate and hold a press conference
outside of an Amazon Go store to express concerns about what they claim is the company's "alarming injury rate" among warehouse
workers on December 10, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On April 2, 1865, in the dying days of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln wandered the streets of burnt out Richmond,
the former Confederate capital. All of a sudden, Lincoln found himself surrounded by scores of emancipated men and women. Here's
how the historian James McPherson describes the moving episode in his magisterial book
Battle Cry of Freedom :
Several freed slaves touched Lincoln to make sure he was real. "I know I am free," shouted an old woman, "for I have seen Father
Abraham and felt him." Overwhelmed by rare emotions, Lincoln said to one black man who fell on his knees in front of him: "Don't
kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank Him for the liberty you will enjoy hereafter."
Lincoln's legacy as the Great Emancipator has survived the century and a half since then largely intact. But there have been cracks
in this image, mostly caused by questioning academics who decried him as an overt white supremacist. This view eventually entered
the mainstream when Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote misleadingly in her
lead essay
to the "1619 Project" that Lincoln "opposed black equality."
Today, we find Lincoln statues
desecrated . Neither has the memorial
to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed.
To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap
the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time.
Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor
to keep themselves going.
***
The main idea driving the "1619 Project" and so much of recent scholarship is that the United States of America originated in
slavery and white supremacy. These were its true founding ideals. Racism, Hannah-Jones writes, is in our DNA.
Such arguments don't make any sense, as the historian Barbara Fields clairvoyantly argued in a
groundbreaking essay from 1990. Why would Virginia planters in the 17th century import black people purely out of hate? No, Fields
countered, the planters were driven by a real need for dependable workers who would toil on their cotton, rice, and tobacco fields
for little to no pay. Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number
of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.)
After 1776 everything changed. Suddenly the new republic claimed that "all men are created equal" -- and yet there were millions
of slaves who still couldn't enjoy this equality. Racism helped to square our founding ideals with the brute reality of continued
chattel slavery: Black people simply weren't men.
But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum
figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond
urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source
did not stop at black people, after all.
Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give
this bleak reality a spiritual gloss.
The true cause of the Civil War -- and it bears constant
repeating for all the doubters -- was whether slavery would expand its reach or whether
"free labor" would reign supreme. The latter was the dominant
ideology of the North: Free laborers are independent, self-reliant, and eventually achieve economic security and independence by
the sweat of their brow. It's the American Dream. But if that is so, then the Civil War ended in a tie -- and its underlying conflict was never really settled.
***
Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War
that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap
workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These
workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch
employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could
do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay.
America's wealth rests on this mutual competition between workers -- some nominally "free," others basically indentured -- whether
it be through unjust visa schemes or other unfair managerial practices.
Remember that the next time you read a public announcement by the Amazons of this world that they remain committed to "black lives
matter" and similar identitarian causes.
Fortunately, very few Americans hold the same racial resentments in their hearts as their ancestors did even just half a century
ago. Rarely did we agree as much than when the nation near unanimously condemned the death of George Floyd at the hands of a few
Minneapolis police officers. This is in keeping with another fortunate trend: Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings
of young black men declined by 79% percent .
But anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for our corporations, even despite the evidence that people in this country
have grown much less bigotted than they once were: As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are
encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments in everything that their fellow workers say or do.
We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted
out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free
labor looks different.
And so, through a surprising back door, the true cause for which Robert E. Lee chose to betray his country might still be coming
out on top, whether we remove his statues or not -- namely, the steady supply to our ruling corporations of unfree workers willing
to hustle for scraps.
It's time to follow Abraham Lincoln's urging and get off our knees again. We should assert our rights as American citizens to
live free from economic insecurity and mutual resentment. The vast majority of us harbor no white supremacist views, period. Instead,
we have so many more things in common, and we know it.
Another anecdote from the last days of the Civil War, also taken from Battle Cry of Freedom, might prove instructive here: The
surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 essentially ended the
Civil War. The ceremony was held with solemn respect for Lee, though one of Grant's adjutants couldn't help himself but have a subtle
dig at Lee's expense:
After signing the papers, Grant introduced Lee to his staff. As he shook hands with Grant's military secretary Ely Parker,
a Seneca Indian, Lee stared a moment at Parker's dark features and said, "I am glad to see one real American here." Parker responded,
"We are all Americans."
Gregor Baszak is a PhD Candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a writer. His articles have appeared
in Los Angeles Review of Books, Public Books, Spectator USA, Spiked, and elsewhere. Follow Gregor on Twitter at @gregorbas1.
It's a bit off-topic but this is a big reason I supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary this year, he was the only
candidate talking about how businesses demand that cheap labor, illegal labor, replace American labor. For this, the corporate
media called him a racist, an anti-semite, a dangerous radical. None of his opponents aside from Elizabeth Warren had anything
to run on aside from pseudo-woke touchy-feely bs. And somehow, with the media insisting that Joe Biden was the only one who could
beat Trump, we ended up with the one candidate who was neither good on economics, good for American workers, or offering platitudes
about wokeness.
It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything
to protect their right to abuse cheap labor.
Racism is very real. If it weren't it couldn't be used to "divide and conquer" the working calss. we can walk and chew gum
and the same time: oppose racism, and also oppose exploitive labor practices.
What kind of polemic, unsupported statement is "black fast food workers are the ones who gave us the fight for $15"? How about
it was a broad coalition of progressives (of all colors)? Moreover, $15 minimum wage is a poor, one-size-fits-all band-aid that
I doubt even fits ONE scenario. Tackling the broader shareholder capitalism model of labor arbitrage (free trade/mass immigration),
deunionization, and monopolistic hurdles drafted by corporations is where it actually matters. And on that, we are seeing the
inklings of a populist left-right coalition -- if corporate-funded race hustlers could only get out of the way.
That's the problem. We CAN'T chew gum and walk at the same time. Every minute focusing on racial friction is a minute NOT talking
about neoliberal economics. What's the ratio of air time, social media discussion, or newspaper inches are devoted to race vis-a-vis
the economic system that has starved the working class -- which is disproportionately black and brown? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000
to 1? If there are no decent working class jobs for young black and brown men, then it makes it nearly impossible to raise families.
Let's be clear: Systemic racism is real, but it is far less impactful than economic injustices and family dissolution.
Class really isn't the primary issue for black people.
That's a frankly ridiculous statement. At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression
at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. No one--except a few neurotic, high-strung corporate
HR PMC types--cares about "microaggressions". Even unjust police shootings of blacks are likely down to class and not race--despite
the politically correct narrative saying otherwise.
Putting racial identity politics as an equal (or even greater) priority than class-based solidarity creates an absurd system
where an upper-middle class black woman attending Yale can act as if a working class white man is oppressing her by not acknowledging
his "white privilege", and not bowing to her every demand. It's utterly delusional to think that sort of culture is going to create
a more just or equal world.
Biden is a Rorschach test, people see whatever they want in a party apparatchik. Trump has been Shiva, the destroyer of the
traditional Republican party. How else do you explain the support among Multi-Billionaires for the Democratic party. Truly ironic.
I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the
Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. I understand that he still wants to divide
Iraq into three separate countries--a decision for Iraqis to make and not us. If we try to implement that policy, it would doubtless
lead to more American deaths--to say nothing of Iraqi deaths.
So not only is he not good for American workers, he is not good for the American soldier who is disproportionately likely not
to be from the elite classes but rather from the working and lower-middle class.
The only other Democratic candidate who opposed war-mongering besides Sanders was Tulsi Gabbard. I watched CNN commentary after
a debate in which she participated. While the other participants received lots of commentary from CNN talking heads. she got almost
nothing. She was featured in a video montage of candidates saying "Trump"; other than that, she was invisible in the post-debate
analysis.
I don't know how far it travelled outside of Democratic primary voters, but I recall Biden's campaign saying that they were
planning to be sort of a placeholder that would pass the torch to the next generation. He's insinuated that he only wants to serve
one term and saw jumping into the race as the only way to beat Trump. Not the most exciting platform for the Democrats to run
on.
As depressing as this primary was, it's good to see that the rising generation of Democrats was resistant to platitudes and demanded
actual policy proposals.
Shame the party elders fell for the same old tricks yet again. I just hope that once there are more of
us, we can have a serious policy debate in both major parties about free trade, immigration, inequality. The parties' voters aren't
all that far apart on economics, yet neither of us is being given what we want. Whichever party sincerely takes a stand for the
American working class stands to dominate American politics for a generation.
The problem with Biden's "placeholder" comments is that he specifically mentioned it for Pete Buttigeig, the McKinsey-trained
career opportunist who believes in his bones the same neoliberal economics and interventionist foreign policies as the last generation.
Same bad ideas, new woke packaging.
Kamala Harris and Susan Rice, both tops on the VP list, will do just fine in place of Buttigieg - he's slated to revive TPP
as the new USTR cabinet lead.
Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to
wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks.
Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism.
To me, I have always thought that America's original sin was slavery. Its stain can not be completely wiped out.
And I further believe that if Native Americans would have enslaved the newly arrived Europeans, and remained the ruling majority,
white people would be discriminated against today.
So the problem is not that white people are inherently evil, or other races are inherently good. It is that because of slavery
black people are bad, white people are good.
As a nation we have never been able to wash out the stain completely. Never will. Getting closer to the promised land is the
best we are going to do. Probably take another 400 years.
In everyday encounters no one cares how discrimination began, just treat me like you want to be treated. Pretty simple.
"As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments
in everything that their fellow workers say or do."
The author does not offer one smidgen of proof that any company uses antiracism to divide workers. It might be plausible that
it's happened, but Baszak has no data at all.
Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings of young black men declined by 79% percent.
You think this is an accident? It came about through intense pressure on the police to stop killing Black people -- exactly
the sort of racial emphasis the author seems to be decrying. Important to note that the non-fatal mistreatment has remained high.
The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss
Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since
the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social
status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. The psychological draw of racism, its cultural
strength, are obviated by Barszak. And I bet Barbara Fields does not consider racism an epiphenomenon of economics.
They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called "Blue
Collar."
"That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded
of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young,
the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place."
The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist
Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke
cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models -- a system that actually has greater deleterious
impact on black communities.
This video is one recent example of what you'll rarely see in mainstream media:
"... These elites have no intention of instituting anything more than cosmetic change. They refuse to ask the questions that matter because they do not want to hear the answers. They are systems managers. They use these symbolic gestures to gaslight the public and leave our failed democracy, from which they and their corporate benefactors benefit, untouched. ..."
"... The crisis we face is not, as the ruling elites want us to believe, limited to police violence. ..."
"... The problem is an economic and political system that has by design created a nation of serfs and obscenely rich masters. ..."
Once again, we see proposed legislation to mandate police reform -- more body cameras,
consent decrees, revised use-of-force policies, banning chokeholds, civilian review boards,
requiring officers to intervene when they see misconduct, banning no-knock search warrants,
more training in de-escalation tactics, a requirement by law enforcement agencies to report
use-of-force data, nationally enforced standards for police training and greater diversity --
proposals made, and in several cases adopted in the wake of numerous other police murders,
including those of Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Philando Castile. The Minneapolis Police
Department, for example, established a duty to intervene requirement by police officers after
the 2014 killing of Brown in Ferguson. This requirement did not save Floyd. ...
The public displays of solidarity are, as in the past, smoke and mirrors, a pantomime of
faux anguish and empathy by bankrupt ruling elites, including most Black politicians groomed by
the Democratic Party and out of touch with the daily humiliation, stress of economic misery and
suffering that defines the lives of many of the protesters.
These elites have no intention of instituting anything more than cosmetic change. They
refuse to ask the questions that matter because they do not want to hear the answers. They are
systems managers. They use these symbolic gestures to gaslight the public and leave our failed
democracy, from which they and their corporate benefactors benefit, untouched. What we
are watching in this outpouring of televised solidarity with the victims of police violence
is an
example of what Bertram Gross calls "friendly fascism," the "nice-guy mask" used to
disguise the despotism of the ultra-rich and our corporate overseers. Whatever you think about
Donald Trump, he is at least open about his racism, lust for state violence and commitment to
white supremacy.
The crisis we face is not, as the ruling elites want us to believe, limited to police
violence. It is a class and generational revolt. It will not be solved with new police
reforms, which always result, as Princeton professor Naomi Murakawa
points out in her book "The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America," in less
accountable, larger and more lethal police forces. The problem is an economic and
political system that has by design created a nation of serfs and obscenely rich masters.
The problem is deindustrialization, offshoring of manufacturing, automation and austerity
programs that allow families to be priced out of our for-profit healthcare system and see
nearly one in
five children 12 and younger without enough to eat. ...
The entrenched racism in America has always meant that poor people of color are the first
cast aside in society and disproportionately suffer from the most brutal forms of social
control meted out by the police and the prison system. But there will not be, as Martin Luther
King pointed out, racial justice until there is economic justice. And there will not be
economic justice until we wrest power back from the hands of our corporate masters. Until that
happens, we will go through cycle after cycle of brutal police murders and cycle after cycle of
the profuse apologies and promises of reform. We are trapped in an abusive relationship. When
we finally have enough, when we cry out in pain and walk out, our abuser comes after us with
flowers and apologies and promises to change. Back we go for more.
This is why people hate DNC. who the F blames Russia in the middle of this? Russia has enough problems with Covid-19 to mess
with local Minnesota politics. Dems are a dead party.
That is very revealing. A so-called journalist [activist] telling another journalist who is attempting to be objective that
she is tired of having to deal with him for reporting on FACTS which has been repeatedly "asked" not to do.
Lee Fang did not deserve this. People as committed as him to the tenants of investigative journalism are few and far between
and I attribute reporters like him to my awakening from political apathy and my new found dedication to activism.
"I recently had a conflict with a colleague whose feelings I harmed." Neo-libs are so fragile. Hurt their poor little feelings
and you're immediately branded a racist. It disgusts me when journalists (or anyone else for that matter) are blackmailed into
apologizing for hurting someone's feelings. What is freedom of speech all about in the first place? Say whatever you want as long
as you never hurt anyone's feelings?
1:30 I'm black and it's exactly how I feel.
That and I'm not a fan of whom the funding money goes to. It goes to DNC politicians, not to any blk communities like supporting
predominately blk schools.
Amen Saagar!! I for the most part enjoy Krystal's analysis, but, in my own biased opinion, you communicate a more mature sobering
view of who is really benefiting from all of this disfunction in present society. My take is how these brands clothed in Black
Lives Matter and Antifa are furthering the 1% underlying agenda. All we have to do is critically see who is left standing financially
unscathed from all the madness. Take the inconvenient deep dive research of the corporations funding Black Lives, Antifa etc.
And history has always shown that once the 1% have used the robotic clueless for their cause, they will be conveniently discarded
by means of the same devices that they thought they were fighting against. I can see George Carlin if he were alive today using
all of this dark human insanity for fodder in the tragic comedy he so perfected.
Saagar, thank you for speaking truth to the mob. NEVER apologize to an SJW - or anyone else for that matter - when your only
"crime" is to think differently than they do.
Great piece. Too bad no one is listening. 70% of americans get their news and analyse from MSM and hollywood, and the elites
know this, so they don't care. Biden v. Kavanaugh hypocrisy? No problem. Obama the 'deporter in chief'? No problem. Nancy worth
$100 MILLION as a public servant? No problem. Hunter gets arrested with drugs and is not charged? No problem.
Corporations realize that they need to turn from class struggle (working class vs plutocrats) into about race struggles and
cultural revolution (social struggle). You touch their money and power structure it's no go. But to make cosmetic change, do whatever
you want. They don't really care.
Two things wrong with this: 1) Fang's concentrating on Black-on-Black killing is like saying "All Lives Matter." It is a tool
used by the right to minimize racist crime. Fang knows this and so does Saagar. 2) Freedom of speech means you can say anything
you want. It DOES NOT MEAN you are protected from criticism of what you've said. If people self-censor over that criticism, so
be it. No lawful entity is saying you cannot publish your thoughts. If Fang wants to express unpopular thoughts and, in so doing,
minimize the problem of racism in this country, he certainly has the Constitutional right to do so. However, he must man up and
accept whatever criticism comes his way. In my opinion, that criticism is sorely deserved. Edit: After listening to Taibbi's views
today, I agree that no journalist should be at risk of losing his job over reporting unpopular events and views.
I have a response to the guy questioning BLM. Why is it that SJW-types feel that every issue has to encompass every ill ever
committed in human history? Or in other words, can't an organization focus on one specific problem without being saddled with
every conceivable mutation or variation or sub-agenda of an issue? BLM is focused on police abuse aimed at people of color. Isn't
that a tough enough issue without any add-ons or getting involved and invested in conflicts between autonomous individuals? And
while I'm on that note, what the hell is the deal with people thinking the police are there to solve every God damn interpersonal
dispute? The neighbor leaves his trash can on your lawn and you call the police. Someone tells someone else to follow the law
in the park and leash their dog and the knee jerk reaction is not to (here's a crazy idea) leash the dog, but to call the police.
The racial issue aside, this kind of response is in no way unusual. I swear to God someone threatened to call the police on me
for, get this, criticizing Hillary Clinton. No lie. (We need to stop calling it Trump Derangement Syndrome and call it Hillary
Clinton Derangement Syndrome cause that is closer to the truth. I defy someone to point to a single case of TDS in someone who
wasn't a Clinton supporter. We all suffer under Trump but only a subset of us lost their minds. So what's the unifying factor?
Hillary. She's the one who drove people crazy.) Anyway, calling the police at the drop of a hat is now the accepted societal norm.
I just watched a movie where the female lead called the police twice (in 90 minutes) over interpersonal issues involving her dog.
Deal with your own fvcking problems! Develop some interpersonal problem solving skills or learn to cope! The police are not your
mommy and daddy there to deal with the mean people in your life. That's not their job. And maybe they would be a little less out
of their freakin minds if people didn't keep expecting them to be.
" In a democracy it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged"-- Bertrand Russell. The
political Left (DNC/CIA) and MSM control the Narrative at present and will tolerate no dissenting views. SCOTUS has ruled multiple
times that "Hate speech is Free speech", so government indirectly censors Freedom of Speech through Social Media.
Great view, the leftist media, entertainment and academia are the biggest enemy of the people, and also the greatest threat
to its greatness and future. They manipulate each and every fact, event, used with intent to stir up minority communities to control
them and use them. They leftist have destroyed the education system in those communities in many ways, they denounce legitimate
ways of educating minorities
"... Old saying: A Recession is when your neighbor loses their Job. A Depression is when you lose your Job. ..."
"... A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business. ..."
"... There's a documentary about Wal-Mart that has the best title ever: The High Cost of Low Cost ..."
"... Globalism killed the American dream. We can buy cheap goods made somewhere else if we have a job here that pays us enough money. ..."
You can't just move to American cities to pursue opportunity; even the high wages paid in
New York are rendered unhelpful because the cost of housing is so high.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was vilified and ultimately murdered when he was helping organize
a Poor People's Campaign. Racial justice means economic justice.
A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and
do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into
buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb
thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business.
Nailed it. As a millennial, I'm sick of being told to just "deal with it" when the cards
have always been stacked against me. Am I surviving? Yes. Am I thriving? No.
When the reserve status of the American dollar goes away, then it will become apparent how
poor the US really is. You cannot maintain a country without retention of the ability to
manufacture the articles you use on a daily basis. The military budget and all the jobs it
brings will have to shrink catastrophically.
...and sometimes you CAN'T afford to move. You can't find a decent job. You certainly
can't build a meaningful savings. You can't find an apartment. And if you have kids? That
makes it even harder. I've been trying to move for years, but the conditions have to be
perfect to do it responsibly. The American Dream died for me once I realized that no matter
the choices I made, my four years of college, my years of saving and working hard....I do NOT
have upward mobility. For me, the American Dream is dead. I've been finding a new dream. The
human dream.
This is a very truncated view. You need to expand your thinking. WHY has the system been
so overtly corrupted? It's globalism that has pushed all this economic pressure on the
millennials and the middle class. It was the elites, working with corrupt politicians, that
rigged the game so the law benefited them.
This is all reversible. History shows that capitalism can be properly regulated in a way
that benefits all. The answer to the problem is to bring back those rules, not implement
socialism.
Trump has:
- Ended the free trade deals
- Imposed Protective tarriffs to defend American jobs and workers
- Lowered corporate taxes to incentivize business to locate within us borders.
- Limited immigration to reduce the supply of low skilled labor within US borders.
The result? before COVID hit the average American worker saw the first inflation adjusted
wage increase in over 30 years!
This is why the fake news and hollywood continue to propagandize the masses into hating
Trump.
Trump is implementing economic policies good for the people and bad for the elites
Krystal Ball exposes the delusion of the American dream.
About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of
morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show
leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can
predict what is going to happen.
It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive
news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the
country's most important political newsmakers.
Got my degree just as the great recession hit. Couldn't find real work for 3 years, not
using my degree... But it was work. now after 8 years, im laid off. I did everything "right".
do good in school, go to college, get a job...
I've never been fired in my life. its always,
"Your contract is up" "Sorry we cant afford to keep you", "You can make more money collecting!
but we'll give a recommendation if you find anything."
Now I'm back where i started... only
now I have new house and a family to support... no pressure.
As Vijay Prashad explains in his book, Red Star Over The
Third World , domestic fascism in the West has reflected the West's pre-existing
colonial practices abroad. Citing Martinique communist Aimé Césaire, Prashad
explains: "What had come to define fascism inside Europe through the experience of the Nazis
– the jackboots and the gas chambers – were familiar already in the colonies. . . .
[F]ascism was a political form of bourgeois rule in times when democracy threatened capitalism;
colonialism, on the other hand, was naked power justified by racism to seize resources from
people who were not willing to hand them over. Their form was different but their manners were
identical."
As Prashad and Césaire teach us, the fascist tactics used by our Western governments
in the Global South will inevitably be brought home to be used against us. In the case of the
US, these tactics have surely been introduced here, and we are now seeing this clearly as our
police, sometimes backed by the military itself, are battling protestors in the streets in the
same manner that a military force does as a foreign occupying power. Indeed, as a number of
commentators have pointed out, the very tactic which killed George Floyd – the knee on
the neck –
was imported by the Israeli Defense Forces (themselves bankrolled by the US) who use this
tactic against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories and who are now training US
police units, including the Minneapolis police force, to use it as well.
Moreover, the police are using not only the cruel military tactics used to oppress people
abroad, they are also using the military's very equipment to do so.
Democratic President Bill Clinton opened the door wide for this police militarization in the
1990s with the National Defense Authorization Act which created a program, the 1033 program,
through which police departments are given surplus military equipment. As recently explained by
Michael Shank in an article in The New York Review of Books , entitled "
How Police Became Paramilitaries ," pursuant to this program, "local law enforcement began
to adopt the type of military equipment more frequently used in a war zone: everything from
armored personnel carriers and tanks , with 360-degree rotating
machine gun turrets, to grenade launchers, drones, assault weapons, and more. Today, billions
of dollars' worth of military equipment -- most used, some new -- has been transferred to
civilian police departments."
And, once the police receive this equipment, they must use it. As Shank explains, the 1033
program "requires that law enforcement agencies make use of such equipment within a year of
acquisition, effectively mandating that police put it into practice in the public space." In
other words, the police are actually required to turn the military's high-tech guns against
their own people.
The militarization of the police, moreover, can be seen as a by-product of the US's
over-reliance on the use of military force and war to solve all of its problems, to the near
exclusion of all other alternatives. Indeed, the US has given up on trying to lead the world
through economic and technological prowess, or through moral suasion. Instead, our leaders have
decided that brute military force alone will allow the US to dominate the planet, and our
nation's coffers are being looted to the tune of over $1 trillion a year to do so. The result
is the starving of our educational system, our social safety net and our nation's vital
infrastructure. This, of course, then leads to mass deprivation and despair which then leads to
mass unrest. And, just as it deals with the rest of the world, our rulers have decided to deal
with the unrest at home, not by solving the social ills plaguing this nation, or by fixing a
few bridges or dams, but by beating us down with military-style violence.
Military force, indeed, has become the only instrument in our government's toolbox, as quite
starkly illustrated recently by the White House's decision to give our valuable medical workers
military flyovers costing $60,000 an hour instead of providing these workers with the
protective equipment they have been desperately demanding. As with all things, our government
has money and resources for instruments of violence, but none for human needs. This is
literally killing us, just as surely as it is killing hundreds of thousands of people –
nearly all people of color, not coincidentally – in foreign lands. The fight against
police brutality and racism must therefore be linked to the fight to de-fund our military and
to the broader fight to de-militarize our very society and culture. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Dan KovalikDan Kovalik teaches
International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. His latest book is
No More War:
How the West Violates International Law by Using 'Humanitarian' Intervention to Advance
Economic and Strategic Interests.
Following footage of officers doing precisely that at numerous BLM protests around the
country, it has been confirmed that the suggestion came from above.
"Hertfordshire Constabulary said those who chose not to make the solidarity gesture 'may
become the focus of the protesters' attention'," reports the
Mail on Sunday .
"The advice was issued during a recent operational briefing and points out that, when
officers kneel down – joining in the symbolic stance of the Black Lives Matter movement
– it 'has a very positive reaction on the protest groups'."
The advice was given despite the fact that many BLM demonstrations have descended into
anarchy and violent attacks on police officers.
"It's absurd. Will officers be expected to make similarly appeasing gestures at political
events – far-Right protests, for instance?" asked one senior detective.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett also slammed the idea, saying that police are "there to
ensure a safe demonstration, not to make political statements."
"That Hertfordshire police want their officers to take the knee before protestors is a
total surrender to anarchy, Marxism and an organisation that wants them abolished. Insanity
mixed with cowardice," remarked Nigel Farage.
The advice is stunning because it suggests that officers across the country are being
ordered to cave to the mob and be lax in enforcing the law against rioters.
Alice-the-dog , 15 minutes ago
They deserve each other. Both BLM and the police demand respect they don't deserve. Both
are tools of the Psychopaths In Charge. One to facilitate division, the other to facilitate
fear. The two primary tools of tyrants.
7th sage , 16 minutes ago
Mass brainwashing and mind control on display here. Ladies and gentlemen, Behold the new
fascism. This time enforced by the manipulated and weaponized peasants.
Theremustbeanotherway , 26 minutes ago
I seem to remember diggers etc being put to good use in Ukraine troubles - there's more
than enough heavy equipment that could be used in the UK to "excavate No 10 and No11 Downing
Street"
I hate cunton , 35 minutes ago
Just supply Chaz, Chicago, Atlanta etc. with free fentanyl and the problem solves itself.
Of course then you have the problem of excess corpse disposal, but some ovens will take care
of that.🐒🍌
pazmakerII , 38 minutes ago
The Uk is screwed! The USA is screwed This whole world is screwed! It's happening at
lightning speed now. I'm not a young guy and I have seen more **** happen down the path of
chaos in 2020 then I have seen in the last 30 years, of course a lot of ground work was laid
in order for this turning point to happen.
Sick Monkey , 35 minutes ago
Have faith in the thinking silent majority. We are all alive and kicking although you
couldn't tell from the media hype. They would rather portray us as buck toothed inbred with a
hanging tree.
The crimes that the state had perpetuated upon its own people were such that no citizen
wanted to defend Rome. They wanted anything , but what they had.
The two main point of course was the total lack of virtue and morality and the complete
destruction of the purchasing power of the currency
Porkulus Ziffel , 2 hours ago
The government is more concerned with keeping the white nationalists in control while
placating BLM/Antifa. Every vid I've seen from over there recently, it's always some white
guy with blood all over his face or a white guy being stomped by a bunch of blacks. But
despite that and carrying out acts of public vandalism, they won't be banned for terrorism
like National Action was.
Eastern Whale , 2 hours ago
problem with democracy is that sometimes you vote clowns to lead the country such as
Trump, Trudeau, Morrison that has limited experience in running a city let alone a country.
if Trump is elected and has another 4 years in the helm, he would destroy America and
probably unleash a few nukes whilst he is at it.
Heygoodlookin , 2 hours ago
What the Elite wants is for the meek to cave-in to demands so much that they get angry and
respond with their own outburst. They will play off against each other, and eventually the
Elite can bring in more Totalitarian rules to suit themselves.
dunlin , 3 hours ago
No, it means the police agree with the sentiments of the protesters. The UK is not the US,
yet, thank god.
MarsInScorpio , 3 hours ago
To dunlin:
The US is not yet the UK, thank God.
FIFY - Limey ******* 😒
hooligan2009 , 2 hours ago
those sentiments being - wilful destruction of public property, blocking of public
thoroughfares, rioting, violently attacking the police and whites in general and generally
being racist ******* assholes.
you are part of the problem. get psychiatric help before it is too late.
ADB , 3 hours ago
"It's absurd. Will officers be expected to make similarly appeasing gestures at political
events – far-Right protests, for instance?" asked one senior detective."
Not a chance. The orders for "Far Right" protests (eg people who want to defend their
history and public property like Churchill's statue, or protest police inaction at Muslim
grooming gangs) are to go in with full riot gear and batons swinging. Of course, if bending
the knee placates BLM rioters, it should also do the same for the "Far Right". But the police
will never be ordered to do that by their globalist masters, and no officer will defy their
"superiors" and actually enforce the law equally.
The only silver lining here is UK police are now being attacked by the Third Worlders now
infesting London and other major cities, while more and more indigenous Brits are reaching
the point where they wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. They will end up hated by everyone.
Too bad. They shouldn't have picked the wrong side.
Observer 2020 , 3 hours ago
Insanity. Complete, utter and absolute insanity.
Kneeling before revolutionary anarchists and vandals, whose agitation is being subsidized
by Mercedes Marxists who are totalitarians in waiting?
The West is in existential peril.
NoPasaran , 1 hour ago
The West is DONE already.
Arizona1234 , 3 hours ago
Stop supporting any business that does this take a knee ****. After the take a knee ****
the Communist will next have you on your knees right before they put one in the back of your
head and kick you into the ditch. It's high time for WWM a would wide movement WHITE WALLETS
MATTER. Without White Wallets there is no NFL, NBA, NHL baseball, soccer or for that matter
anything else. Just look at Africa then minus the WWM trillion dollar support. What would you
have. That's right. One big giant Aids, Ebola infested dying stew pot.
To Hell In A Handbasket , 3 hours ago
LOL. I always accuse the dunces of not understanding scale, or scope, and especially
history, and you sir are a perfect example. You simply cannot see the end, and a redrawing
across the board on multiple issues, and new realities for the world at large. The days of
white wallets, with our money printing and financial skulduggery, ruling the roost, are
coming to an end. You just don't see it.
The fact you see the transfer of our wealth to Africa, and not the transfer of African
wealth to us, is only going to make your adjustment all the more painful, for you won't see
it coming.
The USSA is 3.7% of the world population, and if you calculate the white population, we
make up a mere 2%. White purchasing power is going to go through a long slow multi-decade
decline, and people like you are oblivious. The western world's rise to the top of the
economic charts is a 200 year ******* anomaly, of FIAT scams, and imperial plunder.
Watch this and
this. While you
talk from your arse, do you know who the Indians and Chinese Think Tanks are more worried
about for GDP at PPP ? I'll let you work that one out.
One of these is not like the others.. , 1 hour ago
The western world's rise to the top of the economic charts is a 200 year ******* anomaly,
of technical and social innovation, that enrages those who have no chance of upping their
game in a similar way...
FIFY.
To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 minutes ago
The technical marvels, and social innovations are not in question, but does it produce
wealth, especially in an age of technology transfer. The USSA, and Europe have been the
beneficiaries of imperialism, access to cheap resources, and financial manipulation.
In short we have twisted reality, and carved a position for ourselves far bigger than our
GDP at PPP warrants. Plus the fact modern day metrics for calculating economic power is
warped, all to favour us.
Within economic circles 4 things are clearly coming, and it effects the traditional West
hardest. A revaluation of what is..
Wealth
Value
Worth
Money
And that's just for starters. Do you think for example we are going to keep our near
monopoly on insurance around the world? To name but 1 of 50. We are going to suffer slow
financial atrophy, losing market share everywhere. We are ******, and the adjustment will be
brutal.
Steele Hammorhands , 3 hours ago
The same drooling morons who were happy to arrest shop owners for opening their
businesses, arrest mothers for taking their kids to the park, refuse to arrest looters,
arrest teenagers for smoking a plant, etc. are now kneeling before their masters. They are
overpaid, under-educated idiots. And if you've ever been the victim of a crime, you know they
are nothing more than useless stateists.
" When all of corporate America, the media, and even the NED have publicly declared their
support for a movement, it is no longer just about its original cause of getting justice for
Mr. Floyd, whose funeral became a virtual campaign rally for Trump's opponent, Joe Biden. It
is too early to say determinedly whether what is taking place in the U.S. is indeed a 'Color
Revolution', but by the time we realize it may [sic] too late"
whoever "we" is; but by the time anyone gets all the knotted threads untangled it will
probably be too late for somebody. It may be too early to say whether what is taking place in
the increasingly inhospitable Homeland is a 'Color Revolution' or a 'Revolution of Color';
but for working class – & now even middle-class – White's this is becoming
the main concern. Whether Soros is a Communist or a Globalist, he probably won't be around
much longer & who knows what will happen to the OSF.
But BLM & it's allies, despite a few apparatchiks, has come to signal a racial
movement rather than an ideological movement like Otpor!, or an economic uprising like
OWS.
That's the turf that this war will be waged on & if indeed "corporate America, the
media, and even the NED" et. al. are lining up behind the racial rioters, then this is going
to be a titanic struggle.
Last time I checked, there was a presumption of innocence. If we accept that George Floyd
actually died and this is not another Psy-op, he died in police custody while resisting
arrest. The coroner`s report said heart attack. Given the level of drugs in his system, it is
entirely possible that the drugs caused the heart attack.
The celebrity pathologist said strangulation therefore murder. If memory serves me correctly,
celebrity pathologist Baden floated the magic bullet theory in the JFK assassination.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html
Curious how this guy shows up to muddy the waters at all the `big`events.
the notorious liberal billionaire investor and "philanthropist" George Soros and his
Open Society Foundation (OSF). Ironically, if any of the right-wing figures of whom Soros
is a favorite target were aware of his instrumental role in the fall of communism staging
the various CIA-backed protest movements in Eastern Europe that toppled socialist
governments, he would likely not be such a subject of their derision. The Hungarian
business magnate's institute, like other NGOs involved in U.S. regime change operations
such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), is largely a front for the CIA to
shield itself while destabilizing U.S. adversaries, the spy agency's preferred modus
operandi
A classic example is the 2003 conquest of the Republic of Georgia, where Soros openly
established an "open society" NGO just for this "revolution", and there was open Israeli
participation.
One can find signs and banners saying 'Antifa is for Israel'. The Antifa leadership is
heavily Jewish, and it is hence no surprise that you find them fighting for causes that
benefit Israel.
I remain unaware that it's been proven that Saint Floyd died because of what the cop did,
or that the cop's actions, right or wrong, were racially motivated. Are we really obligated
to parrot the mainstream narrative on every damn thing that comes down the pike? Appeasing
such narratives and the people who shit them out is how we got here in the first place.
@g8way den's racist comment last week. I knew they were trying to distract us from
something.
Keep reading
I find it odd that this happened just as COVID loses traction. Social distancing SUDDENLY
flew out the window. Let's hope the masks and fear soon follow.
I find it odd that COVID happened the moment the impeachment failed.
I find it odd the impeachment happened the moment that Russian hoax failed.
Can you see the pattern? Will you continue to chase the well orchestrated carrots? Or is
there something in you that will stop for a minute and look for the truth?
This is all very interesting. We're being played big time.
Here is the story. This is a 3-4 step operation. The first step is the left buys in
totally that the virus is a threat and we need to make changes to our way of life envisioned
by Technocrats and Gates. That was predictable. Of course, many of the rights leaders played
along and only 6 states avoided lockdowns.
It was also likely anticipated that their would be resistance of the right , so they
introduce domestic terrorism of antifa (anti fascism- color blind) and BLM (race). The rights
been conditioned to react tough measured against both. Preparations like with COVID-19 were
begun before COVID/protests began. Barrs precrime, Bills prepared for Domestic Terrorism,
exercises for urban riots using military in LA last year, etc.
In a sense War on antifa is a proxy for the War on Communism , as Communists were the
greatest enemy of fascism , and so are the original antifa. Fascists have always tried to
play up hatred of communism (and now antifa) as a weapon , which worked wonderfully for
Hitler and in the US during the cold war (the reason for the Cold War in fact)
Since there is no organized antifa , there being no Communists left (China is fascist in
all but name) , its a artificial construct. Because there are no communists left- we cant
call them that, and so call them antifa.
Those whites were mobilized to protest peacefully in part due to being against racism but
also anger from lock down, economic hardships and police brutality thats been normalized for
15 years against all races. But peaceful protests can not generate enough fear and anger
among the right to accept the coming changes, so they had to create violence by leaving piles
of bricks and using agent provocateurs to ignite the violence. Having 70 years of experience
doing this in what are now called color revolutions worldwide they are professionals.
Having a war against antifa is interesting because they admit antifa is against our
government, who defeated Fascism with the help of Communists. So what is our government now?
Obviously antifascists are against fascists, not Democracies. So our government must be
thought to be fascists. If So , then we didn't defeated fascism in WWII , did we? Thats what
they are saying. A confession of sorts. First step to coming out of the closet.
You see the War on Communism was a psyops too. Uncle Joe was our ally in WWII against
fascism. But the funny thing is, the same guys who funded the Bolshevik Revolution (and
helped China go communist -its now fascist in all but name) also funded Hitlers Rise to power
and military build up. They use these opposites to create enemies and drive changes they
desire.
The Nazi/Fascist ideology never went away. Those who helped create it survived the war
intact, even Prescott Bush who spawned 2 generations of Presidents, and most of the leading
Nazis were released and went on to have long careers in finance, industry, and science both
in Germany and in US, spreading their ideology in secret meetings or even not so secret
meetings by using their words carefully (eugenics renamed as Population Control-and Genetics,
fascist economics called neoliberalism and public private partnerships) . The fascist
ideology remained, hidden under the cloak of anti-communism and now neoliberalism.
So anyways, the right is all in now on measures to tackle domestic terrorism which include
many of the same measures the left supports to fight pandemics , which we are told will be a
long and probably permanent threat
The other brilliant move is the move to defund or remove entire police departments. With
115 billion spent on police departments each year some defunding probably makes sense. The
game here is obvious, get support for privatization, as corporations want a piece of that
action like they have with prisons, military and intelligence/security.
So it is all a big psyops to push through the global elites solution to achieve the 4th
Industrial Revolution or Fourth Reich if you wish. Both parties playing their parts, . Create
a problem, provoke a reaction and push through the desired solution , which has probably
already been written up
This is not limited to the US, it will be a global solution although each country may
modify it slightly to deal with local peculiarities
People will support the New Technocratic Fascist World Order , most of them, wrapped in a
flag (UN or US, TBD) , wearing a mask , carrying their smart phones and showing their
immunity tattoos. The biggest supporters get higher social credit scores and more digital
currency. Those pegged as antifa or racist get crumbs, or just hauled off to FEMA
re-education camps, never to be seen again.
As for the next steps. A 2nd round of Covid blamed on protests. Contact tracers will be
out in force. Operation Black Out, mane causing cancelled elections and Martial Law. Not
certain about that one. But EX-BARDA Bright predicted the Darkest Winter. I am guessing
Christmas gets cancelled too. Blamed on an antifa named Grinch
@Curmudgeon ere 75% blocked and one was 90% blocked. That alone was sufficient to cause
death.
The officer's knee was not on Floyd's carotid. He was on the jaw bone and then backed off
to the back of the neck when Floyd said he couldn't breathe. The knee was on the head, ear,
and jaw but not throat. This is the technique taught at the FBI.
He died from cardio pulmonary arrest as the autopsy states. Murder 2 won't stick. The
Blacks will riot again, as usual.
@Curmudgeon ations (HSCA) Forensic Pathology Panel in 1978. Baden was responsible for
steering the movement of Kennedy's head wounds into a more officially acceptable position.
For example see:
A DEMONSTRABLE IMPOSSIBILITY:
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel's Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical
Evidence
by John Hunt
Excellent analysis by Parry. Provides a lot of useful info on connections.
Both the democrat and republican parties are political fronts for the same capitalist
oligarchy. There may be a few partisan oligarchs who favor one party over the other, but for
the most part, both parties enjoy the same patronage. That patronage is shown by the fact
both parties pursue basically the same foreign and domestic policies sans some very minor
differences.
Now the question this creates is why would dems and reps be so intent on carving out their
respective spheres if they are essentially the same thing, run for the same players?
It's not because of the personal perks the party players get when their members are
selected for office and posts. This is as minor to the oligarchical hierarchy as whether
abortion or public nudity should be legal.
The dems and reps exist to provide the oligarchy with a democracy facade to use to get
people thinking they have a voice. What is in reality a form of totalitarian dictatorship is
psywarred/bernaysian-adverted into democracy.
So if the dems and reps represent essentially the same thing, why all the noise about
their rivalry?
Theater. Psywar. They population manipulators create division between dems and reps so
people will concentrate on these false issues, rather on the real ones that could actually
improve their lot.
So how does this psywar strategy apply to the protests the murder of Floyd initiated?
These protests, like the 1960s human rights and antiwar protests, could snowball into
society changing movements that threaten oligarch rule. If allowed proceed naturally. They
must be contained, neutralised and redirected.
So how does one contain them. Use the rep assets, who are represented by fox, limbaugh
& co., & thinly veiled white supremacist promotion? To infiltrate and subvert a
movement protesting against police abuse against black people? Yeah, right. That'll work. No,
one uses the dems instead, and their wing of the population manipulation machinery, who have
staked out a claim to be protectors of minorities and their wellbeing. They have not, but
that is what they are currently being sold as.
What the manipulators are working at is neutralising the protest movement by co-opting it
into a dems vs reps irrelevant mud wrestling contest. The soros machine involvement is not
designed to create a color revolution, why would the oligarchy want to color revolution their
most conformist and domesticated colony which also is their "muscle" to dominate the rest of
the colonies and ward off the rivals who refuse to submit?
No, the soro machine is working to neutralise the movement and make it innocuous to the
oligarchs, as they are best suited for this particular operation. Think of them doing to
these protests what the oligarchs's did to the tea party movement using rep associated
elements.
"It is also no secret that jailed PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan's theories of
"democratic confederalism" are heavily influenced by the pro-Zionist Jewish-American
anarchist theorist, Murray Bookchin."
Interesting, I've seen how quisling bookchin plays a disruptive role in american domestic
resistance to oligarchy, much like "militant" (international marxist tendency) was created to
cause disruption and dissent among the left in the uk. Didn't know the zio-critter was
connected to israel's pkk proxies, though not at all surprised.
The whole world was shocked at the way Five Felon Floyd died ? I was not shocked and
neither did I care. Any man with several criminal convictions who holds a loaded gun to the
belly of a pregnant woman deserves to be put down. He has proven time and again he is an
animal !
I dunno. You can certainly see the nerf protestors of BLM struggling to herd this
rebellion back into the electoral politics roach motel. But you also see the real rebels
shouting BLM down and wrecking what they want to wreck. BLM tries to curb international
solidarity but the crowds tell them fuck off. BLM spokesmodels in Atlanta tried to inject a
quietist tone, and tags immediately sprouted all over, FUCK KKKeisha. BLM entryism is
discredited among stakeholders (maybe not among white middle class MSNBC zombies.) The house
negroes are figures of fun. The protestors are taking their ideology from grizzled Black
Panther Party vets and neo-Malcolm internationalists, e.g. https://blackagendareport.com/
Don't make the mistake of assuming that black civil society has been infantilized and
castrated like white civil society.
While the right seems to have a bizarre misconception that the parasitic hedge fund
tycoon is somehow a communist
Communism was always in essence fakery propped up by the capitalist West. For example, the
Soviet industrial base was built by Western capitalists in the 1920s and 1930s: https://archive.ph/EeG6z
Less certain, however, are the claims from conservatives that Soros is a supporter of
"Antifa" which Trump wants to designate as a domestic terrorist organization, a dangerous
premise given the movement consists of a very loose-knit and decentralized network of
activists and hardly comprises a real organization. Various autonomous chapters and groups
across the U.S. may self-identify as such, but there is no single official party or formal
organization with any leadership hierarchy.
Organized crime families in the US operate in a similar way. That is, the Chicago Outfit
operates autonomously and does not take orders from any of the New York families. The Klan at
its peak (in the 1920s) was also made up of autonomous chapters that did not take orders from
the national office in Indianapolis. The national office of the Klan was mainly in the
business of selling KKK gear/paraphernalia.
The controlled media continue to shun the yellow vest protests, because the yellow vests
unite the grievances of both dissident left and right. This terrifies the elites.
The Yellow Vests don't get adoring media coverage because they are not tools of the
establishment like BLM and antifa. This is how we know BLM is a fraud meant to keep us
divided.
Here's an excellent analysis from Benjamin Studebaker on why these protests will fail. I
agree with pretty much all of it and he has some highly intelligent, cogent insights.
I hate these yuppie bourgeois professionals with every fiber of my being. They are the
devil himself.
The people who are best organized and most capable of taking advantage of the protests are
the yuppie, bourgeois professionals. Many of these people have bachelors degrees in various
social science and humanities disciplines, and their primary objective is to create jobs
for themselves. They use the deaths of African-Americans as a business opportunity,
demanding that companies employ them to run diversity training programs or hire them to
diversify an endless series of government and corporate boards, commissions, and panels.
These "woke neoliberals" always succeed in co-opting these protests, because they went to
the same universities and speak the same language as the people who work for governments
and corporations. They claim to offer diversity, but they succeed in getting positions
because they are just like the people they aim to replace in every way that matters.
Frantz Fanon called them the "black bourgeoisie", but today they come in many colors.
They attack capitalism not because they want to do away with it but because they want to
run it themselves. They deceive poor and working people into supporting them, and once they
acquire power they run the system the same way the "white" bourgeoisie ran it. They don't
care about funding social programs that work–they just want to get paid.
As long as the yuppies are in charge, these protests won't address the root causes of
police violence–the alienation that drives citizens to commit violent crimes and the
armaments which make violent crimes so easy to commit. As long as the root causes go
unaddressed, frightened police officers will demand ever more elaborately lethal
counter-armaments, and they'll fire those weapons all over the place. We can replace them
with private para-military groups, but that will just make a bad situation worse.
Still no information on who supplied the pallets of bricks and cans of bottles with frozen water to "protesters." Nobody
believe the nationwide riots and looting were just a spontaneous reaction to the killing of a petty black criminal. Who get later
"state funeral" and all ths kabuki theatre of Pelosi and Schumer donning African scarves (classic "wolfs in sheep's clothing"
picture)
“Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the street. But it’s the result of months or
years of preparation. It is very boring until you reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If
it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks.” Foreign
Policy Journal
Notable quotes:
"... "The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives "execute orders?" ..."
"... . This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here's a short excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog "Another Day in the Empire": ..."
"... It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main problem -- boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all -- black, white, yellow, brown -- as expliotable and dispensable serfs. ..."
"... The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. ..."
"... the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order. ..."
The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution" that bears a striking
resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70
years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks like it. Here's more from
the same article:
"Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support
those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund
them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political
instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in."
So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn't mean that someone else is not steering
the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there
are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the
existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in
communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang's website Sic Semper
Tyrannis:
"The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around
the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen
water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a
well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates
these plans and gives "execute orders?"
Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are
fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present
meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously
across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis
was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse
abolishing the police force. Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of
the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have
an excuse ."
("My take on the present situation", Sic Semper Tyrannis)
Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United
States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the
same time. It's beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the
country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a
sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose
task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.
None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being
destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar
to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet
government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans
into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country
easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here's a short
excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog "Another Day in the Empire":
"The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and
political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more
critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack
natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling
elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal,
and murder .
It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main
problem -- boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all -- black,
white, yellow, brown -- as expliotable and dispensable serfs. " (" 2 Million Arab Lives
Don't Matter ", Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)
The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of
this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to
push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that
will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.
PKKA , 4 hours ago
I don't understand these revolutionary black comrades. And they are not my comrades. And
their alleged revolution is not at all like a revolution. Their alleged spontaneous
revolution is a well-orchestrated riot. As far as I know, revolutionaries must make political
demands. Their main task is to come to power, change the social political system and change
for the better. I see only riots, looting and looting, and vandalism against monuments.
Instead of political demands, they demand $ 10 from white people. Instead of demanding better
lives, they demand the abolition of the police.
Instead of coming to power, they plunder and pillage. In General this is not a revolution
but an organized riot of a flock of sheep. They do not achieve anything and all their alleged
revolution is an empty sound. As Lenin would say, they are useful idiots, pawns in someone
else's hands. The performance of this herd should serve only one purpose, to prevent the
re-election of President Donald Trump.
hugin-o-munin , 4 hours ago
The main goal is to start confrontation with authorities and create MSM headline news with
violence and destruction as the backdrop. There is no revolution here, it is a media op. Too
much time is passing now for this to work so they will most likely ramp up the rhetoric and
violence to get a response. Expect to see shootings to start very soon.
hugin-o-munin , 4 hours ago
It looks like all the stops have been pulled out. Any and all efforts to destroy the US
from within are being employed and on a scale never seen before. The NWO, Cabal, Deep State
or whatever label you prefer look desperate and frantic. As soon as the fake pandemic was
beginning to get exposed they pivoted to this fake race riot movement. They obviously want
Trump to send in troops so that he may lose the election. Most of the looting seems organized
and planned and outlet specific which begs the question whether insurance fraud is involved
here. A close look at retailers Target, Nike, Adidas and Macy's is warranted IMO.
The plan and objective here is clearly to create headline news detrimental to Trump.
That's obviously why Seattle's CHAZ have distributed AR-15s to minors to patrol the area. Now
it is just a matter of time until shootings start popping off at strategic and well covered
areas to be spread through MSM in an attempt to force Trump to act. We should expect to see
similar 'zones' pop up in other cities soon as well and they too will miraculously be well
armed and funded.
At the bottom of all this is the fact that the US has economically cratered and Deep State
factions are in a battle for control. The most easily identified faction is the old NWO guard
who have the Democratic party fully under their control and who use these fake color
revolution movements while the other faction are backing Trump who appear to be a Zionist
military leaning group. People who believe Trump is at odds with the Fed are being fooled.
Both are simply attempting to buy time until the election.
Burning cars and stores look exciting and serious but are just a diversion. The real and
most troubling issue right now is the systematic destruction of food processing and
distribution in the US. It is being surgically decimated at a slow pace to not create any
headlines yet this is the biggest threat ever. Who is behind this? Look at corporations like
Tyson and Cargill just as an example. Kissinger must be smiling at what is going on, his
wet-dream weapon of choice is now in play and most seem unaware.
JaxPavan , 4 hours ago
In 2016 the Ford Foundation and Borealis philanthropy funneled $100 million to BLM.
Soros's Open Societies Foundation gives away almost as much each year in similar US
grants:
"In 2016, the OSF-funded organization Transparify found that Open Society Foundations was
the least transparent non-profit among those in the United States which it reviewed. Open
Society Foundations earned a global transparency rating of zero stars for non-transparency of
the organization's funding. They were the only group in the United States Transparify
reviewed in 2016 to receive such a low grade. [33]
Similarly, the website NGO Monitor wrote that Open Society Foundations' "Funding of NGOs
is entirely non-transparent" as their "annual reports do not provide names of NGO grantees or
amounts transferred to individual groups."
Xeno , 4 hours ago
I wish that someone- anyone in the media would pick up this thread.
'The Open Society and it's Foundations' by Karl Popper is well worth reading, it is what
OSF take their name from, and Soros references it often. It was written in 1945 and is an
extreme ideology in my view. It is also deeply flawed. A Zero Hedge article on it wouldn't go
amiss. Funny how these organisations are able to hide in plain sight.
Why the Deep State thought we'd be impressed or swayed by the foreign countries burning
down in sympathy I do not understand. That anyone outside of Minneapolis should care for more
than 5 minutes about one bad cop is inexplicable.
Arch_Stanton , 19 minutes ago
Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the
globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare
the country for a new authoritarian order.
The economy was toast COVID or not. The lockdown was used to protect against any backlash
against the usual suspects who mis-managed the economy yet again. Then "regime change
artists" saw the lockdown for the opportunity it presented.
mr1963 , 33 minutes ago
The cities they looted are kept alive with taxes from working people. The politicians in
the cities they looted keep pets to keep them in power. Sometimes the pets think they are
biting their owners. But they are really biting themselves. Those same politicians will still
be in power long after the pets get tired and slink home.
Geocen Trist , 1 hour ago
No doubt they completely operate the protest movement.
Tiwin , 1 hour ago
Yeah , theres absolutely no chance in hell that the lower classes are sick and tired and
have reached the breaking point. Its all Soros fault.
b snook , 1 hour ago
on the one side you have Orange Jesus, a .1%er, miga, police state loving, globalist goon
picking fights to defend the unipolar world.
on the other hand you have the demented biden who is a .1%er agent, miga, police state
loving, globalist goon wanting to defend the unipolar world.
see the difference?
VooDoo6Actual , 2 hours ago
Duh ya think ?
CHAZ is a scripted Deep State US Army MISO / Psy Op fomenting Alan Anarchy Ideology
designed to create strategy of chaos - tension - angst -anxiety etc. Events are staged &
rigged to create a Hyper-Reality for the Sleeple Sheeple who cannot perceive reality outside
Plato's Cave.
Woke or still sleepwalking ?
raskefing , 2 hours ago
Americans ignored or supported their government destabilization of third world countries
for decades
What you support against others will one day be used against you.
BLOWBACK/ KARMA IS A BITCH!!
charlie_don't_surf , 1 hour ago
lol, the communists enslaved, starved and murdered many tens of millions and destabilized
cultures for decades to pursue world domination...you're just pissed off that your
collectives are total failures.
simpson seers , 47 minutes ago
lol, murica enslaved, starved and murdered many tens of millions and destabilized cultures
for decades to pursue world domination... ....fify....maggot....
Demeter55 , 16 minutes ago
You are presuming that before Trump we the People had any influence over the
military/industrial/CIA. Not since Vietnam, and that was only because Nixon screwed
himself.
ATTILA THE WIMP , 2 hours ago
Deep State elements do NOT operate within the protest movement, the Deep State IS the
protest movement.
Falcon49 , 40 minutes ago
You might also add that the Deep State is also in control of the counter movement. Like
the man behind the curtain...pulling the strings of division and distraction...creating fear
and chaos to herd and stampede the sheeple to their bins to be sheared and slaughtered.
Joost Huffenhope , 3 hours ago
The BLM lot are being played like a banjo at a hillbilly hoedown.
American foreign policy comes home, probably with similar results.
Mike Hunt 69 , 3 hours ago
Just like those useful idiots in Antifa and all those indoctrinated SWJ's!
Helg Saracen , 2 hours ago
It is said cynically, but very accurately. By the way, funny "baboons" among the
Americans. Are the "baboons" so stupid that they don't understand that they are currently
robbing themselves first (taking away future benefits, privileges, ... - this is what will
happen in the end)? They are exactly the same as their fathers and grandfathers were in the
70s and 90s. Nothing changes.
skizex , 3 hours ago
The Radical Sunrise Movement a little sister to #Antifa>burning buildings and lootings
12 year olds:
Still no information on who supplied the pallets of bricks. Trump's not slow on picking up
information from the alternative media so I would expect a tweet storm on this but ziltch,
nada not a cheep. Surely any POTUS would be demanding a full report from the intelligence
agencies and something like that is impossible to hide.
It does make me nervous that those saying he is just part of the predator class / deep
state may have a point.
vonSpookenhausen , 3 hours ago
A bit of research will get you the answer
I read it somewhere but unfortunately cannot recall the site
Element , 2 hours ago
In WWII the British cracked the German's Enigma code/decode machine for radio traffic
signals. Then they spent the rest of the war trying not to use it, and thus alert the Germans
to that fact. Which meant telling no one what was known, via choosing not to do operations or
respond in advance with the inside knowledge they already had on what the Germans were
planning and actually doing. Because as soon as the Germans started losing big they would
know the British were reading their signals and would change the standard code book.
But they never did change it, because they never got suspicious, they were permitted to
become overconfident. The British command allowed the Germans to succeed (i.e. they took
heavy losses due to not informing their own officers about information they already had),
just so they could maintain that information edge intact for a later and much more decisive
battle. The possibility of losing that information flow was much more dangerous than the
Germans winning some smaller and much less consequential battle. But once the Germans and
Italian allies were defeated in North Africa they never won another battle during the whole
of the rest of the war.
But they had to not do it so quick it would raise suspicion and lose the information flow.
Sometimes when you know what's really going on you can't talk about it, you have to wait for
the moment to use the information flow to its maximum leverage over time to win.
If the US's extensive intel capacity is worth a damn that's what they'll be doing, and
Trump won't say a thing. At least that's what you'd expect to be occurring, you generally
don't find out until 30 years later in a Western democracy. Personally I think a lot of this
'deep state' hype is just that, people who like making up conspiracy stories like to milk
these concepts to the hilt.
"... and it absolutely will not stop!" - Kyle Reese, Terminator
I believe none of it, I never have, I never will.
What the truth is, is actually unknown, and also unknowable - such things can not be
confirmed. I understand that, so why should I get wound up about alleged unverifiable claims,
about what 'may' be put about as, "the truth" ?
Forget it! I'm not interested. I can wait, or not, whatever, I'm not going to be driven by
any of this ****, either way.
But why do you hang on the words of a politician?
You're the leader, lead yourself, or be led about like a milk cow.
yewtaipan , 3 hours ago
"What's right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great
capacity -- intellect and resources -- to do some thing about them." HENRY FORD
WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA ?
America Congress have a number of traitor politicians who would sell their own grandmother
if the price was right, they can never be trusted, but the morons keep voting for them.
The world is upside down, the 'smart' people at the top are actually the most stupid of
all. The 'dumb' people who live at the 'bottom' of the pyramid are where the real
intelligence and creative talent lies. the opposites game, the dumb leaders turning
everything to ****.
Some leaders are stupid. They think being able to recite "facts" equates to intelligence,
and then they laugh at those who don't know. Actually they are the stupid ones, not the ones
they laugh at.
The print and TV media, which serve as propagandists for the ruling military/security
complex and Wall Street elites, make certain that Americans have nothing but bogus
orchestrated information. Every household and person who turns on TV or reads a newspaper is
programmed to live in a false orchestrated reality that serves the tiny few who comprise the
ruling Establishment.
The globalists' overwhelming propaganda machine indoctrinating the population, and
dividing them into liberals, LGBT, leftist, rightist, feminist, black, white, atheist, gay
rights, green movement, etc.
The Globalist Oligarch Cabal from city of London want Americans divided by race, class,
religion so that they can be be easily controlled.
The British super elite are waging Orwellian information war against Americans. The Anglo
main stream media narrative is to divide and conquer.
The globalist super elite controlled main stream media CNN, CNBC, WAPO, WSJ, NYT,
ATLANTIC, etc. was spreading fake news and yet 50% Americans still believe the fake news.
The problem is the super wealthy elite who own both parties. You have a few very wealthy
families and corporations that set policy, and write laws because they are able to buy the
DNC and the RNC. The laws they write and the policy they push benefit them.
Federal Reserve easy money printing ponzi scam.
Pentagon spending US$900 billion a year with nothing to show.
Churchill said the Americans were both village fools, and they remained so. The simpleton
is fate.
CONCLUSION: CHINA CCP IS THE MOST COMPETENT GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD. :)
ZH AMERICAN PATRIOT
PUTIN THE GREAT PEACEMAKER
Gwar6.0 , 4 hours ago
There are no coincidences.
Random chance would mean positive outcomes some of the time. 100% favorable to the Deep
State is not believable and looks planned.... because it probably is. The IC coup and now
Pentagon seemingly backing BLM tells you all you need to know.
They make plans and when a trigger event happens the pawns pounce. I see a Russian
playbook unfolding mixed with Latin American marxist street tactics, ala Chavez & Ortega,
using street thugs to create chaos.
uhland62 , 4 hours ago
Deep State operatives hide in many places:
Bernard Collaery is being prosecuted for revealing national secrets -- specifically,
that Australia bugged East Timor's government building in 2004 to gain advantage in crucial
oil and gas negotiations. (ABC text, Witness K case)
That is only half the truth. If the newly independent East Timor could have a government
building that is not bugged, it could not be ensured that they become part of the US led bloc
of countries. That is far more important than the Australian government resources aiding an
oil and gas company to make more money. Cesar demands loyalty, regardless of who gets
crushed.
raskefing , 2 hours ago
Lack of Principles will always work against you in the end
The Anglo Zionist Empire is known for no Principles. Lies and deception.
America is on the verge of turning into a disaster
Americans supported their government in the destruction of so many other societies that
its now their Turn
Karma is inevitable. Enjoy
otschelnik , 4 hours ago
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
- Vladimir I Lenin
Arising , 5 hours ago
We need to go after the real people destroying this country.
The people in the shadows that are the ones that make the real decisions on where the west
is going.
These psychopaths think that we don't know who they are but a quick search brings their
names up very quickly.
Search the list of Donating Lobbyists to each political party.
Search the public records on who your leader met in the month prior to a new law,
executive order, etc.
Search the board members of big Croni-companies pushing the govt to pass laws, start wars,
force drugs, apply food directives and regulations.
There is one piece to add to this snow ball of events
THE release of virus to the population. WITHOUT VIRUS, THE PANIC FALL IN WALLSTREET WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE AND AS RESULTS RIOTS OR SO CALLED BLACK COLLOR REVOLUTION WOUL DNOT BE
POSSIBLE
USUAL SUSPECTS BENEFITS globalist like soros and gates it'd be plus chima
Obamas Muslim brotherhood and Iran
Soros finances Blm@ and antifa soo it you add lal the other ngos, you have your deep state
worrier s. And the evidence you find on twitter videos of civilians
Let's see the driver who like went into demonstrators and injured protestor. Fake ad he
went directly to the police
THE masked white policeman who was followed by and black man in colored shirt unmasked
like a policeman who was destroying glass windows of business with a hammer, later seen
speaking friendly with this black man, soo the incident was fake
AND other incidents. Even Floyd Murder the man who was on his neck did not look like the
man who was arrested and incident was filmed from 6 sided His brother, the victims brother is
33 level. Mason as well
THE organized bricks and other weapons.......
Organization and money is involved And eng game is obvious The trone of USA
..................... ALL OF THIS WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING IF Trump WOUL DNOT be winning big
time before the virus His strength were the people behind him and strong economy, now the
people and economy are under attack
THE only thing they did not try jet, is What they did to Kennedy
AND masm monopoly and censorship should be dismantled, becuase its time people hear the
truth
BMCK_11 , 6 hours ago
95% of people concerned about the situation right now were either backing or indifferent
to the 50 times this has happened in other countries where, funded by US tax payers, cities
were destroyed, people were killed, civilizations brought to a stop... The fact they are now
shocked shows two things. They knew what they were doing was evil and were fine with it. And,
they thought the Entity spreading that misery around the world was somehow on their side. I
would say, hopefully now they know this thing has no side. But I'm pretty sure in a couple of
months they will be back chanting and shouldering the bill for the next assault on another
population somewhere on the globe.
NeverDemRino , 6 hours ago
" Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd? "
The staging of bricks, in multiple cities, tells you it wasn't spontaneous.
But the same DOJ/FBI that "investigated" Trump for 3.5 years, is the same DOJ/FBI that
will "investigate" the riots. What do you think the outcome of that investigation will
be?
With his new subpoena power, does ANYONE really believe Lindsey Graham will indict
ANYONE?
NA X-15 , 7 hours ago
Revolutions cost money. Who's paying for this one? George Soros?? Tom Steyer???
vampirekiller , 6 hours ago
You forget to mention the progressive Republican cadre.
Hotspice2020 , 7 hours ago
By now, I feel that I'm on repeat...The media have a single unified voice because they
serve a single master, the Prince of the Power of the Air(waves). There is an obviously
hidden hand agenda in all of this, I just sincerely hope that as they overplay their cards,
the average American sees through their race baiting, covid19 scam, business crushing agenda
and keep them out of office (e.g. president/senate/congress) and running for the hills from
our pitchforks.
White Nat , 7 hours ago
The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites.
It does no good to just blame a shadowy group of "elites".
The "elites" are people with names and addresses.
They need to be identified by name preferably with lat/longs of their current
location.
TungstenBars , 7 hours ago
The cops in Minnesota tried to control a suspect that was resisting arrest and overdosing
using the techniques that they and other police officers around the world are trained to
use.
The cop in Atlanta shot a violent perp resisting arrest and aiming a tazer at their
partner, who had a gun which could have been taken within seconds of being tazed.
I am yet to see a situation leading to these riots where the cops are to blame instead of
the black ****** acting violent. Why do black people and liberals think that black people can
commit crime and resist arrest?
Downvote? Which coward did I trigger?
blaze_jenkins , 6 hours ago
Jesus, dude, the cops don't get to do summary executions in the USA ... just yet, though
bootlickers such as yourself would seem to have no problem with it. The Bill of Rights may be
in tatters but people still get due process. It doesn't take a genius to see that someday
that just might be a protection you'd want to be afforded. Holy Christ.
Straighteight , 6 hours ago
I think due process is off the table when you point a weapon at a cop, most people will
agree, the problem is black behaviour.
PGR88 , 7 hours ago
As with everything the Deep-state and their statist minions do - its a diversion. Police
and managing elections are two of the few remaining powers which still remain dispersed and
in local hands, and which America's Left badly wants to centralize, politicize and control.
When Leftists and their corporate-media cronies chant "defund the police" - they certainly do
NOT mean the FBI, ATF, DEA, Secret Service, IRS police, Homeland Security, or any one of the
17 intelligence gathering agencies.
Straighteight , 6 hours ago
The new police will be social workers but who are those guys that have degrees in social
sciences that rule the streets dressed in black and masks? Your police force in waiting! of
coarse they will have guns.
IvannaHumpalot , 7 hours ago
Deep state's job is to infiltrate groups
the real question is: what is the point of them?
they infiltrate but only destroy the decent people like Tommy Robinson's EDL, framing them
up and destroying them, when in fact that is legitimate grassroots political change
if you dont allow the system to change then it is no better than a tyranny
meanwhile, zero prosecutions and very few arrests for BLM lootings and violence
anarcho tyranny
tyranny for you and me
anarchism for the black block
what is the point of the deep state? Only to expand their own power they do nothing for
the citizens
Jam Akin , 7 hours ago
Don't have to be a conspiracy theorist. Even Stevie Wonder can see that this is a color
revolution.
Long ago a wise commentator here advised to keep an eye out for what else might be hidden
by such events.
quanttech , 7 hours ago
When they investigated what happened in the 1968 Chicago riots, they found that 1 out of 6
protesters was a cop or a fed.
hoffstetter , 7 hours ago
Speculating is beyond useless. If the locals won't handle it, and the governors won't
handle it, and the Feds won't handle it, it doesn't matter who is instigating it. Buy a
gun.
I'm thinking about Benjamin Studebaker's analysis when I watch this video. Most Americans are
gong to think black thugs/goons burned the Wendy's down. Instead, it was what looks like a
white female professional provocateur.
The financial oligarchy, all those Wall Street moguls are modern days slave traders and
owners. BLM just waisting time and efforts stupidly fighting targets of secondary
importance.
Notable quotes:
"... Crooke's right that there're many weeks to go before the election. I do hope the major sport leagues remain idle, for the citizenry needs to focus on its relationship with government, and not be distracted from that very serious responsibility. ..."
...The genuine history of the Outlaw US Empire that relatively few actually know. People
rage, but they don't really know the cause of their rage. Social Control of poor whites and
minorities and being driven into debt-peonage are the two most easily identifiable, although
knowing debt-peonage's definition is more recognizable as living paycheck-to-paycheck, with
no real healthcare and zero upward mobility--stuck in the new suburban ghettos.
Others have analyzed the situation as a revenge against Boomers, but I see all ages in the
streets.
Crooke's right that there're many weeks to go before the election. I do hope the major
sport leagues remain idle, for the citizenry needs to focus on its relationship with
government, and not be distracted from that very serious responsibility.
...The way democrat politicians have jumped in unison, holding hands and bending a knee, into
the fray on the side of the rioters just finishes off the perfect picture of a planned "color
revolution".
Anyone who buys into the "peaceful protests hijacked by radical thugs" line obviously
watches way too much TV.
@gay troll "You assume the point of the charade was to 'get Trump'"
Trump is an accidental president. He's a bit of a buffoon and is in way over his head.
He's an irritating obstacle to the power system that wants the Executive Branch back in its
control. The Russian collusion narrative was used to build a fraudulent legal basis for the
FISA warrants, the surveillance, the Mueller Special Counsel investigation, and the Schiff
impeachment trial. The coupsters were extremely arrogant and sloppy in their work and the
administrative means to take Trump out crumbled. Then the virus arrived. Followed by the
well-funded racial terrorism.
@Twodees Partain "..The evidence of a planned and controlled campaign isn't convincing if
we are to assume that all of this was put in place and then the plotters waited for an
outrage by cops to trigger it. The evidence is more significant if a fake triggering event is
added.The faked killing by one actor of another actor seems tailor made for what happened ."
@Mike Whitney See Pepe Escobar's article as Mike Whitney has revealed.
BLM was bought off by Big Corporate Interests including the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan, and
the Kellogg Foundation. ALL VERY POWERFUL Elitists Oligarchs.
OF COURSE, this whole riot/protests mantra is VERY Political. THEY ALL WANT TRUMP
GONE.
Whitney & Escobar are to be commended for their amazing articles!!!
What motivation does the CIA have to commit treason against the American people? What is
their objective?
The international Deep State is not any one organization or in any one country. It is
people who have infiltrated these organizations for their own ends.
They are sociopaths. Their goal is to rule others–to make themselves very rich, very
powerful, above the law.
Their goal is to destroy the middle class and all of its institutions in any countries
with a strong middle class.
They use "issues", they use "people", they own the mass media in virtually every country
to send out similar propaganda.
If you read the articles around here you can learn more about them. If you want to meet
them attend a Davos or Bilderberg conference.
@DaveE "The problem is power – and the nature of those who lust for it. The police
are very powerful, by necessity and the nature of police work is the exercise of power
– on the street."
Agree completely and have posted numerous times this exact same conclusion. Politics and
policing are two occupations that draw power-seeking psychopaths relentlessly, as do
military, law (and the surgical side of the practice of medicine.) All of which has been
documented by psychologists over and over.
Actually, even Plato noted in "The Republic" some 2400 years ago that those who seek power
should never have it, and thus the behind-the-scenes master controllers he posited would draw
their leadership from those who did not want to rule, as they were the ones who would likely
rule best and consistently in the true interests of the polity.
As a former civil rights attorney (long retired) who has taken countless depositions of
police accused of wrongdoing, watching as they arrogantly smirked and prevaricated, knowing
their prior conduct of a similar nature would almost certainly be 'off limits' due to the
incredible power of the police unions who unswervingly support even the most egregious of
offenders, I always knew that the best way forward was to make public their history of abuse
so that they would know in advance the world was watching, rather than feeling invulnerable
by virtue of the secrecy that their unions could enforce due to their nearly unrivaled power
to block such legislation. Only AIPAC, it seems, has more power to block even the most
reasonable investigations of relentless wrongdoings.
Once the police union power is properly curtailed and the light of day allowed to shine on
the dirty deeds done by police, we may actually move towards a police force that delivers on
the promise, "To Serve and Protect" rather than abuse and thereafter dissemble freely with
relative impunity .
Boo hoo hoo, asshole, go home and beat your wife or eat a gun or whatever it is you
dream of doing in retirement, cause the states can't afford your crooked unions' pensions
in this induced depression.
Clearly, you have no idea how pension plans work. For that matter, you have no clue about
a union`s legal responsibilities to its members. I have yet to hear of a police pension plan
being run by a police union. Construction trades, yes, police, no.
Silly ad hominem attacks suggesting this cop beats his wife show your shallowness. There are
literally millions of civilian contacts with police every year, and the number that go bad
are minuscule. I`m not going to suggest that there are no "bad" cops, there are. However,
there are bad plumbers, judges, doctors, and hedge fund managers as well, not to mention the
majority of politicians. The cops don`t pass laws, politicians do. The cops don`t write
police manuals and train themselves, the politicians oversee that. If a cop commits a crime
he`s treated like a criminal is treated, except for the canonized Black felons resisting
arrest.
@botazefaIt makes more sense to me that the elites driving these BLM riots are those
who support Trump. Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is a good way to get
elderly white voters out of their covid lockdowns on election day.
It will benefit Trump, but the elites driving these riots oppose Trump and were hoping to
goad him into declaring martial law or deploying soldiers and tanks into US cities so they
could impeach him again or at least turn public opinion against him with soldiers shooting
people. Trump simply avoided their trap and goaded them into positioning themselves as
anti-American.
@Realist Specifically what "actions and inactions" are you referring to? Give me some.
Say that Trump was an outsider, and as such he wanted to have different people surrounding
him than he's got at present. Would they have gotten through the Senate? No. I'll quote
Digital Samizdat on this:
"That's a good point, and it's of the main problems I do have with Trump: his cabinet
picks and financial backers (Adelsen, Singer, et al.). But in fairness, what happens when he
tries to pick someone who's not approved by the system? Well, if they're cabinet officers,
they'll never get approved by the senate. And even if they're not, they will be driven out of
the White House somehow–just like Gen. Flynn and Steve Bannon. In short, when it comes
to staffing, Trump's choices are limited by the same swamp he's fighting. Sad but true "
If Trump tried flexing his muscles, he'd be impeached in a New York minute, AND the
Republicans would be on board with the Democrats on this. I do agree it's all one club.
Besides, he's listening to that son-in-law of his (who, by the way, probably got Trump
elected by promising the elite Jews, his backers, he'd play ball when it came to Israel). I
remember Trump himself being surprised and almost shocked at the "support" that Jared was
able to drum up for him, and he thanked Jared on stage for that. Of course, this was the
devil's handshake, but you probably don't get elected without it.
I think everything is run through Jared, out to the elite Jews, and then Trump is given
his instructions. Trump probably thought okay, I'll give them what they want, but I'll get
what I want too (the wall, immigration reform, etc.) That hasn't turned out too well.
Anyway, that's how I see it – so far. What are those actions and inactions you
mentioned? I'd like to hear them.
@Just a random Polish guy Like you, I see the BLM protests/riots as an extension of the
mayhem caused by the transparently fake Covid-19 pandemic. Trump is certainly a target, but
this very determined attempt at a revolution seems much bigger and far more sinister than
simply getting rid of the hapless Trump.
There are literally millions of civilian contacts with police every year, and the number
that go bad are minuscule.
Most people are hip to the reality of much cops love it if you roll over, show your
throat, and suck them off verbally. They know that this is an essential dance. Listen to how
often they're rewarded in court by cops earnestly asserting to judge how 'cooperative'
Citizen Peepants was. This is relevant in court only insofar as cops are prosecuted for
violating the 5th amendment -- something nearly every cop does in a significant portion of
interactions.
Re psyche, the average cop is hair-trigger sensitive to anyone not treating him as
royalty. It's almost comedic watching them sprout feathers and strut.
Now, since you love stats, see if you can dredge a realistic number of how often cops
assault/kidnap people because they get pissed at demeanor -- usually when being treated as
equal or below. They know they're criminal trash, and treating them as such cuts too
close.
Then, drum roll charges dropped! Typical cop bully bull.
People who get upset on behalf of others when they see a doll, a toy caricature of the most
trivial & obvious features of people from a race, region or culture or perhaps of an
individual (puppets of politicians), privately believe those people to be in need of
patronizing concern because they see them in the same category as vulnerable children who
have to be protected. In other words, their concern stems from a supposed superiority to that
group of people who are privately considered their inferiors.
Cartoonists can draw the most hideous caricatures of politicians and no one, least of all
the politician, objects? Indeed they sometimes write to the artist to try to buy the
original.
Concern over a golliwog betokens a profound unexpressed racism hiding deep within their
psyche in the sense of a 'negative pre-judgement of a whole group of people who share certain
physical characteristics'. In other words, they make a gross category error and reveal
non-confected bigotry.
Finally ... I get to be a flag waving loon. As much as I agree with the ambassador,
this is an inappropriate display for a federal employee in his position, especially one who
represents the Administration and U.S. interests in the world. One has to keep a certain
decorum based on your job.
BTW I believe people are blowing smoke to cover up the origins of the 'neck kneeling'
technique and its possible origins to Israel. And I am appalled at the baboonish
response to the slaying of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta by senior Law enforcement
officers. If I had any authority I would use this opportunity to purge as many of these
leaders as possible. They should be ashamed of themselves by bringing up so many false things
to cloud the issue.
Yes, he was drunk and should have been arrested but he was fleeing the scene and posed no
danger to anyone yet he was shot in the back. He was on foot, not driving a car. He was
unarmed. He had already fired the one shot taser. They had his car and all the info they
needed to track him down. BTW there is something off w/Dan Bongino other than your typical
belligerence but he's not the law enforcement I'm referring to because he's just an
ex-security guard.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 15 2020 19:05 utc | 37 Hell, most don't even know what
Jeffersonianism is or what the bases are for the Social Contract between federal government
and citizen or where to find them
Did you see that post I made yesterday about how a significant portion of the population
can't even name the three branches of government, or know that the Constitution is (supposed
to be) the supreme law of the land?
It's not hard to advocate policies against the Constitution when you don't know what it's
about. I come to that via the Second Amendment (and the First), but most people don't know
the meaning of either and are therefore happy to jettison both. This is what the "Woke" will
achieve. Except they'll fail with gun control (since that's physically impossible). But
they'll succeed with destroying the First. There's an increasing view that censorship is a
good thing.
Of course, in my case, I know the Constitution is an irrelevant piece of paper, violated
almost before its inception, so it doesn't matter to me. But a lot of armed, ex-military
militia guys are gonna be pissed - they already are. I read the gun mags and view the
firearms Youtube channels, trust me, these guys are unhappy. They hate the rioters, they hate
the government (but they love the police), and sooner or later someone's going to start
shooting.
If the "Woke" or the government start shooting back, things will get a lot more tense than
they are now. They can't win, but the conflict will raise some hell worse than these
riots.
I find it ridiculous that so many posters on this ostensibly "Anti-War", "Leftist", website
are scared that Trump won't win reelection, LOL. In reality, Trump is practically guaranteed
to win reelection, due to the combination of the booming stock market (most of his base are
elderly whites with big 401k's), the phony "Covid crisis" and the resultant "miracle" of
Trump unveiling the extremely dangerous moderna vaccine right before the election
(Scientistic Democrats and sycophantic Trump supporters will gladly take any vaccine Trump
delivers to them, no matter how rushed, unnecessary, and dangerous it is, out of blind faith
in science or Trump, respectfully)
And the fact that the BLM/Antifa protests will scare the shit out of his Old White base (I
suspect that the protests are being engineered to help Trump win reelection, thru the well
known Tactic of Law enforcement infiltrating protests, and its promotion by "Woke"
Corporations that are Pro-Trump due to his Neoliberal economic policies). What I find
despicable is that this "Anti-War" website is happy to see Trump win again despite the fact
that his victory practically guarantees a War with Iran, but I guess that's worth it to most
of this website because of the need to avoid that imaginary "Nuclear War with Russia" that
will happen if a Democrat wins, LMAO. I guess most here (with the exception of me,
Donkeytale, Pft, and Kay fabe) Haven't realized that the "New Cold War" of the U$ vs. Russia
and China is Fake wrestling to confuse and distract the populations of all three countries as
they are oppressed by the same Neoliberal policies that all three governments implement,
LOL.
State Department was always Hillary stronghold and a zoo of arrogant neocons.
From comments: "No great complexity. No surprise. Welcome to the Glorious Permanent
Revolution within the War Machine. If the much-feared asteroid were falling on New York, or the
proverbial divine lightning had finally been unleashed by Jealous Jehovah, that would also get
co-opted, financed and approved by CIA + Dim Party, to get the usurper out. It all, yet again,
boils down to Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
When I first saw that tweet on Saturday I wondered how long the banner would stay
up. It was clear that the White House would be miffed about it as the banner and the tweet
were running against Trump's election tactic of raising tensions.
Today the banner
was taken down : To hang up such a banner can be understood as a public protest against
Trump. The U.S. ambassador in South Korea is Harry Harris, a former 4-star general and head
of the U.S. Pacific Command:
"USA is a free and diverse nation... from that diversity, we gain our strength" the U.S.
Ambassador to South Korea, Harry Harris said in a re-tweet of the official embassy message
in which he also quoted former President John Kennedy.
The embassy had displayed the large rainbow flag in support of "LGBTQ Pride Month" last
year, despite an order of the State Department not to hoist the banner.
Harris was originally supposed to become U.S. ambassador to Australia. That would have
been a plush and easy job. But two years ago Trump and Pompeo ordered
him to Seoul in preparation for Trump's talks with North Korea's chairman Kim Jong-un.
Harris was known to be
a North-Korea hawk :
On the subject of North Korea, Harris expressed caution in falling for the country's
so-called "charm offensive," indicating Kim's regime as the most immediate threat to both
the U.S. and South Korea during a House Armed Services Committee hearing in February
dedicated to security issues in the Indo-Pacific region.
According to Harris, Kim's desire is to reunite the peninsula under a single communist
system. "He's on a path to achieve what he feels is his natural place," he said. He
championed the strengthening of the U.S. missile defense system as well as economic and
diplomatic pressure to "bring Kim Jong Un to his senses, not his knees."
On several issues Harris pushed South Korea and its government around. There were public
demonstrations against him and a group of young people even climbed over the embassy wall to
protest against his arrogant behavior.
It seems Harris has had enough of his thankless job. There were rumors in April that he
would not stay on during a second Trump presidency or that he might even
resign earlier:
US Ambassador to South Korea Harry Harris has said privately that he does not plan to stay
beyond the November US presidential election, regardless of whether President Donald Trump
wins another term, five sources told Reuters news agency.
Harris, a 40-year veteran of the US Navy and Trump appointee who started in Seoul in
2018, has expressed increasing frustration with the tensions and drama of his tenure, the
sources said, all speaking on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity
of the issue.
...
In December protesters destroyed portraits of Harris during a demonstration outside the US
Embassy as they chanted, "Harris out! We are not a US colony! We are not an ATM
machine!"
My best guess is that Harris ordered the LGBT and BLM banners up as intentionally
insubordinate acts towards Trump and Pompeo. "Fire me. I dare you." As a former high ranking
commander he is likely to support the opinions of other former generals, like Dempsey, Mullen
and Mattis, who recently protested against Trump's threat to use active military against
protesters.
The man wanted to make a point before he leaves his post.
That is now likely to happen rather sooner than later. No great complexity. No surprise.
Welcome to the Glorious Permanent Revolution within the War Machine. If the much-feared
asteroid were falling on New York, or the proverbial divine lightning had finally been
unleashed by Jealous Jehovah, that would also get co-opted, financed and approved by CIA +
Dim Party, to get the usurper out. It all, yet again, boils down to Hell hath no fury like a
woman scorned.
He should be fired. I have never seen any type of political banner on a US embassy. Imagine
if he unveiled "Trump 2020". I am shocked at the stupidity, and I'm sure many other embassy
staffers told him it was wrong. I don't like firing people for mistakes, but this was so
stupid it shows him unfit for this job.
Do you even read the article ? The character named Harry Harris is a unique character that
are appointed by Trump administration in which he's rather an anti racism and tend to pick
the left than right. The quality that Trump seek from him is his hawkish attitude towards
North Korean (his background as a general and pacific commander could've helped him nominated
by Trump. Trump love the military and general despite where he come from).
B do not noting anything being great about his action. He noted that open objections from
character of this character background can indicate that US military doesn't come full in
support of Trump policy regarding the domestic insurrection.
At first I almost spit out my water reading this...but upon reflection, it is an ok
statement.
@
Agreed, I had an initial negative reaction to that line but after thinking it is true. The
current unrest to me seems stoked by Trump's enemies, but Trump has used a strategy of
pushing their buttons throughout his whole campaign and term. I do think he is trying to make
them do something ridiculous, like defending riots and publicly supporting eliminating the
police, as a way to galvanize his base for the election. I wish these tactics were not
necessary but given that both sides are using them, I can only assume they are effective.
Of course the unprecedented banner has no logic. The native koreans will ask: what the hell
those protectors of ours are up to?
Logical would be North Korean embassy to fly the banner in their
front entry.
"Trump is well known to be viscerally 'law and order'.
"Well known" ... yeah, that's why I never tire in reminding people that he nominated
Gina Hapel for CIA despite her having destroyed evidence in a Congressional investigation and
Trump himself is also a "well known" fraudster (recall his Trump University) and pal of
Epstein.
PS Where's the tax returns that Trump promised to release?
To me, this is a serious indication that BLM (which in principle I support) has been
co-opted by the "Foreign Policy Establishment" (Vindman) and the Democratic Party.
There are other matters going on regarding the US in the Republic of Korea.
> ROK broke off intelligence-sharing with Japan.
> Trump wants an increase in ROK offset payment, or it will reduce commitment.
> DPRK has threatened ROK with attack of some kind, after two years of "give" to the US
and no reciprocity on sanctions etc.
With the election coming up, Trump reverts back to his earlier campaign pledge to bring US
troops home, which (as we know) is a non-starter with the "security establishment." His
recent decision to significantly reduce troop numbers in Germany has caused a huge negative
reaction. The fact remains that there is no good reason for 30,000 troops, with their
dependents, to be in Korea at all. ROK is much richer and stronger that DPRK.
All of this bears on whatever decisions Admiral Harris makes.
from wiki:
Commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo
In March 2006, he assumed command of Joint Task Force Guantanamo in Cuba. His service was
notable as he was in charge when three prisoners, Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi,
Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed al-Salami and Yasser Talal Al Zahrani, died in the custody of US
forces. Defense reported the deaths as suicides. Harris said at the time,
"I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged
against us."
...It was just a bunch of mid sized fish maneuvering on the best way they can jointly become
the boss of their sad little MIC pond.
This admiral turned state department drongo will be no different, as I said before, he may
have his vagaries, but his devotion to the impossible, keeping amerika supreme, will be no
different to any other imperial functionary, so why waste any thought much less words on such
a flea.
Because he may be a servant of the dem half of the amerikan empire party?
Who cares, as we have all seen time & time again, that makes zero difference to the
amount of gratuitous rape & murder and only slight difference in the direction booty is
sent, though never the amount of the thefts.
They all require a firing squad, gas shower or guillotine.
> Peter Dorman is correct about why Trump is in trouble, but there is still
more. Peter Dorman is correct about why Trump is in trouble, but there is still
more.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what make me wondering: is the faction of the elite driving these BLM riots are
those who support Trump?
Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is a good way to get close to 100%
of elderly voters out of their Covid-19 lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't the fact that pallets of bricks and frozen bottles in large cans were
delivered to the places of protests suggests that Antifa and other groups operating
within the protest movement are actually linked to intelligence agencies?
Is not it easier now for Trump to offload all the destruction of the economy and
Coronavirus recession on Neoliberal Dems which are supporting the rioters?
"... "The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country undergoing collapse. ..."
"... This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." ..."
"... Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice? ..."
"... The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. ..."
"... That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the count ..."
"... This isn't about racial justice or police brutality, it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. ..."
"... What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower ..."
"... The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal ..."
"... The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution" that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70 years ..."
"... "Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in." ..."
"... "The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives "execute orders?" ..."
"... Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. ..."
"... Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. ..."
"... it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem. ..."
"... This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy ..."
"... "The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder . ..."
"... The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself ..."
"... that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany. The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system ..."
"... Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs, ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic communist-Globo homo project. ..."
"... My bro is one of the few people flying, for work. He says the only people on the airlines are antifa thugs moving all around the country. ..."
"... Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate Trump's support base? ..."
"... Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question. In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country. ..."
"Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the
street. But it's the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you
reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is
carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks."
Foreign Policy
Journal
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative that
applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast destruction to cities across
the country. What's that all about? Do the instigators of these demonstrations want to see our
cities reduced to urban wastelands where street gangs and Antifa thugs impose their own harsh
justice? That's where this is headed, isn't it?
Of course there are millions of protesters who honestly believe they're fighting racial
injustice and police brutality. And more power to them. But that certainly doesn't mean there
aren't hidden agendas driving these outbursts. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the
protest movement is actually the perfect vehicle for affecting dramatic social changes that
only serve the interests of elites. For example, who benefits from defunding the police? Not
African Americans, that's for sure. Black neighborhoods need more security not less. And yet,
the New York Times lead editorial on Saturday proudly announces, " Yes, We Mean Literally
Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen." Check it out:
"We can't reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact
between the public and the police .There is not a single era in United States history in
which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South
emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves.
In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor
strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations
to protect the status quo.
So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man's neck until he dies,
that's the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black
person, he is doing what he sees as his job " (" Yes, We
Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen" , New York
Times)
So, according to the Times, the problem isn't single parent families, or underfunded
education or limited job opportunities or fractured neighborhoods, it's the cops who have
nothing to do with any of these problems. Are we supposed to take this seriously, because the
editors of the Times certainly do. They'd like us to believe that there is groundswell support
for this loony idea, but there isn't. In a recent poll, more than 60% of those surveyed, oppose
the idea of defunding the police. So why would such an unpopular, wacko idea wind up as the
headline op-ed in the Saturday edition? Well, because the Times is doing what it always does,
advancing the political agenda of the elites who hold the purse-strings and dictate which ideas
are promoted and which end up on the cutting room floor. That's how the system works. Check out
this excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:
"The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out
a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the
looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their
persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and
by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country
undergoing collapse.
This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an
indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and
presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction
is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the
extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." (" The Real Racists", Paul Craig Roberts,
Unz Review)
Roberts makes a good point, and one that's worth mulling over. Why has the media failed to
show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the
effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from
the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the
demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that
supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last
5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an
energized proponent of social justice?
Nonsense. The media's role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the
protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we're seeing play out in over 400
cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it
does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements
in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate
probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the
same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites.
That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten
even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management
strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove
Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined
with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas,
and spreading anarchy across the country.
This isn't about racial justice or police brutality,
it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. Take a look at this
article at The Herland Report:
"What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by
the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower and
end the national sovereignty principles that president Trump stands for in America .
The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia
Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal and nothing else has worked. The aim is to end
democracy in the United States, control Congress and politics and assemble the power into the
hands of the very few
That sounds about right to me. The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution"
that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign
governments in the last 70 years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks
like it. Here's more from the same article:
"Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support
those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund
them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political
instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in."
So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn't mean that someone else is not steering
the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there
are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the
existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in
communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang's website Sic Semper
Tyrannis:
"The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around
the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen
water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a
well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates
these plans and gives "execute orders?"
Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are
fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present
meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously
across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis
was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse
abolishing the police force.
Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of
the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have
an excuse ."
("My take on the present situation", Sic Semper Tyrannis)
Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United
States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the
same time. It's beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the
country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a
sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose
task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.
None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being
destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar
to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet
government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans
into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country
easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here's a short
excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog "Another Day in the Empire":
"The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and
political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more
critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack
natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling
elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal,
and murder .
It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main
problem -- boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all -- black,
white, yellow, brown -- as expliotable and dispensable serfs. " (" 2 Million Arab Lives
Don't Matter ", Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)
The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of
this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to
push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that
will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.
the media narrative that applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast
destruction to Hong Kong where there was neither police violence nor racial discrimination.
Look like the same organizing principles were used in both places.
Of course that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany.
The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not
about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system, a
true grass roots movement of the people.
And Anti-fa, the Whores of the Satanic elites attack them. Why would anti-fascists attack the
common man?
Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs,
ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic
communist-Globo homo project.
Few arguments in contra of the article. Can any-one conceive of there being a competition between BLM rioting organizing and
covertly supporting, and Corona-19, where the elites were very cohesive internationally in the face.
The target, Trump, the man with no policies, the implement nothing, is it such a worthy target to a fraction of the power
elites? That would speak for shallowness on their behalf. Creating back-ground noise to fade out the re-organizing of society,
regardless of actors as Trump could be an acceptable explanation. "Keep the surplus population busy. Keep the attention on the
streets".
There is a trade-off. The international elites see the exposure of the US internal policies, the expenditure of energy, do
they regard the situation as something to copy-paste, an interesting experiment, or as weakness to be taken advantage of?
Probably the first, then BLM covert support chains perfectly with Corona-19, and scales things up.
"Black neighborhoods need more security not less."
Police are not security, they're repression. Anybody of any color who thinks they're safer
with heavily armed bureaucrats blundering around is a moron.
And since when does reductions in guard labor equal austerity? There are several economic
rights that should not be derogated, but assholes with guns impounding cars is not one of
them. If the residents of a community are asking for more cops, that's one thing. They are
not. Law enforcement budgets are stuffed up the ass of residents and often municipalities.
Look into e.g. the MA "strong chief" enabling acts. States have massive unfunded pension
liabilities in large part because of police featherbedding. That's what's being pushed by the
"deep state" (you mean CIA.) The evident CIA use of provocateurs is aimed at justifying
further increases in repressive capacity.
OK bye! Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out! Stupid and delusional though pigs are, it's dimly dawning on them that America considers
them crooked loudmouthed violent assholes. Here's a typical one exercising what Gore Vidal
called the core competence of police, whining.
Boo hoo hoo, asshole, go home and beat your wife or eat a gun or whatever it is you dream
of doing in retirement, cause the states can't afford your crooked unions' pensions in this
induced depression. Cut these white man's welfare jobs.
Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question.
In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US
elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa
is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country.
Why is the Times so concerned that its readers might have a different opinion on this
matter? Why do they want to convince people that the protests-riots are merely spontaneous
outbursts of anti-racist sentiment? Could it be because the Times job is to create a version
of events that suits the interests of the elites it serves? Here's a few excerpts from
today's piece titled "Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests":
While anarchists and anti-fascists openly acknowledged being part of the immense
crowds, they call the scale, intensity and durability of the protests far beyond anything
they might dream of organizing. Some tactics used at the protests, like the wearing of
all black and the shattering of store windows, are reminiscent of those used by anarchist
groups, say those who study such movements. (plausible deniability)
Anarchists and others accuse officials of trying to assign blame to extremists rather
than accept the idea that millions of Americans from a variety of political backgrounds have
been on the streets demanding change. Numerous experts also called the participation of
extremist organizations overstated. (plausible deniability)
"A significant number of people in positions of authority are pushing a false narrative
about antifa being behind a lot of this activity," said J.M. Berger, the author of the
book "Extremism" and an authority on militant movements. "These are just unbelievably large
protests at a time of great turmoil in this country, and there is surprisingly little
violence given the size of this movement.".. (plausible deniability)
In New York, the police briefed reporters on May 31, claiming that radical anarchists
from outside the state had plotted ahead of protests by setting up encrypted communications
systems, arranging for street medics and collecting bail funds.
Within five days, however, Dermot F. Shea, the city's police commissioner, acknowledged
that most of the hundreds of people arrested at the protests in New York were actually New
Yorkers who took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes and were not motivated by political
ideology . John Miller, the police official who had briefed reporters, told CNN that most
looting in New York had been committed by "regular criminal groups." (plausible
deniability)
Kit O'Connell, a longtime radical leftist activist and community organizer in Austin, said
that shortly after Mr. Trump's election, the group took part in anti-fascist protests in the
city against a local white supremacist group and scuffled separately with Act for America, an
anti-Muslim organization.
Why is the Times acting like Antifa's attorney? Why are the trying to minimize the role of
professional agitators? Why is the Times so determined to shape the public's thinking on this
matter?
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
@anonymous anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time. They are
protecting the wrong people, being used to protect people in the ruling class that hate and
despise cops just a little less than they hate and despise the rest of us civilians.
To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested, charged, prosecuted,
defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No white person should have
anything to do with it. Any white person policing negros in America is making a huge mistake,
and should immediately quit.
The pensions are not going to be paid, and the crazy, Soros paid for black people are
going to make it impossible for a white cop pretty soon anyway. Might as well walk before
they make you run.
Don't worry about BLM, which is corporate phoney bullshit protest, easter parades and
internet posturing. The blacks in the street don't fall for that shit. Look what happens when
coopted oreos try to herd everybody back to tame marching:
The provocateurs are not influencing them. The sellout house negroes are not influencing
them. They know what they want. The regime is shitting its pants. If they scapegoat Trump and
purge him, Biden will inherit the same problem only worse.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what I am wondering too. It makes more sense to me that the elites driving these
BLM riots are those who support Trump. Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is
a good way to get elderly white voters out of their covid lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
Do we really want to suggest the CIA is committing treason against the American people?
Isn't it more likely that the Times is agitating against the CIA for other reasons? Reasons
Carlos Slim could explain?
For those who haven't read Pepe Escobar's latsest on BLM, here's a couple clips:
Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by a trio of middle class, queer black women very
vocal against "hetero-patriarchy", is a product of what University of British Columbia's
Peter Dauvergne defines as "corporatization of activism".
Over the years, Black Lives Matter evolved as a marketing brand, like Nike (which
fully supports it). The widespread George Floyd protests elevated it to the status of a new
religion. Yet Black Lives Matter carries arguably zero, true revolutionary appeal. This is
not James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". And it does not get even close to
Black Power and the Black Panthers' "Power to the People".
Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation.
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter, the
organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party machine;
adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the 0.001%.
an evident ham-handed attempt to make this all about race. The real threat to this police
state is racial and international solidarity against state predation – the stuff that
got Fred Hampton killed,
"when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the
black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too We say you don't fight racism
with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with
no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism."
or Angela Davis and the Che-Lumumba club. BAP is right back on this and the resonating
international demonstrations show that that's the right track. The whole world sees what this
is about, except for a few fucked-over US whites.
botazefa, of course the CIA is committing treason against the American people. Where were you
when they whacked JFK, then RFK? Where were you when they blew up OKC? Where were you when
they released anthrax on the Senate, infiltrated and protected 9/11 terrorists, assigned more
terrorists to MITRE to blind NORAD, blew up the WTC for the second time, and exfiltrated the
Saudi logisticians?
Anybody unaware that CIA has been pure treason from inception is (1) retarded XOR (2) a
CIA traitor.
Sorry. The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is important is how
the super-billionaires control us. They are going to insist that it's niggerniggernigger all
the way home and that's all there is to it. You would think they were paid. Or really, really
stupid.
When Gina, she-wolf of Udon Thani, got busted for trying to overthrow the United States
government with Russiagate, she hung onto her job by rigging the succession with all the
Brennan traitors who ran the Russiagate coup.
So we should expect that Gina will now stage a couple massacres like Kent State and
Jackson State, because that's how CIA ratfucked Nixon when he didn't knuckle under.
Gina's extra motivated to stay on top because she's criminally culpable for systematic and
widespread torture:
@Mike Whitney Excellent article and I believe excellent analysis of the situation.
Where we may differ is with Trump's complicity in Deep State efforts. I believe Trump is a
minion of the Deep State. His actions and inactions can not be explained any other way.
Let's assume for a minute, that Pepe Escobar is correct when he says this:
"Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation .
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter,
the organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party
machine; adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the
0.001%.
If this is true–and I believe it is– then Black Lives Matter is no different
than USAID or any of the other NGOs that are used to incite revolution around the world. If
this is true, then there is likely a CIA link to these protests, the main purpose of which is
to remove Trump from office.
So Black Lives Matter= activist NGO linked to US Intel agencies= Regime Change
Operation
But there is something else going on here too, (that many readers might have noticed) that
is, the way social media has been manipulated to put millions of young people on the street
in order to promote the agenda of elites.
How did they manage that?
How did they get millions of young people to come out day after day (14 days so far) in
over 400 cities to protest an issue about which they know very little aside from the media's
irritating reiteration of "systemic racism", (a claim that is not supported by the data.)
IMO, we are seeing the first successful social media saturation campaign launched probably
by the Pentagon's Office Strategic Communications or a similar outfit within the CIA. Having
already taken control over the entire mainstream media complex, the intel agencies and their
friends at the Pentagon are now wrapping their tentacles around internet communications in
order to achieve their goal of complete tyrannical social control.
As always, the target of these massive covert operations is the American people who had
better pull their heads out of the sand pronto and come up with a plan for countering this
madness.
@anonymous The elephant in the room, that seems to be ignored by all is the simple fact
that Hispanics are working class heroes. And they outnumber the blacks, and hate their guts
for the most part. Not the scrawny punks withe Che t-shirts, but the actual working types
that are less than thrilled to deal with the weak. Notice how no Hispanic barrios have EVER
been f ** ked with, no matter when the race riot? There is an open fatwa from La Eme
regarding blacks that has never been rescinded. Has a lot to do with the kneegro exodus from
the LA area, which correlates with the lack of looting in the formerly black areas. Which the
MSM prefers to ignore. The happy idiots are mugging for the cameras on a daily basis in
Hollywood, but the Hispanic run Sheriff's office has no problem with popping gas and
defending businesses. Also note that the MSM only reports on areas when a local government
craters to the mob. LA County was under curfew for 7 days due to a mob of looters that
numbered perhaps 2000. If that Jew mayor (with the Italian surname) had not allowed the
looting, then we would have seen the kind of 36 hour turnaround like we had with Rodney King.
The ethnic group that ignores the MSM and stands up for its own people will win in the end.
Right now we are looking more toward the kind of Celtic/Meso-American alliance that is well
known in the penal system. These groups can exist side by side, with each ignoring the other.
Blacks, on the other paw seem to be unable to keep to themselves, at least on the ghetto
level, and will always be an issue for civilization. It's time we stop calling for a generic
and all-inclusive White establishment. The race traitors and weaklings forfeit that right.
When Celts, Italians, Germans, etc. were proud and independent, there was strength. It's time
to return to that ideal. Only the negroid actually lumps all whites together, which the Jews
use as a divisive tool. Strength should be idolized, rather than weakness exploited.
I'm saying that the NYT is not necessarily mouthpiece *only* for the Deep State. As for
your JFK assassination – Senate Anthrax – 9/11 etc, those are considered
conspiracy theories and I've never been persuaded otherwise. I've read up on the theories and
they are not strong.
I don't know what a retarded XOR is except as it relates to logic diagrams and I don't
work for the CIA.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
It's called Jewish lawfare for Antifa, Jewish control of media, and Jewish cult of Magic
Negro.
Even though Jews led the Gentric Cleansing campaigns against blacks by using mass
immigration, globo-homo celebration, and white middle class return to cities, the Jews are
now pretending be with the blacks and throwing the immigrants, white middle class, and homos
to the black mobs.
simple fact that Hispanics are working class heroes
Some are. Most aren't. And the 'not'% grows with selective Americanization (not
assimilation). Still, I'll take them over the blacks, even with their generally inferior (to
White) culture.
Whites are better with separation from them along with blacks. Whatever the prime driver,
both groups have poisoned America, likely beyond repair. Conquistador gonnna
conquistador.
M. Whitney in comment 21 clarifies his view of BLM as the impetus for this rebellion. That
does not square with the reports of people on the street.
BLM is exactly analogous to BDS: a controlled opposition of feckless halfassed gestures
designed to distract from the real movement. You hear BLM apparatchiks whining about getting
their movement hijacked because people in the streets show solidarity with oppressed groups
worldwide – and youe hear BLM getting booed by the people they're trying to corral.
BLM's mission is putting words in the protestors' mouths. You hear Democrat BLM spokesmodels
trying to distort calls for police abolition and no more impunity. And real protestors call
bullshit.
BLM works on dumb white guys: hating on BLM makes them feel very edgy and defiant. Black
Lives Matter! Blue Lives Matter! Black! Blue! Black! Blue! Catnip for dumbshits, courtesy of
CIA. Keeps them away from the really subversive stuff, which makes perfect sense for whites
too.
@ICD Look into whether the training of cops has been outsourced and privatized. Or simply
shortened to save money.
And ask why the police are even armed when in Communist China they are not, and
traditionally in the non-American West they were not, now are in imitation of America.
Ann Nonny Mouse, truer words were never spoken. Chinese cops have these cute little
nightsticks, and sometimes they will bop a guy and the guy just stands there and says Ow and
the cops continue to reason with him, no restraint, incapacitation, any of that shit. British
cops used to be that way, they used to reason with you. Now they're all American style
Assholes, if not Israeli concentration camp guards. Just nuke FOP HQ in Memphis.
Koch sees privatization as a future profit center and a chance to control the cops
himself. They're not trainable, they're too fucking stupid. We all did fine without pigs up
through most of the 19th century. Hue and cry works fine. Fire all the cops and replace them
with unarmed women social workers. That's all they are, prodigiously incompetent social
workers.
Too, those many businesses with all that unsold inventory sitting around gathering dust due
to Covid isolation will benefit from insurance payments covering their losses due to looting.
The cherry on top.
Are you just clueless or what? Did you notice the names of the Antifa leaders that have
been exposed? They are Amish Right? They are Jews and they will always be Jews! Soros and
other Jews have been running this game for a long time. Where have you been? SDS in Chicago
no Jews there right!
The CIA and the FBI overwhelmed with Jews can you count? All the professors who have been
destroying whites with their fake studies blaming everything wrong in the world on Whites and
Western Civilization. The entire Media owned by who?
Either you were dropped out of a spaceship a few days ago or you are a total idiot and
can't see the forest before trees.
Try this: The Percentage of all Ivy League Presidents, top adminstrators, deans etc take a
guess then go count them and see which group they belong to.
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative
.
* * *
This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to
topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on
the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and
leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock
troops and wealthy globalist mandarins.
One must wonder: How could the CIA and the U.S. Democrat establishment foment and
coordinate all of the Black Lives Matter protests occurring in Canada, several nations of
South and Central America, the U.K., Ireland, throughout the European Union, and in
Switzerland, the Middle East (Turkey, Iran ), and in Asia (Korea, Japan .) and New Zealand,
Australia, and Africa?
Mr. Whitney: Neither magic nor bigotry-induced hallucinations can forge a tenable
conspiracy theory.
I think the primary reason the mainstream media doesn't want the general public, especially
those living outside the major cities, to understand the extent of the destruction and
violence that spread in a highly-coordinated fashion across America, is that this would be
cause for alarm among a majority of Americans who would demand more Law & Order, which
would redound to Trump's benefit.
Notice Trump is countering by tweeting "LAW & ORDER!"
Here is Trump tweeting "Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle
is being discussed in the Fake News Media[?] That is very much on purpose "
Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle is being discussed in
the Fake News Media. That is very much on purpose because they know how badly this weakness
& ineptitude play politically. The Mayor & Governor should be ashamed of
themselves. Easily fixed!
The outcome of the election in November could hinge on the urgency the public places on
the issue of Law & Order. Hence the media's all out effort to minimize the extent of the
Anarchy and Violence and the financial sponsorship, planning, and coordination behind it.
Please see my comment of June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT (comment # 34). I must apologize for
that comment's insufficiency (owed to my posting that comment before I happened upon your
comment to which this comment replies). Had I encountered your comment earlier, my
June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT comment (comment # 34) would have observed that you are
triumphantly illogical as you are a world class crackpot.
@ICD You said it. Police Departments country-wide are stuffed up the wazoo with more cash
than they can spend. But what do they cry? Poor us. Poor us. We ain't got no money.
This is what they, and by they, I mean all our owners and their overseers, always do. They
cry poverty when they are rolling in loot.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
Yes, and the left(unwittingly) will help them with their cause, and the right will
cowardly hide right behind the deep state as protection from the violent left.
@Priss Factor You are extremely unlikely to receive any of those things from a "Negro".
90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire lives.
I wish you psychotic fucking female idiots on this website who are constantly blathering
about black people could realize how annoying you are to the 90% of white people who are not
living in or next to black ghettos. Please STFU and allow discourse to trend in more
pertinent directions, and move away from black people if you're so paranoid about them.
@Mike Whitney The (((media))) have an uphill battle in convincing us to deny the evidence
of our eyes -- black-hooded white punks throwing bricks through storefronts then inviting
joggers to loot.
That is why so many platforms, even "free speech" GAB, are wildly censoring
counter-narratives.
@Brian Reilly Stephen Molyneux said that police forces were originally geared to operate
under white Christian societies where there was a high level of trust and people were
law-abiding. I remember when I was a kid, we didn't even lock our doors. Our bikes were left
out on the front lawn, sometimes for days, weeks, and nobody took them. Nobody locked their
car doors. People just didn't steal other people's stuff. When a cop tried to pull you over,
you didn't hit the gas pedal and take off. You didn't run from the cops; you were polite to
them and they were polite to you.
Tucker Carlson said that Blacks are now asking for their own hospitals (I forget what city
this was) and their own doctors and nurses. Blacks schools, Black police forces.
Tribes don't mix. Their culture is different than our culture. Why should they change for
us, and why should we change for them?
It is a marriage that does not work. Either send them back to Africa (best solution) or
give them Mississippi and put up a big wall. Then let them pay for their own upkeep –
all of it. Good luck with that.
Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass
meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police
force.
Mayor Jacob Frey got elected at his extremely young age by flanking on the Left with anti
police rhetoric, He is the the originator of this crisis; as soon as the video of Floyd's
death was public Frey publicly and literally called the four cops murderers and said
he was powerless to have them arrested. That was a false accusation of police impunity,
because the supposedly powerless Frey was able to order the police to vacate their own
station thus letting the demonstrators take over and burn it. Yet to draw back a bit the Deep
State if worried about other states.
That event Frey largely created was the key moment of this whole thing. Trump could have
nipped it in the bud by had sending in troops immediately the Minneapolis 3rd Precinct was
burnt down. Crushing the riots in that city and preventing the example infecting the
demonstrations in other cities. and turning them into cover for riots. Trump did not want to
be seen as Draconian although it would not have been at all violent, because no one is going
to challenge the army's awesome presence once it arrived on the streets,as worked in the
Rodney King riots.
The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having
succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists
are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country
for a new authoritarian order.
George Floyd had foam visible at the corners of his mouth when the police arrived. Autopsy
tests revealed Fentanyl and COVID-19: both from Wuhan. I Can't Breath is America gearing up
to confront and settle accounts with Xi's totalitarian state.
Current events might seem to be a setback for the US, but provide the opportunity for a
re-set with the black community, with a potential outcome of resolving race tensions that
have been a cause of dissension and internal weakness, just as during the Cold War racial
integration was thought essential by anti communists like Nixon. America is gearing up to
settle accounts with China, which is a Deep State new Cold War. While it is a possibility
that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall into the hands of an
explicitly anti -acist elite/ minorities alliance, the Deep State is not the same as the
hyper capitalist elite whose growing wealth depends on China.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
@Mike Whitney The Duran did an excellent video titled "Social Media 'Unchecked Power'"
where they talk about Trump and Barr going after the tech companies and their virtual
monopolies with an executive order.
At 33:45 they state that Microsoft (Bill Gates) invested $1 billion and the CIA invested
$16 million into Facebook when it was still operating as a university network. The CIA were
one of the first investors in Facebook.
Why the hell was the CIA investing $16 million to get Facebook off the ground? Hmmm. Could
it be because Facebook would be instrumental in controlling the narrative?
The young people, who have no experience and no real knowledge of history, are being taken
in by these social media companies who are playing on their emotions. Any dissenting opinions
are blocked or banned. Very dangerous.
@Loup-Bouc Well, the "deep state" is just an euphemism for the jewish power structure,
and all those places you named are run be jews. That jews cooperate in extended conspiracies
without regard of borders should be common knowledge for every observer of history and
current politics. I see nothing far-fetched. Honestly, my mind would boggle if I should
explain, how the Antifa gets away with those things it always gets away with, if it wasn't
controlled by the "deep state". And I couldn't explain the international cooperation either.
As Pepe' Escobar said – Americans looting is a natural thing – just look at how
the US Military has stolen the gaz and oil from Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. and is trying like
hell for the Venezuelan oil fields. Not to mention where all their gold, silver and billions
of dollars have gone. The list of the USG looting criminal record is unprecedented . It's a
Family Tradition. Enjoyed the article !
@MrFoSquare The Capitol Hill area of Seattle that has been taken over as an "autonomous
zone" by the protesters is really rather laughable.
One of the first things they did was put up what they called "light fencing". Oh, so when
THEY put up walls, that's perfectly fine. When Trump tries to do it, that's evil and racist.
Borders are A-okay when they're doing it.
They've colonized an area for themselves. I thought the Progressive Left was against
colonialism, taking someone else's property. Isn't that what they've done? They've taken over
whole neighborhoods.
And they've got armed patrol guards checking people as they enter. If you're not in
agreement with their ideology, you're not allowed to enter. So apparently it's okay to have
border controls when they're running the world.
They're doing everything they profess to be against. Hilarious.
@Brian Reilly "anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time."
Dude, why? I don't want to get jacked by some thug or some immigrant policeman from
Honduras. And I can't defend myself because it would be a hate crime.
There are underlying motives, or "hidden agendas", beneath the authentic struggle for
justice. The greatest motive is for power: either to retain it or gain it. The need or desire
for power can be identified in every conflict in history. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Realist So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and
he's been in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the
Steele Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the
FBI, CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19, protests
– all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a legitimate
opposition?
What, it's better to have the citizens split politically 50/50? That way there's never a
majority who start throwing their weight around and making trouble for the elite looters?
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Trump has gone through all of this, but he's just faking it? Are we Truman from the Truman
Show?
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an outsider?
He's never really ever been part of the elite, not really. If he is truly an outsider, then
these people have been a party to an attempted coup against a duly-elected President.
And if so, then that's sedition and they should hang.
@PetrOldSack Trump is just a puppet, well maybe a bit more, of the part of the MIC and
Deep State that apparently has a different agenda. This is not to say that they are "good
people" but they seem to want to keep the US as a functioning republic and a major power.
Maybe they have some plans re the other group(s) in the elites that are extremely dangerous
for those groups. Which would explain why those groups ("globalists") want to remove those
elements of influence people behind Trump get from the fact that he is the president. This
explains why fake Covid-19 was so pumped by the media and when that apparently did not work
they moved on to BLM "color revolution". It is interesting how all of this plays out, as it
will decide the fate of the world. Ironically, Xi, Putin and other leaders that represent
groups wanting to maintain (some) sovereignty of their states have a common enemy, even as
their states are in competition, namely "globalist" elements within their own power
structures.
One of the goals of the British security service, MI5, is to control the leader or deputy
leader of any subversive organisation larger than a football team. The same is likely true in
every country.
The typical criticism of MI5 is that it is too passive, and does not use its knowledge to
close down hostile groups. In Algeria, the opposite happened: the Algerian security service
infiltrated the most extreme Islamist group in the 1990s and aggravated the country's civil
war by committing massacres, with the goal of creating public revulsion for the
Islamists.
This range of possibilities makes it hard to figure out what the Deep State and other
manipulators are doing.
@Sean Frey is a weak Leftist. The equally weak Governor (another Leftie) needed to handle
the situation. He didn't. Trump told him that the feds would help if he asked; he didn't.
This is all on the state and local governments. They did nothing except to tell the cops
to stand down while the city got looted and burned.
If Trump had sent in the military, they would have screamed blue murder. They probably
would have called for his impeachment. Of course, that's what they wanted Trump to do. Thank
goodness Trump didn't fall for their trap.
So the NYT has joined the vanguard af the American People's Revolution?! People change sides
and not all organisations are uniform, even the CIA. There has to be some organisation to
these protests and whoever is providing it, I doubt the protesters are complaining, but want
even more of it, and for it to be more effective, widespread and to grow. And finding
protesters is no problem now or in the future considering the state of the economy, business
closures, rising unemployment, expensive education. What are all these young people supposed
to do? Sit at home playing video games, surfing porn, watching TV? Or go on a holiday? Now in
these circumstances? I guess they're bored with all that so they may as well hit the streets
and stay on the streets as they'll be on the streets anyway when they get evicted because
they can't pay the rent. And as they're being impoverished they may as well steal what they
can. And obviously they don't fear arrest and are happy to get a criminal record since even a
clean sheet won't get them a job in the failing economy, and they know that. I'm sure many
want a solution that will provide for their future. But who is providing it? So it's on them
to create it. Of course politicians will want to use them and manipulate them for their own
ends. And the elites, and the deep state too. And sure there are Jews in it as in anything.
And sure they're fat, ugly, and degenerate – they're Americans reflecting their own
society. But where it goes nobody knows
@Mike Whitney "Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question."
99% of them wouldn't have a clue as to any larger strategic direction. Sorry,
but to repeat myself: "useful idiots".
"Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?"
Well, duh! It seems likely that the entire George Floyd murder on camera was a staged
event, its even possible that he/it was never really killed. See:
PSYOP? George Floyd "death" was faked by crisis actors to engineer revolutionary riots,
video authors say
" Numerous videos are now surfacing that directly question the authenticity of the claimed
"death" of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Several trending videos appear to reveal
striking inconsistencies in the official explanations behind the reported death of Floyd.
These videos appear to reinforce the idea that the George Floyd incident was, if not entirely
falsified, most definitely planned and rigged in advance. It is already confirmed that the
Obama Foundation was tweeting about George Floyd more than a week before he is claimed to
have died. "
"Obviously, since Barack Obama doesn't own a time machine, the only way the Obama
Foundation could have tweeted about George Floyd a week before his death is it the entire
event was planned in advanced.
Note: We do not endorse every claim in each of the videos shown below, but we believe the
public has the right to hear dissenting views that challenge the official narratives, and we
believe public debate that incorporates views from all sides of a particular issue offers
inherent merit for public discourse.
Numerous video authors are now spotting stunning inconsistencies in the viral videos that
claim to show white cops murdering George Floyd in broad daylight. Without exception, these
video authors, many of whom are black, believe:
at least one of the "police officers" was actually a hired crisis actor who has appeared
in other staged events in recent years.
that the black man depicted in the viral videos is not, in fact, an individual named
George Floyd.
that the responding medical personnel were not EMTs but were in fact mere crisis actors
wearing police costumes.
Each of the video authors shown below reveals still images and video clips that they say
support their claims. Here's an overview of some of the most intriguing videos and the
summary of what those videos are saying: .":
@Mike Whitney I think you are correct Mike. IF blm got $100 million from anyone it
follows that they are beholden -- & the only entities capable of such "generosity" are
"establishment" it therefore follows that BLM are beholden (controlled) by the establishment
( .the deep state .)
Now the New York Times thinks that the black, brown, white and yellow lives are dispensable
does it mean their own GRAY lives matter more to the rest of us? No, it does not!
The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably
involved.
It seems right and logical.
But what I don't understand, is why the deep state elite don't understand that in the end the
collapse of the "traditional society" will touch them too in their private life. In the long
run the ruining of the US will ruin everybody in the US including them. Don't they get it ?
Maybe they are intoxicated by their own lies are are begining to lose their lucidity. Like Al
Pacino intoxicated by his own coke in scarface.
@MrFoSquare What we need are some solid numbers:
How many arrested? (& who are they?)
How many properties destroyed?
Dollars worth of damage?
Which cities had the worst damage?
A social media "history" of protest/riot posting ?
Where/who are responsible for brick/frozen water bottle stashes?
Travel histories of notable offenders?
Links between "protesters" & the media ?
Money? Who/what/when/how was all this funded on a day-to-day basis.
And so on.
Mike Whitney doesn't know the first thing. It takes a lot of organizing time and personnel to
properly prepare and lead in the field any large public protest. There are people experienced
in this. Getting them together and deploying their capability is required.
These protests are classic unplanned, spontaneous actions. At least the first major wave
of them. Only after some time will parties try to lead, organize. Or manipulate.
First thing, it's like trying to herd cats. So, you need marshals. Lots of them. Ably led,
and clearly seen. Just to try and steer a protest down one street or to some point. You need
first aid available, provision for seniors and children. Water. Knowledgeable people to deal
with the media.
People who know what they're doing to deal with senior police. With city transit, buses,
taxis. Hospitals, road construction, fire departments. A good protest cleans itself up too so
provide the means for that. Loudspeakers, music – all this an more has to be organized.
By some people.
And 100% of this or even a hint of organizing is not evident at these protests. And the
evidence is easy to see. Organizers advertise too for volunteers. Everything in plain sight
for those with eyes to see.
If you are stupid enough to think that some handful of fruitcakes from some official
agency could even find their way to a protest, actually have a clue how to conduct themselves
and not get laughed at or just ignored – there's no hope for you. You know nothing
about protests and are pedalling fantasy.
@obwandiyag As usual, you're completely delusional. Most police departments are in the
exact same boat as the municipalities that fund them: one downturn (like, say, a public
lockdown followed by public disorder and looting) from going right to the wall.
There won't be any need to "defund" police; most of America's cities and towns are soon to
be on the bread line, looking for those Ctrl-P federal dollars. Quarterly deficits of twenty
trillion, here we come!
@Thomasina The power elite have different factions and they fight each other to a point,
but they do not try to expose each other. This is why none of Trump enemies are going to be
put in prison.
This is why Trump supports don't know what Genie Engery is, not that they would care.
The scum Trump appointed should tell you what side he's on.
I don't know if Antifa is run directly by the three-letter FedGov agencies. But I do know
that the university is the breeding ground for these vermin, and all universities, even
"private" ones, are largely funded by the governmnent, and are tax exempt.
@schnellandine The Hispanics in America are similar to waves of Italians in the late 19th
and early 20th Centuries, except the numbers are far larger and never ending, which impacts
assimilation. The Hispanics are the ones doing the hard physical labor for low pay, and they
are the ones in American society to invest in learning the skill to perform some of those
backbreaking, low paying jobs well. They are the Super Marios of today. Many of them ply
their trades as small businessmen. They are thankful for their jobs and the people they
serve.
Many are loving, salt-of-the-earth type people who genuinely love their blanco friends.
Howard Stern thinks their music sucks but at least they sing songs about el corazon, music of
the heart and of love. (No one is comparable to the Italians in that department, but what do
you suppose happened to the beautiful love music produced by black male vocalists as late as
a generation ago?) Except for the fact that Hispanics come from countries with long
traditions of corrupt, El Patron governments which unfortunately they want to enact here as a
social safety net, they are often traditional in their attitudes about religion and family.
Of course, they get in drunken brawls, abuse their women, and the graft and incompetence in
their institutions can be outrageous. The reason they flee here is because the world they've
created themselves in the shithole places they've leaving isn't as good as the West created
by Caucasian cultures. The law abiding, decent family people I'm speaking of prosper
alongside of whites and many come to recognize that whites and Hispanics can build a common
destiny that's far preferable to the direction black agitators are taking blacks in America.
So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and he's been
in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the Steele
Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the FBI,
CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19,
protests – all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a
legitimate opposition?
Absolutely.
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Yes, but the elite do not fear the majority they are in complete control through
insouciance and stupidity on the majority.
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an
outsider?
He's not his actions and inactions are impossible to logically explain away he is a minion
of the Deep State.
The protest movement is directed and controlled by the same zionists who control the
government and their goal is the destruction of America and they are being allowed to do the
wrecking and destruction that they are doing, as this helps full fill the zionist communist
takeover of America.
To see where this is leading read up on the bolshevik-communist revolution in Russia and
the communist revolution in China and Cuba and Cambodia, and there is the future of
America.
@Christophe GJ They enjoy human suffering. Who knows maybe their compensation is linked
to dead bodies. The deep state types will dwell in gate communities that will never be
breached. The perks of owning both segments of the "opposition." As for the CIA's owners, a
sharp depopulation has been their goal for some time. Why it has to be so ghoulish and
prolong is anyone's guess.
@Brian Reilly "To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks."
Yeah, some city tried that. To try to satisfy the "Get White police out of our
neighborhoods" they did -- they re-orged and sent only black cops into black neighborhoods,
and let the White cops police the White neighborhoods. And the BLACK POLICE SUED to end that!
They were, they claimed (and legitimately, too!) being treated unfairly by making THEM police
the most violent, the most dangerous, the most deadly neighborhoods, and "protecting" the
White cops from that duty by letting only the White cops work the nice neighborhoods. They
WON too!
(note: "IKAGO" = "I know a good one." the all-too-often excuse from the unawakened!)
=====================
I don't mourn the loss of Baltimore. Or Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Atlanta, etc etc etc.
It is ultimately a huge benefit to have Negroes concentrated in these huge teeming Petri
dishes.
As always I advocate the complete White withdrawal from these horrible urban sh_tholes,
and as always I advocate that since Negroes do not want to be policed, to immediately stop
policing them.
And to anyone who might be naive enough to say "hey, there are good people in those
neighborhoods, who try to work and raise their kids, who obey the law and who abhor the
lawlessness and rioting as much as anyone" . my response is that these same IKAGO's voted for
a Negro president, for Negro mayors, Negro city council members, Negro police chiefs and
Negro school superintendents, and now they are getting exactly what they deserve, good and
effing hard.
I have ZERO sympathy for blacks.
=====================
And the new rule:
Remember when seconds count, the police are not even obligated to respond.
Of course "deep state elements" operate in protests! What A STUPID question, Whitney. All
kinds of political tricksters, manipulators, provocateurs, idiots, fools, people suffering
from ennui, you name it Mike, they're involved. And yes, the murder of the black man in
Minneapolis was the trigger.
That's not the only cause of social unrest. There are lots of reasons that drive the
displeasure of the mass of people and it's not the silly "deep state". Before you use that
term, if you want any sort of salute from intelligent people, you need to define your terms.
Or are just just waving a red flag so you can attract a bunch of stupid Trumpsters?
There's a whole lot of deep state out there, good buddy. Just examine the federal budget
and whatever money you cannot assign to a particular institution or specific purpose, that is
funding your your "deep state". It's billions and billions. But there is no Wizard of Oz
behind the curtain to spend it all on nefarious purposes. Sure, the deep state destroyed the
WTC and killed a few thousand people. These hidden operators can do things civilians can only
imagine, but they cannot create movements, Whitney. You just can't fool all of the people all
of the time.
Are you having a touch of brain degeneration, Mike, like dear autocrat in the White
House?
A great article. While Trump may have some ties to the Deep State, I doubt very much that he
is their puppet. He won the nomination because he was against some of the Deep States key
policies. He even tried to implement his policies but mostly failed due to traitors in his
administration and all the coordinated coup attempts.
One recent development that causes me to think that this article is spot on is the blatant
attacks by retired generals and even currently serving generals against a sitting president.
Even Defense Sec. Esper (the Raytheon lobbyist) criticized Trump's comments on the
Insurrection Act, which was totally unnecessary since Trump only said that he had the
authority to use it.
The coordinated criticism of the generals just reminds me of how similar it is to the
coordinated effort by the CIA, FBI, State Department and NSA to use the Russiagate hoax and
impeachment hoax to remove Trump. The riots, the money funneled from BLM to Biden 2020,
support of Antifa by the MSM and the generals treasonous actions are not coincidences.
I'm surprised by the generally low level of the responses.
Mr. Whitney:
There haven't been 'millions' of protestors, maybe some thousands.
Please list the "valid grievances" that negros hold concerning the cops; are the cops
supposed to raise black IQ? These riots need to be suppressed pronto; don't waste your time
waiting for the fat orange buffoon to do anything.
Negros have no 'communities', and never will.
I'm wondering why Mr. Unz thinks he is required to let leftists like Whitney post
here.
(1)-There is a 'deep state'
(2)-(1) does NOT imply that negros are a noble race.
The opening statement is quite true. They've apparently been organizing under the radar for
some years now. Diversity is our greatest weakness and these fissures that run through the
country can be exploited. Blacks have been weaponized and used as the spearpoint along with
the more purposeful real Antifa (lots of wannabes walking around clad in black). Everything
has really been well coordinated and the Gene Sharp playbook followed. These 'color
revolution' employees are actually all over the globe, funded by various front groups and
NGOs. The money trail often leads to various billionaires like the ubiquitous Soros but
people like that may just be acting as fronts themselves. Supposed leftists working against
the interests of the value producing working class?
The George Floyd murder was a obviously a wholly staged Deep State event, complete with
the usual crisis actors, as this video summary clearly illustrates :
@Brian Reilly"To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No
white person should have anything to do with it. "
And when these same blacks attack or steal from a White person, which they often do, do
you think they'll get a just punishment from their fellow blacks or a high five?
The solution to the black problem is complete separation, there is no other way.
@Mike Whitney But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump? Isn't that
tantamount to judging a book by its cover? Americans have been on to the evil shenanigans of
the intelligence community for decades. Trump is nothing more than controlled opposition and
a false sense of security for "patriots". One needs look no further than the prognostications
of Q to see that Trump is the beneficiary of deep state propaganda. The CIA's modus operandi,
together with the rest of the IC, is to deceive. So if they appear to be doing one thing
(fighting Trump) you can be sure they intend the opposite.
Americans are nose deep in false dichotomies, and Trump is a pole par excellence. Despite
his flagrant history as an NYC liberal, putative fat cat, swindler, and network television
superstar, he is now depicted as either a populist outsider, or a literal Nazi. The simple
fact is that he is an actor and confidence artist. He is playing a role, and he is playing to
both sides of the aisle, and his work is to deceive the entirety of the American public,
together with the mockingbird media, which is merely the yin to his pathetic yang.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades, and
will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the globe.
Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
@Uomiem That's a good point, and it's of the main problems I do have with Trump: his
cabinet picks and financial backers (Adelsen, Singer, et al.). But in fairness, what happens
when he tries to pick someone who's not approved by the system? Well, if they're cabinet
officers, they'll never get approved by the senate. And even if they're not, they will be
driven out of the White House somehow–just like Gen. Flynn and Steve Bannon. In short,
when it comes to staffing, Trump's choices are limited by the same swamp he's fighting. Sad
but true
@Thomasina Interesting comments by the Duran but I cannot find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. The CIA's investment arm, In-Q-Tel, did invest in early
Facebook investor Peter Theil's company Palantir and other companies. Also, Graylock Partners
were also early investors in Facebook along with Peter Theil and the head of Graylock is
Howard Cox who served on In-Q-Tel's board of directors. But these are indirect inferences.
Unlike the clear and direct investment of the CIA in the company that was eventually
purchased by Google and is now called Google Earth, I can't find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. I have no doubt it's true since it's a perfect tool for
data gathering. Do you have any direct evidence of such an investment?
Is the Deep State stage-managing the "BLM" protests to further an agenda? Absolutely.
The main influence of the Deep State is felt in its complete dominance of the controlled
media.
Like mantras handed down by the commissars, the mainstream media keep repeating key
phrases to narrowly define what's happening: "mostly peaceful protests", "anti-black
racism".
The media is an organ of the Deep State. The Deep State will decide when the protests will
end, and when that day arrives, the media will suddenly pivot on cue like a school of fish or
a flock of birds.
Perhaps some non believers in the Deep State would like to explain why the multi trillion
dollar corporations in America are supporting BLM, Antifa and other anarchy groups since on
the face of it anarchy would be antithetical to these corporations?
Hint: The wealthy and powerful (aka Deep State) know that anarchy divides a populous
thereby removing their ability to resist their true enemy and even more draconian laws. The
die is being cast at this moment and the complete subjugation of the American people will,
probably, be effectuate by the end of this year. A full court press is under way and life is
about to change for 99% of the American people.
If you disagree with my hint correct it.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades,
and will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the
globe. Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
Your points are excellent. All tragic, devastating events in the last, at least, 20
years have been staged or played to facilitate the total control by the Deep State.
The problem is power – and the nature of those who lust for it. The police are very
powerful, by necessity and the nature of police work is the exercise of power – on the
street.
Not to mention the fact that police forces, like every other institution, are managed from
the top. Sgt. Bernstein back at the station calls the shots, gets to decide who is hired /
fired and generally runs the department like a CEO runs a company. Not all cops are rotten,
but if Sgt. Bernstein is a scumbag, the whole department tends to behave as a scumbag.
I'll give you two guesses, the second one doesn't count, as to which tribe of psychopaths
– who call themselves "chosen" – have mastered the art of playing both sides
against the middle, using the police as a very powerful tool to accomplish an ancient agenda
of world-domination, straight out of The Torah.
The police are just another sad story of the destruction of America, by Shlomo.
@Mike Whitney Any explanation that ignores that the catalyst for what is happening is the
Federal Reserve Notes free fall is not a good explanation.
This is a failed Communist Putsch. The people pushing it have enough control of major
cities to keep it alive but not enough to push it into the heartland. 400 million guns and a
few billion bullets are protecting freedom in the USA just like they were intended to.
All failed communist revolutions end in fascism taking power. The Yahoo news comments
sections are way to big to censor properly and they are already taking on a Fascist tone with
almost half the posters. This is only just beginning and most people are beginning to
understand that these lies non whites tell about the fake systemic racism are too dangerous
to go unchallenged. The idea that the protests ,the protests not the riots, have no
foundation in truth is starting to work its way to the forefront of white peoples minds.
Non whites are coddled by the establishment in the USA and no real racists have any power
in the USA so this whole thing is and has been for 50 years based on lies.
The jew mob is going to lose all their economic power over the next year or so as the Fed
Note hyper-inflates. The mob knows this and made a grab for ideological power using low IQ
ungrateful non whites they have been inculcating with anti white ideals for decades as their
foot soldiers.
They are screwed because the places they control are parasitic just like they are. Cities
are full of people making nothing and pretty much just doing service jobs for each other. All
the things needed to keep cities going come from outside the cities and the jew mob is not in
charge in the places that actually produce things. Not like they are in the cities
anyway.
Ignoring the currency rises makes you dishonest Mike.
I think the leadership and tactics of the police are deplorable. I can only surmise that the
local political leadership in many cities is on the inside of this latest scam.
The police should be able to launch attacks on the crowd to single out those who are
Antifa activists. That is what the riot police in France would do. They should try to ignore
the rabble behind which these activists are sheltering.
By remaining on the defensive and without using the element of surprise to capture these
activists, the police are sitting ducks.
My dad told me what it was like in Cairo when the centre of the city was destroyed in
1952. I was tiny at that time and remember my mother carrying me. We watched Cairo burning in
the distance. We were on the roof of the huge house of my Egyptian grandfather in
Heliopolis.
The looters and arsonists were well-equipped. It was not by any means spontaneous. They
smashed the locks on the draw-down shutters of the shops with sledge hammers. Next, they
looted the shop. Lastly, they tossed in Molotov cocktails. The commercial heart of Cairo was
largely destroyed in a few hours. Cinemas and the Casino were burnt. Cairo was a very
pleasant metropolis in those days. It became prosperous during WW2 by supplying the
Allies.
My family's small factory was in the very centre of Cairo – in Abbassia. My father
rounded up his workers to defend the factory. Many lived on the premises. They were all tough
Sa'idi from Upper
Egypt. Many were Coptic Christians. They all had large staffs that they knew how to use. The
arsonists and looters kept well clear.
JUNE 9, 2020 CityLab University: A Timeline of U.S. Police Protests
The latest protests against police violence toward African Americans didn't appear out of
nowhere. They're rooted in generations of injustice and systemic racism.
@Sean said:
"While it is a possibility that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall
into the hands of an explicitly anti -[r]acist elite/ minorities alliance,"
"Anti-racist?
The entire matter is "explicit" racism directed against Euro-whites.
@gay troll "But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump?"
John Brennan collaborated with James Comey on the Russian collusion narrative. Brennan is
indicative of the upper-echelon CIA and its orientation towards the globalist billionaire
class.
@Loup-Bouc Maybe you also noticed that the opening pages of the article suggested that
the author was unhinged when he made so much of an alleged editorial in the NYT which wasn't
an editorial but an opinion piece by an activist. And what about the spontaneous eruptions of
protest all round the world? Masterminded by the US "Deep State"? Absurd.
Mr. Whitney may have got to an age when he can no longer understand the young and their
latest fashionable fatuities and follies.
@obwandiyag " The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is
important is how the super-billionaires control us. "
Nonsense, I rant against the largely Jewish super-billionaires all the time.
Truth is that blacks and working class whites are in relatively similar positions compared
to the 1%. We should be seeking alliances with people like Rev. Farrakhan, but instead, for
some curious reason, big Jewish money is pouring into keeping racial grievances alive and
kicking. It looks very much like a divide and conquer strategy.
Where did the antiwar and Occupy Wall Street movements go after Obama's election? My guess
is that the financial elite saw the danger of having OWS ask questions about the bailouts, so
they devoted a ton of time and energy into pushing racial grievance politics, gender neutral
bathrooms and the like. Their co-ethnics in the media collaborated with them in making sure
only one perspective made the news.
PS: if you don't like the website, simply avoid visiting it. Trust me, no one will miss
your inane posts.
"90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire
lives."
I sure hope you're talking about IRL, because I see more than ten black people in any
commercial break on any TV show on any cable or network TV station every hour of every day.
In fact, it's at least 50/50 B/W and it feels more like 60/40 B/W. And it's always the blacks
who are in charge, the whites spill chips all over the kitchen floor
@SunBakedSuburb 15 seasons of The Apprentice on NBC is indicative of Trump's
orientation towards the globalist billionaire class. It sure was nice of NBC to thus
rehabilitate Trump's image after it became clear he was a cheat who could not even hold down
a casino. From fake wrestler to fake boardroom CEO, Trump has ALWAYS been made for TV.
As for Russiagate, it was a transparent crock of shit from the moment Clapper sent his
uncorrobated assertions under the aegis of "17 intelligence agencies". You assume the point
of the charade was to "get Trump", but really Russiagate was designed to deceive "liberals"
just as Q was designed to deceive "conservatives". It is the appearance of conflict that
serves to divide Americans into two camps who both believe the other is at fault for all of
society's ills. In fact, it is the Zionists and bankers who are to blame for society's ills,
and like the distraction of black vs. white, Democrat vs. Republican keeps everybody's
attention away from the real chauvinists and criminals.
@Sean Well, I can't deny that yours is an extremely original interpretation. It sure made
me think. I can't say I'm convinced, though it doesn't seem to have any conspicuous a priori
inconsistency with facts. I guess time will tell.
@Realist Agree. Someone posted he had a friend at Minneapolis airport. Incoming planes
were full of antifa types the day after Floyd died.
They are very well organized. They are notorious around universities. Well, not
universities in dangerous black neighborhoods. They live like students in crowded apartments
and organize all their movements. Plenty of dumb kids to recruit. Plenty of downwardly mobile
White grads who can't get jobs or into grad s hook because they're White. Those Whites go
into liberal rabble rousing instead of rabble rousing against affirmative action, so
brainwashed are they. Portland is a college town. That's why antifa is so well organized
there. Seattle's a college town too as is Chicago.
Why ANTIFA doesn't loot banks, doesn't stand in front od Soros home, JPMorgan headquarters,
big corporations, Bezos business .etc? Because rich are paying for riots ..the same way they
payed to support Hitler during WWII.
@Anon Thanks for highlighting the complex racial politics -- in this case between
Hispanics and Africans. That was something Ron Unz got right as well -- independently of the
numerology -- in the other article; basically saying that there have been a lot of various
social-engineering projects going on.
Naturally I'm liable for everything else you said ;/ no comment, no contest,
I think it will be alright if we can get back to basics, natural rights, republican
representative organization, pluralism, etc The corporate nightmare has everyone crammed into
a vat of human resources. Undo that, see how it goes, then take it from there.
@Mike Whitney The reason most of the rioters arrested were native New Yorkers is that
they were the useful idiots designated fall guys.
The organizers are adept at changing clothes hats and sunglasses. Their job is to get
things started by smashing windows of a Nike's store and running away letting a few looters
be arrested.
I remember something written by an Indian communist, not Indian nationalist How To Start a
Riot in the 1920s.
1 Start rumors about abuse of Indians by British.
2. Decide where to start the riots.
3 Best place is in the open air markets around noon. The merchants will have collected
substantial money. The local lay abouts will be up and about.
4 Instigators start fights with the merchants raid cash boxes overturn tables and the riot is
on.
The ancient Roman politicians started riots that way. It's standard procedure in every
country in every era. All this fuss and discussion by the idiot intelligentsia is ridiculous
as is everything the idiot intelligentsia thinks, writes and does.
We Americans experience a black riot every few years, just as we experience floods,
droughts, blizzards , earthquakes, forest fires, tornadoes floods and hurricanes.
As long as we have blacks and liberal alleged intellectuals we'll have riots.
"... The suspicious placement of pallets of bricks in the proximity of numerous protest sites have spurred rumors of sabotage by everything from white supremacist groups to "Antifa" to law enforcement itself. ..."
"... The Hungarian business magnate's institute, like other NGOs involved in U.S. regime change operations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), is largely a front for the CIA to shield itself while destabilizing U.S. adversaries, the spy agency's preferred modus operandi since the exposure of its illicit activities in previous decades by the Rockefeller Commission and Church Committee in the 1970s. ..."
"... Through the non-profit industrial complex, the Democratic Party has mastered bringing various social movements under its management on behalf of Wall Street in order to funnel public funds into private control through various foundations. ..."
"... time and again we have seen how bona fide social movements become political footballs or quickly go to their graves. ..."
"... A segment of the oligarchs is attempting a coup of our political system. ..."
"... Antifa is the black shirts of the movement. Once BLM has served its political purpose it will be shoved aside. We have been here before. ..."
"... It isn't the uSA army that supports the color revolutions, it is the Bank's intelligence officers, who are often Jesuit trained military and spies, to illegally and traitorously use USA resources in support of the Color Revolutions that are planned and executed FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BANK, not for any other reason. ..."
"... The CIA operates on American soil all the time. They may use other parts of the intelligence community or the military or contractors or foreign intelligence agencies as fronts but the CIA operates on American soil all the time. ..."
"... There are very few countries where people are safe from the CIA & the Washington regime and its secret police community and its reign of terror. People can own property and protect their private property, intellectual property from the evils of the CIA in places like China and Russia. ..."
"... CIA is no longer an American operation (for a long time now, if it can ever be said to be one). its purpose and goal is to support the international banking families, and it is controlled, like all western intelligence agencies, by the The Bank ..."
"... Antifa is very clearly an organization with a command structure. ..."
"... Poor Putin, how he manages everything everywhere. ..."
"... Creating your anger using their scripted anger. Watch them. Their eyes flash. Pelosi. Schumer. The Reverend Al. Mayor Jenny. Governors Cuomo, Newsom, Inslee, and Brown. ..."
"... Soros' OSF contributed $650,000 to BLM in 2014 for the Ferguson riots. ..."
"... The one thing that criminal like Soros is not interested in is "philanthropy"! What this creep is, however, interested in is consolidating of power for his bosses. Was he a front for the Cocaine Importing Agency! - No doubt! But what are the goals of those fools at the top of the Agency? Does it look like they're interested in protecting freedom of speech, expression, communication, movement or privacy in this country? Are not all media heads repeating the same phrases all day? ..."
The May 25th killing of George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, at the hands of a
white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota shocked the world and set off mass protests
against racism and police brutality in dozens of cities from the mid-western United States to
the European Union, all in the midst of a global pandemic. In the Twin Cities, what began as
spontaneous, peaceful demonstrations against the local police quickly transformed into
vandalism, arson and looting after the use of rubber bullets and chemical irritants by law
enforcement against the protesters, while the initial incitement for the riots was likely the
work of apparent
agent provocateurs among the marchers.
Within days, the unrest had spread to cities across
the country including the nation's capital, with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to
invoke the slavery-era Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military and National Guard on
American soil, federal powers not used since the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the Rodney
King case.
The debate over the catalyst for the uprising into its period of lawlessness has drawn a
range of theories. The suspicious placement of pallets of bricks in the
proximity of numerous protest sites have spurred rumors of sabotage by everything from white
supremacist groups to "Antifa" to law enforcement itself. Predictably, liberal hawks such as
Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor in the Obama administration, made ludicrous
assertions suggesting " Russian agents " were behind
the unrest, a continuation of the narrative that the Kremlin has been behind inflaming racial
tensions in the U.S. that began during the 2016 election. While Democrats like Rice and Senator
Kamala Harris of California have revived an old trope dating back to the Civil Rights movement
of Moscow exploiting racial divisions in the U.S., Trump and the GOP have similarly resurrected
the 'outside agitators' myth attributed to segregationists of the same era. Hypocritically,
many of those claiming to be in support of the protests have denounced the latter theory while
endorsing the former, when both equally show contempt for the legitimate grievances of the
demonstrators and deny their agency. However, both false notions overlook the more likely
hidden factors at play attempting to hijack the movement for its own purposes.
Believe it or not, there could be a kernel of truth in accusations coming mostly from the
political right as to the possible role of the notorious liberal billionaire investor and
"philanthropist" George Soros and his Open Society Foundation (OSF). Ironically, if any of the
right-wing figures of whom Soros is a favorite target were aware of his instrumental role in
the fall of communism staging the various CIA-backed protest movements in Eastern Europe that
toppled socialist governments, he would likely not be such a subject of their derision. The
Hungarian business magnate's institute, like other NGOs involved in U.S. regime change
operations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), is largely a front for the CIA
to shield itself while destabilizing U.S. adversaries, the spy agency's preferred modus
operandi since the exposure of its illicit activities in previous decades by the Rockefeller
Commission and Church Committee in the 1970s.
n the post-Soviet world, nations across Central
Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and beyond have become well acquainted with the political
disruptions of the international financier and his network. In particular, governments that
have leaned toward warm relations with Moscow during the incumbency of President Vladimir Putin
have found themselves the victims of his machinations.
Under Putin's predecessor Boris Yeltsin, Soros made a killing off the mass privatization of
the former state-run assets in the Eastern Bloc, as journalist Naomi Klein
explained in The Shock Doctrine :
"George Soros's philanthropic work in Eastern Europe -- including his funding of (Harvard
economist and economic advisor Jeffrey) Sachs's travels through the region -- has not been
immune to controversy. There is no doubt that Soros was committed to the cause of
democratization in the Eastern Bloc, but he also had clear economic interests in the kind of
economic reform accompanying that democratization. As the world's most powerful currency
trader, he stood to benefit greatly when countries implemented convertible currencies and
lift capital controls, and when state companies were put on the auction block, he was one of
the potential buyers."
In contrast, the Putin administration over a period of two decades has since restored the
Russian economy through the re-nationalization of its oil and gas industry. Its two energy
giants, Gazprom and Rosneft, are state-controlled companies serving as the basis of the state
machinery's reassertion of control over the Russian financial system, a move that has gotten
Mr. Putin branded a "dictator" by the West. As a result, most of the notorious Russian
oligarchs enriched overnight during the extreme free market policies of the 1990s have since
left the country, now that such rapid accumulation of wealth to the rest of the nation's
detriment is no longer permitted. While economic inequality in Russia may persist, it is
nowhere near that of the Yeltsin era where the average life expectancy was reduced by a full
decade.
In the last decade, the United States has gotten its own taste of the incitement and
agitations that have previously fallen upon governments across the global south. Instead,
domestically the CIA cutouts in the non-profit industrial complex have played a pivotal
counterrevolutionary role in co-opting and ultimately derailing such uprisings meant to bring
systemic change to the U.S. political system. In late 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement
emerged at Zuccotti Park in New York City's financial district against the deepening global
economic inequality following the Great Recession and the protests quickly spread to other
cities and continents. In just a few months, the sit-in was expelled from Lower Manhattan and
the anti-capitalist movement itself largely was diverted towards reformism and away from its
original radical intentions. It was also
revealed the origins of OWS and its marketing campaign were traced to Adbusters, a media
foundation that was the recipient of grants from the Democratic Party-connected Tides
Foundation, a progressive policy center which receives significant endowments from none other
than George Soros and the OSF.
Emerging just two years later, the roots of Black Lives Matter were not just in community
organizing but partially took inspiration from the Occupy movement. Unfortunately, the
similarities between them were not limited to a shared lack of clarity in their demands but
facing the same dilemma of being absorbed into the system. While OWS was quickly suppressed
after hopeful beginnings, the BLM leadership became career-oriented apparatchiks of the
Democratic Party and left grass-roots organizing behind. Through the non-profit industrial
complex, the Democratic Party has mastered bringing various social movements under its
management on behalf of Wall Street in order to funnel public funds into private control
through various foundations.
Along with the Ford Foundation which has given BLM enormous $100
million grants, Soros and the OSF have been one of the principal offenders. Still, many who
correctly identify right-wing protests such as the Tea Party movement and the recent
'anti-lockdown' demonstrations as the work of astro-turfing by the Koch Brothers and Heritage
Foundation seldom apply the same scrutiny to seemingly authentic progressive movements
assimilated by corporate America.
One figure who mysteriously appeared on the scene in the early days of OWS connected to
Soros was the Serbian political activist Srđa Popović, the founder of Otpor!
("resistance" in Serbian) and the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS)
political organizations which led the protests in 2000 which ousted the democratically-elected
President of Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, known as the "Bulldozer Revolution." Not
long after Popović's consulting of activists in Zuccotti Park, Wikileaks documents
revealed the Belgrade-born organizer's
significant ties to U.S. intelligence through the global intelligence platform Stratfor
(known as the "shadow CIA"), exposing the real motives behind his involvement in U.S. politics
of outwardly supporting OWS while trying to sabotage the popular movement.
Since their role as
instruments of U.S. regime change in Serbia, Otpor! and CANVAS have received financial support
from CIA intermediaries such as the NED, OSF, Freedom House and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), as well as the Boston-based Albert Einstein Institute
founded by the American political scientist, Gene Sharp.
Srđa Popović
Despite ostensibly professing to use the same civil disobedience methods of Mahatma Gandhi
and Martin Luther King, Jr., Gene Sharp's manual for "non-violent resistance" entitled From
Dictatorship to Democracy has been the blueprint used by political organizations around the
world that have only served the interests of Western imperialism. Beginning with the Bulldozer
Revolution in Serbia, the successful formula which ousted Milošević spread to other
Central Asian and Eastern European nations overthrowing governments which resisted NATO
expansion and the European Union's draconian austerity in favor of economic ties with Moscow.
These were widely referred to in the media as 'Color Revolutions' and included the 2003 Rose
Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine and its 2014 Maidan coup
d'état follow-up, as well as the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, among others.
Subsequently, Srđa Popović and CANVAS also lent their expertise in Egypt during
the predecessor to its Arab Spring in the April 6 Youth Movement which appropriated Otpor!'s
raised fist logo as its emblem. In preparation for the organization of anti-government
demonstrations, the activists poured over Gene Sharp's work in coordination with Otpor! whose
fingerprints can be found all over the Arab Spring uprisings which began as protests to remove
unpopular leaders in Egypt and Tunisia but were carefully reeled in to preserve the despotic
Western-friendly systems that had put them to power initially. Where Sharp's "non-violent"
template failed, countries with U.S. adversaries in power such as Libya and Syria saw their
protests rapidly morph into a resurgence of Al-Qaeda and a terrorist proxy war with
catastrophic consequences. This recipe has also been exported to Latin America in attempts to
remove the Bolivarian government in Venezuela, with self-declared 'interim president' and
opposition leader Juan Guaido having received training from CANVAS.
While the right seems to have a bizarre misconception that the parasitic hedge fund tycoon
is somehow a communist, there is an equal misunderstanding on the pseudo-left where it has
become a recurring joke and subject of mockery to naively deny Soros's undeniable influence on
world affairs and domestic protest movements. Less certain, however, are the
claims from conservatives that Soros is a supporter of "Antifa" which Trump wants to
designate as a domestic terrorist organization, a dangerous premise given the movement consists
of a very loose-knit and decentralized network of activists and hardly comprises a real
organization.
Various autonomous chapters and groups across the U.S. may self-identify as such,
but there is no single official party or formal organization with any leadership hierarchy.
While the original Antifa movement in the 1930s Weimar Republic was part of the Communist Party
of Germany (KPD), the current manifestation in the U.S. has a synonymous association with black
bloc anarchism (even inverting the colors of the original red and black flag), though it is
really made up of a variety of amateurish political tendencies.
Amidst the ongoing nationwide George Floyd protests, the demonstrations in Seattle,
Washington culminated in the establishment of a self-declared "autonomous zone" by activists in
the Northwestern city's Capitol Hill neighborhood -- known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
(CHAZ). In response, Trump doubled down on his threats to quash protests with the use of the
military while blaming "anarchists" in "Antifa" for the unrecognized commune occupying six city
blocks around an abandoned police precinct. Anyone who has paid close attention to the war in
Syria for the last nine years will find this highly ironic, given the U.S. military support for
another infamous "autonomous zone" of Kurdish nationalists in Northern Syria's Rojava
federation. The Kurdish sub-region and de facto self-governing territory purports to be a
"libertarian socialist direct democracy" style of government and has been the subject of
romanticized praise by the Western pseudo-left despite the fact that the autonomous
administration's paramilitary wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG), were until recently a
cat's paw for American imperialism as part of the
U.S.-founded coalition , the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Not coincidentally, many of those who use the Antifa vexillum are enthusiastic supporters of
and even volunteer mercenaries fighting with the YPG/SDF in an 'International Freedom
Battalion' which claims to be the inheritors of the legacy of the International Brigades which
volunteered to defend the Spanish Republic from fascism in the Spanish Civil War.
Unfortunately, these cosplayers forgot that the original International Brigades were set up by
the Communist International, not the Pentagon. Meanwhile, despite their purported
"anti-fascism", there are no such conscripts to be found defending the Donetsk or Luhansk
People's Republics of eastern Ukraine against literal Nazis in the War in Donbass where the
real front line against fascism has been. Instead, they fight alongside a Zionist and imperial
proxy to help establish an ethno-nation state while the U.S. loots Syria's oil.
Prior to Trump's decision last October to withdraw troops from northeastern Syria which
preceded a Turkish invasion, Ankara and the U.S. repeatedly butted heads over Washington's
decision to incorporate the Kurds into the SDF, since the YPG is widely acknowledged an
off-shoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the militant and cult-like political group
regarded as a terrorist organization that has been at war with Turkey for over forty years. It
is also no secret that jailed PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan's theories of "democratic
confederalism" are heavily influenced by the pro-Zionist
Jewish-American anarchist theorist, Murray Bookchin. So when Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan
told Trump that there were links between the U.S. protests and the PKK, there was a tiny
but core accuracy in his exaggerated claim. As Malcolm X said, "chickens coming home to roost
never did make me sad."
The George Floyd protests, like previous uprisings in Ferguson and Baltimore, certainly
began spontaneously, nor does any of this discount the legitimate issue of ending the
militarization of U.S. law enforcement which disproportionately victimizes black Americans.
Nevertheless, time and again we have seen how bona fide social movements become political
footballs or quickly go to their graves.
Like BLM, it is practically inevitable the protests
will become a partisan tool for the Democratic Party in the coming 2020 election when it has no
concrete political articulations of its own, even if it does bring substantive change to
domestic policing. In January, Trump was impeached for temporarily withholding security aid to
the Ukraine and Democrats advocated his removal because he is regarded as insufficiently
hawkish toward Moscow. Since 2016, they have actively diverted all opposition to Trump into
their own reactionary anti-Russia campaign and soft-coup attempt in the interests of the
military- intelligence community, a shared agenda with Soros. When all of corporate America,
the media, and even the NED have publicly declared
their support for a movement, it is no longer just about its original cause of getting justice
for Mr. Floyd, whose funeral became a virtual campaign rally for Trump's opponent, Joe Biden.
It is too early to say determinedly whether what is taking place in the U.S. is indeed a 'Color
Revolution', but by the time we realize it may too late.
freedommusic, 1
hour ago
These protesters led and funded by the shadow president better start to withdraw and stand
down because
the wrath of an average working man will be too overwhelming for them to endure. They
have no idea who they are provoking. You poke the bear you are going to get hurt.
Cloud9.5 , 1 hour ago
We need to rethink our political structure. The single power the federal government has
over the states is the power of the purse. That power is in the process of collapsing. After
the lock down, every local and state government is not going to be able to meet its budget
requirements. The tax base has been slaughtered. The only option is a dubious loan or gift
from a bankrupt federal government. With the dollar collapse, the federal government becomes
irrelevant. Without federal hand outs the center will not hold in the mega cities. When they
collapse, the strangle hold they have on their respective states will be lost.
We are devolving into a less complex structure. Like it or not.
robobbob , 1 hour ago
"what is taking place in the U.S. is indeed a 'Color Revolution" why wait to get on the band wagon?
The Floyd protests are not spontaneous or organic. They are planned events waiting for the
right spark to initiate. For the rank and file protesters this may be unplanned and
spontaneous, but the networks supporting them have been in place for some time
BLM and Antifa have been organizing and conducting limited scale real life exercises
nonstop for 3 years. Calling BLM and Antifa "hardly a real organization" is to deny the
nature of modern insurgencies and terrorism in an age of the internet. Even trying to label
them with names is too restricting of their nature as more of umbrella organizations that
inspire lessor known groups or individuals to take action under those labels. Loose,
decentralized actors working with limited or no central control, united by ideology. Leaders,
in so much as they exist, provide more inspiration than actual orders of operation. Its
exceedingly mercurial lines of communications and logistics, are designed with care to
separate the actors in the street from the apparently vast amount of support coming from
corporate interests and even complicit elements in government who are obviously supporting
it. To name soros's involvement is to draw attention away from the enormous numbers of
unnamed facilitators behind these events.
Make no mistake, What is currently happening is the preliminary stages of an insurrection.
It may be feeding off of many legitimate concerns, but it is only exploiting them as a means
to achieve its over arching goals.
To wait and see is to court disaster. This is a color revolution that is yet to reveal its
flag.
Cloud9.5 , 2 hours ago
WE have a shattered economy. The collapse is on going. A segment of the oligarchs is
attempting a coup of our political system. They are jumping on board the BLM movement and
attempting to ride this chaos to establish a fascist dictatorship just like they did in the
1930's. Antifa is the black shirts of the movement. Once BLM has served its political purpose
it will be shoved aside. We have been here before.
In 1863, storming Fort Wagner in South Carolina, Colonel Shaw led his regiment, which
suffered heavy losses while he died from several wounds defending the nation and racial
justice. Saint-Gaudens sculpted a bronze relief of Shaw and his troops, which was
dedicated across from the Massachusetts State House 123 years ago on May 31. Just weeks
ago, three million dollars were designated to restore it, but ironically on May 31, a mob
claiming to be defenders of human dignity, defaced with obscenities this tribute to
valiant African-Americans.
During the Civil War he was eventually promoted to Colonel and, following the Emancipation
Proclamation, he led New England's first all-black military unit, the 54th Regiment. Shaw
insisted on equal pay and opposed any form of discrimination. Two of his soldiers were sons
of Frederick Douglas.
Fatherless children of whores will not know history and will use any excuse to lash out at
things and people perceived better themselves.
northwdsnh , 2 hours ago
Just watched the video of Atlanta shooting over at twitter. Hardly an innocent unarmed
black man being gunned down by whitey. They attempted to place the man under arrest. He
resisted, fought, and grabbed the one cop's taser, and then ran off. One officer gave chase.
The suspect while running, turns and POINTS the taser at the cop. It is then that the officer
fires his sidearm.
The video shows the Officer fired AFTER the suspect turned and pointed the taser at him. He was confronted with a weapon being pointed at him, from man that had already
resisted & taken a taser. What if he tasered the cop, and then took his gun?
The cop had
only a second to react. This was not an unarmed innocent suspect. I have been following (@
"The Free Thought Project") and speaking out against the violence by police against unarmed
citizens (black & white) for several years now. Have watched video after video of unarmed
people being violently killed by police. That is why I can say, in my opinion, that this
latest incident is clearly not an innocent man being unjustly gunned down. He chose to fight
with the police, take one of their weapons, then turn and point it as if he was going to use
it.
Question_Mark , 3 hours ago
********.
there is no question: the global riots about "George Floyd" are certainly, specifically,
and definitely produced by the exact same team of people who produced the color revolotions
in numerous countried around the world with the same method of operation (modus operandi) in
strategy and tactics. USA is being treated by The Bank just the same as they treat any tinpot
dictatorship that doesnt do what The Bank wants.
The Bank (Bank for International Settlements) sits quietly in Bern Switzerland while its
victims around the world die painfully.
**** the Bank. This is war: USA versus UN.
Americans be vigilant, because the enemey has not left the field; they will be back with more
lockdowns, riots, and financial ruin.
RictaviousPorkchop , 1 hour ago
Don't you remember....
The State Department sponsored a symposium to assist the Color Revolution and like
Facebook, MTV, Twitter and ad agencies taught the future activists how to use social media to
make change.
That's your team.
zob2020 , 4 hours ago
Demented. A color revolution by definition needs us military and diplomatic threats to
make them happen. Us army will threaten to invade itself unless even more corript bankers are
allowed to take over and make the us a slave to us bankers?????
Question_Mark , 3 hours ago
It isn't the uSA army that supports the color revolutions, it is the Bank's intelligence
officers, who are often Jesuit trained military and spies, to illegally and traitorously use
USA resources in support of the Color Revolutions that are planned and executed FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE BANK, not for any other reason.
What a boring, useless article. He fails to acknowledge that yes, this is a planned and
orchestrated event, and he offers no solutions. He also fails to identify the (((usual
suspects))) behind it.
This sentence told me that he is either clueless or disinformation:
"As a result, most of the notorious Russian oligarchs enriched overnight during the
extreme free market policies of the 1990s have since left the country, now that such rapid
accumulation of wealth to the rest of the nation's detriment is no longer permitted."
By "Russian oligarchs," does he mean rich ****? Because that's what they were. And
"extreme free market policies"? Is that what he thinks is the best description of a process
where sweetheart deals are cut to former jewish insiders in a rigged process that benefits no
one but those same *ahem* "Russian oligarchs"?
This article is a waste of time.
Lee Bertin , 5 hours ago
Everybody can see this is an well organized operation, the finger prints of the deep state,
the DNC and MSM is all over it. They try to push Trump to use force so they can claim he is
literally Hitler and if he dont use force he is ignoring minorities. Its a way of deprave him of
minorities votes. Its all politics. He is damned if he do and damned if he don't.
bbmm11 , 5 hours ago
yeah and it goes deeper than that.... antifa is manufactured opposition.... eventually it
will devolve into a mini civil war and Trump \ right will look like the bad guys \
agressors.... and ppl will beg for stability \ replacement..... thereby ushering in a real
hitlerean regime.....
standard fascist protocol to use the communists for instability..... whilst installing a
real fascist govt.
Lee Bertin , 4 hours ago
Exactly, the police standing down is a dead give away.
Someone Else , 5 hours ago
There is no question that this is a color revolution bought and paid for by George Soros.
Why are we even wasting time debating it?
Soros hates Trump as much as anyone and his people are well skilled and practiced bringing
down governments USUALLY in conjunction with the US government but now bringing down the
actual US government in conjunction with the Deep State.
They have tried everything else to get rid of Trump. This was a last resort (there are a
few other last resorts but this is certainly one of them).
If we don't realize this by now we are slipping.
bbmm11 , 5 hours ago
Trump is the patsy... a put up job.... he is there precisely and deliberately to act as
the bag holder for US regime change.....
And its not gonna be the socialism you think his opposition wants..... its gonna be full
blown global corporate fascism.
Its a double bait and switch.... Soros may actually be relatively genuine with his open
society.... but that is easy used and abused to fund over zealous opposition that leads into
the exact end game it puports to object to.
Someone Else, 4 hours ago
Trump is a fly in the ointment. He wasn't supposed to get elected but he did. Elections
are still legitimate as far as the actual counting of the votes - much to the chagrin of
those really in charge and much to the surprise of the rest of us who thought we were already
corrupt beyond that.
And of course we are getting corporate fascism, the socialist movement is only being used
to overthrow the US government. When the oligarchs have achieved their goal they will shut
down the socialists they have supported. Does this even need to be explained?
Max21c , 5 hours ago
It's a color revolution sponsored by the CIA, which btw must not carry on operations on
the territory itself. So what is Trump waiting for to disband this crime syndicate? Is he
afraid of something?
The CIA operates on American soil all the time. They may use other parts of the
intelligence community or the military or contractors or foreign intelligence agencies as
fronts but the CIA operates on American soil all the time.
They are heavily mixed up in
political persecution campaigns against innocent American civilians. They are heavily mixed
up in "marginalization & neutralization" campaigns against innocent American civilians.
They are behind the buggings, burglaries and breakins.
They are behind the theft of private
property and theft of intellectual property. They are the people behind the industrial
espionage and economic warfare carried out against their 'domestic" enemies and targeted at
the people they rob and persecute. They are a secret police agency not an intelligence
agency. They are just an organized criminal enterprise.
The "C" in CIA actually has a double
meaning and stands for Crooks & Criminals. The CIA is just a pack of gangsters as our
their counterparts in the secret police communities of their allied intelligence
agencies.
Max21c , 5 hours ago
go back to small town america... no cia there.
The only place the secret police community cannot openly operate is on the other side of
the border in places like China and Russia...since they have free range to operate inside and
outside of America where they can control the laws and exempt themselves and their activities
from the rule of law.
There are very few countries where people are safe from the CIA &
the Washington regime and its secret police community and its reign of terror. People can own
property and protect their private property, intellectual property from the evils of the CIA
in places like China and Russia.
If your on the wrong side of the border then the CIA and
secret police community do as they please and can steal anything they want and persecute and
terrorize anyone they want. There are no laws to protect people from the secret police or the
CIA. On one side of the border your'e living in Nazi Germany or Bolshevist Russia or under
the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge or Viet Cong since the CIA and secret police are above
the law and there is no rule of law and they can steal, rob, and persecute as they see fit.
They do as they please and courts, laws etc cannot rein them in or make them abide by the law
or make them behave. No one has any control over the animals in the US intelligence community
or secret police community or the gangsters in the military and Pentagon Gestapo or the
gangsters in and around the defense community.
Someone Else , 5 hours ago
Um... the US CIA has a budget bigger than the whole of Russian military spending. The CIA
by itself spends more than Russia spends on its army, navy and air force.
If you think that the US CIA doesn't operate on US soil because its "against the rules"
you obviously do not understand that the entire mission of the clandestine and covert and
unaccountable CIA is to BREAK the rules. Get a clue fella.
The FBI does official dirty tricks by means of law enforcement. The CIA works entirely
outside of law enforcement. That is the difference.
Does Trump[ have reason to fear the CIA. You bet your *** that he and any reasonable
person at ANY level has reason to fear the CIA.
Question_Mark , 3 hours ago
CIA is no longer an American operation (for a long time now, if it can ever be said to be
one). its purpose and goal is to support the international banking families, and it is
controlled, like all western intelligence agencies, by the The Bank (BIS). it makes more
sense to refer to the CIA as Five Eyes, because it is no longer American, it is truly a
trans-national criminal cartel sucking the lifeblood out of the citizens of the USA because
that is what The Bank demands be done for their strategic plan (depopulation of humans).
if Five Eyes were truly set up and run for the benefit of all humankind, it might be an
awesome operation, but this is like having a wolf guard your chickens.
Tiwin , 2 hours ago
Yes. Mossad Island tapes.
Sudden Debt , 6 hours ago
There's no revolution. There's just thieves, robbers, looters and rapists. If the police really wanted to, they'd shut that **** down in a day.
What have we seen so far? The police standing down and backing up.... I've seen video's where those kids get arrested and suddenly they go into chock because
that wasn't supposed to happen... :)
And if they see 1 guy, and they're with 50 people surrounding them, they find it all okay
to kill him because that's when they feel strong.
When you would put a small aggressive force against them... they would all be beaten into
a pulp and they'd all start running.
For me, all I see is staged protests and the powers that be that stand down to let it all
happen and escalate.
Image these idiots would be in the middle east or even in France and they try their
******** there... they'd piss their pants!
Over here in Belgium, we had 3 large protests.
The police ended them in 1 hour. 1800 arrests and poof... finished.
No more black idiots thinking they could burn rob and loot.
vic and blood , 6 hours ago
The Democrat politicians are trapped. They have been saddled with a bill of goods that is
more of a pig in a poke. Their majorities are thin enough that they fear alienating their black, anarchist,
homosexual, communist, and sob-sister mudshark constituencies.
They went in for a penny, but are now in for a pound.
The Black Bishop , 6 hours ago
So it turns out the cops involved in the George Floyd incident were following police
procedure for "excited delirium". Stephen Molynaux does some pretty good unbiased objective
reporting of actual facts. Nice for a change;
BLB, Antifa, CAIR, LaRaza, ad infinitum. These are are foot soldiers for the radical left.
They use them like toilet paper to wipe their stinking azz. And if required, throw them in
the gutter as deposable depends for the greater good.
The true enemies are Chicoms funding drug cartels and globalists, who fund corrupt
politicians, who fund the usual basket cases of endless anti American ******** losers unable
to wipe their own azz without some LGBTiQWXYZ Global Homo lurking in the shadows.
Desent into hell is what's taking place.
Element , 7 hours ago
And in a calculated display of supreme 'double-think' and 'new-speak', a group of actual
violent fascist good-for-nothing vermin foisted the pretense to be anti-fascists and 'peace
activists' -- whilst doing exactly the opposite of what they claimed to be doing in the same
breath.
You can't appease and make peace compacts with ANTIFA, they do not respect their own
brain's processing output so how are they ever going to live up to any agreement which they
duplicitously make, as ruse to further play 'victim' as they attack and create a shower of
subsequent actual victims of ANTIFA fascist violence? Yeah, keep doing that, that'll work for
sure.
PS: And let all the hard-core out of prisons after you disband the police, and see how long
it takes until they're in the Governor's and Mayor's bedrooms at 2 AM with keen blade in hand
and a thirst for blood and plunder plus a hostage to cut bits off by the day and courier to
their "loved ones". Who knows they might even cough up a few benjamins to spare your
digits.
66Mustanggirl , 7 hours ago
Since the author brought up the Spanish Civil War, one should look up Juan Pujol Garcia,
the most prolific double agent of all time and an invaluable asset for the Allies in crushing
the Fascist Nazi's in WWII.
How clueless were the Nazi's as to Garcia's true agenda?? They actually awarded him their highest honor, the Iron Cross, AFTER the war.
It would be fascinating to know who have been placed as the "Garbos" in this epic
showdown. We will probably never know. Neither will the Elites.
"It's a great huge game of chess that's being played--all over the world--if this is the
world at all, you know. Oh, what fun it is!"
Nancy Pelosi once called the violent protests in Hong Kong "a beautiful sight to behold."
If this turns out to be the color revolution in America, then this would truly become a
beautiful sight to behold for the rest of the world.
Moral of the story, what goes around comes around. What a high profile politicians says
will eventually have repercussions not just for her but for the entire country. When you
invade others, it is bound to come right back like 9/11.
66Mustanggirl , 8 hours ago
God bless the insane Antifa/BLM Democratic Party who now OWN the lunacy of CHAZ.
Definition of fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing
opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an
aggressive nationalism and often racism.
As the American people watch in horror as all of this unfolds over the summer, that's all
Trump has to do is pose these questions:
*Who has taken rigid definitions of "acceptable" thought and formed them into a political
ideology?
*Who is using this ideology to shut down free speech?
*Who is using this ideology to attack religious liberty?
*Who cannot tolerate criticism of their Party/Presidential candidate and demands those
voices be silenced?
*Who wants the government to run the economy?
*Who is stoking racism and using it to gain political power?
*Who controls information and uses it as a powerful propaganda tool to force YOUR
obedience to their will?
Answer those questions, America, and you have just identified the TRUE Fascists.
Now do you want THEM running YOUR life and YOUR country??
"A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious a negative religion is being made
into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom -- for
the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation."
~Pope Benedict XVI Light of the World, A Conversation with Peter Seewald, p. 52
Sometimes TELLING the people the truth isn't enough. They must LIVE it to wake up.
TRUMP2020LANDSLIDE
LOL123 , 8 hours ago
are the claims from conservatives that Soros is a supporter of "Antifa" which Trump wants
to designate as a domestic terrorist organization, a dangerous premise given the movement
consists of a very loose-knit and decentralized network of activists and hardly comprises a
real organization.
**** calling bs on this.
The article states that ( in his opinion ...because that's all the article is) the
protests started out peacefully and then transformed into violance.
Antifa is violent and it's been recorded from their own mouths that they intend to inflict
harm...unless gouging out people's eyes is the norm to the writer. Veritas has proof of such
actions and words...not a conspiracy theory.
So when President Trump says they are a terrorist organization they are. The bricks were
organized to be delivered in various riots before they came ...that's premeditated assault
weapons.
This article is full of hot air trying to be " unbiased" and glossing over facts that
would lend to the facts that the riots are organized by outside influences which range from
local officials to Soros open society to Democrat party officals with corporate money
backing.
It's pretty disgusting to say the least.
Our constitution is at risk by these saboteurs and need to be held accountable.
css1971 , 7 hours ago
Antifa is very clearly an organization with a command structure.
Decoherence , 8 hours ago
So you can buy an African slave for $400 today, not 150 years ago. Today! So if black
lives mattered, why aren't they buying all of them and setting them free? BLM my ***. What a
load of ****. How can people be so stupid? The best part is, Obama's failed policies in Libya
is what started the modern day auction of Africans.
The police do not "discretionally victimize racial minorities. " Jesse James said he
robbed banks 'because that's where all the money is. ' Police are forced to spend a large
amount of time in minority neighborhoods because that's where a disproportionately large
percentage of crime occurs.
Idleproc , 8 hours ago
You are witnessing the failure of the neo-feudal financial global reform live. Coups
d'état, state demolition, social disintegration with "open society", bomb-induced mass
migration, terrorism, terrorist management of the global pandemic, ideological coverings of
criminal social divisive activities with BLM and more, mock liberation of women and any other
artificially divisive social group are failing miserably to put standing a real parasitic and
slave system.
PKKA , 8 hours ago
Is Putin again to blame for everything? Poor Putin, how he manages everything everywhere.
But it was not Putin who called for the abolition of the police in the United States. This
was called for from the pages of the NYT by George Soros's henchman, Mariame Cape.
It will be very interesting for me to look at America without the police. The Wild West
and the old law will return again, who has a longer gun barrel will be right. Without the
police, as in the good old days, whites will catch blacks and lynch them. And Black will
catch White and lynch them. It will be a lot of fun for everyone, without the police.
You do not need to look for distant enemies in foreign countries, when the enemies are
close, in your house.
Michael Norton , 8 hours ago
Liberal democrat party supporters going on a rampage looting, rioting, arson, and murder
victimizing the general public for something they didn't do are destroying what little suppor
the democrat party had.
wolf pup , 8 hours ago
Creating your anger using their scripted anger.
Watch them. Their eyes flash. Pelosi. Schumer. The Reverend Al. Mayor Jenny. Governors Cuomo,
Newsom, Inslee, and Brown. They begin by spitting out their words, and end on a crescendo of
Anger, Incorporated.
And it elicits an emotional response. Your own anger, suddenly upwelling. You agree!
DAMMITALL! You agree! It's awful! And something must be done!...
And your addiction to your own physiological anger responses has begun, as anger will soon
become your only Go To source for all immediate and tactically triggered reaction. Hopped up
on All The Anger being shoved in your face 24/7; how dare you not be outraged/enraged?, the
guy here killed by cops, the woman there killed by The Others, whom you've been instructed to
Hate In Group Form, as they are your (new) Enemy. A hated enemy: your fellow Americans.
Tearing a nation to chaotic cinders is accomplished via addictive and predictive
behaviors. The addiction to our "devices", the big one. The addiction, emotionally, to anger,
the other big one, heh.
Anger is sold out to the cheap seats. Every advertisement. Everywhere you look, you'd better
be outraged.
Who here knows anything about Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, and.. Bill Gates/Microsoft?
Who ponders the fact that both the China Flu and first "autonomous zone" inside/outside the
USA has been inserted into the mix in.. Washington state? You know Mitt owns US Elections
vote tallying machines, no doubt. Well, he did, but now it's just his kids and wife, a la
Biden & Son, Inc. This video (iirc like 10 minutes?) is interesting re the so-called
autonomous zone in Seattle, utterly .Gov owned and operated opposition.
They can't even grow carrots, the street people there.
Who's really running it? Who was behind it? Mayor Jen, Inslee, the Popo Chief, and Sawant all
have their parts to play.
But key is that the City/State gave it to those nitwits. No one took anything. They were
handed it by.. the .gov they say they hate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOWTZK7Ylds
Youth = naivety. It's a thing. Especially if you've been dumbed in college instead of
educated. The youth see the corruptions of this era weighing on them, and their righteous
anger is brought forth, enhanced, blown up and weaponized, as they are warped into thinking
there's an Other Group to hate. Certainly no ruse is being performed as they sit and Get
Angry at each day's classes. ...
Control.
Totalitarianism = One Way.
Authoritarianism = OUR Way. And youth is always focused upon, when evil is afoot. And there's
plenty to go around.
And the useful fools are jerked around, then when fully discombobulated, they're ordered
to Stampede.. and when short term goals of the Plantation overseers are accomplished, it's
back to the holding/feeding pens for the hungry and exhausted and once more confused herds..
with an extra scoop of grain tonight.
I'd sigh about right here, but as history repeats itself this time, it appears that, with
the all-powerful technocrats in such powerful seats now, a very dicey fate may just be set
this time. At least for awhile.
Tech imo is how it's made so brutally real to everyone. The System. Of Things. Which will be
kept on life support via a swirling miasma of dirty money and via its usefulness, at creating
and running false narratives, at stripping wealth from the lower classes,at system wide
"shortages" and "flow problems" for necessities such as proteins, other necessary foods and
goods, "Panic!"/Don't Panic", and the System above all else; the beast that will be.. has
been and is fed via our humanly addictions. Humans want to connect. It's at our core, sex,
love, conviviality, all interactions we are predisposed to crave. Each other's presences.
Community. Now locked away from one another, ordered to wear masks for **** sakes, and yet we
still crave that connectedness and can get it only via the controlled venue now; the System.
The watching, learning, always 10 steps ahead System.
I'd sigh, but I'm rather too.. angry.
added: yes. A most annoying tone of voice.. but maybe informative, filling in a few gaps,
so.. forbearance. I've no connection to nor have I even heard of whomever she, speaking, is,
but the poster there is someone I've checked up on frequently regarding geo engineering. His
older stuff has some excellent footage.
wolf pup , 8 hours ago
The Dem controls in WA where I live have been up close and personal with the monetary
powers of Gates, Bezos, and many other well connected players, for many decades now. They're
more $$$$$-enabled than you imagine, and are not exactly stupid, albeit if you call corrupted
corruptors with souls long dead stupid, then ok. They're stupid. And the GOP of Washington
state sit in silence, save for a couple of hoarse, exhausted voices in the hinterlands. As
culpable as the rest of the ruinous yo free people everywhere political class of Washington
state are, all of them.
Washington and Oregon are very White states. And tech savvy, as it's everywhere here.
Microsoft, Intel, Google, Bezos has as do others some very Blue Horizons Show situated in
Washington. Imagine a CERN if your own on small scale. The residents here are a kid of city
corporate/tech workers, and those who service them, and rurally, ag rules, of course.
Using White Guilt on people who drive pricey cars and have lots of money to flit about the
planet with is the way it's been turned do feces stained here today. "Look at your privilege!
Look at mine!", etc. All but few top slots are white and now topping yo mostly female, a bad
sign from what I've seen in Europe.. and I'm a damn woman, so it's unpleasant to have to type
that. EmoLand, baby. It's what's for breakfast up here. You've never imagined an amount of
soccer mom OK Karen's as you'll find here.
The political scene here may appear clueless, and sure, they don't have any real concept of
average Americans at all, preferring it that way. But they're in total power, they've got
massive, massive money powers and international connections. And a greatky dumbed voting base
to suck from. I don't know how stupid that makes them. Vile. Cretinous. Craven. Yup.
Clueless? No. EvilGoogle's big daddy Alphabet, Inc., sleeps here. The ObamaLand Mafia rests
here. The Clinton Slushfundation is deeply connected here. And Mr. Gates.
Authorizing a strategic weapon plan for my own locale isn't especially unwarranted, lol.
Roger Casement , 8 hours ago
Not youth, 10 years of brainwashing for this Post-Hussein Global Gangster challenge.
(((They))) have to use it now because the brainwashing wears off after exposure to reality or
5 years, whichever comes first. This is why Hussein wanted to extend edumacation, to keeps
the popsicles from melting. It's wearing off fast right now. Up in smoke soon enough. Expose
more of these murderous Traitor governors and mayors, keep arresting the criminals and this
will fizzle. Would help to round up the foreign and domestic enemy M$M Mockingbird spy ring
and the government infiltrators who are taking orders from Hussein.
Plenty of cause to shut down all the "refugee" invasion programs.
of course its a CIA run, democrat backed, soros sponsored color revolution. BLM? ******* front for a communist ideology.
WorkingClassMan , 8 hours ago
And Joo Soros, being an internationalist and antiwhite both, is perfectly happy with
funding these scum as well as antifa.
botoxpelosi , 9 hours ago
Still, many who correctly identify right-wing protests such as the Tea Party movement and
the recent 'anti-lockdown' demonstrations as the work of astro-turfing by the Koch Brothers
and Heritage Foundation seldom apply the same scrutiny to seemingly authentic progressive
movements assimilated by corporate America.
He was also behind the Baltimore riots and the migrant caravans.
But, it may be too early to tell.
USofAzzDownWeGo , 9 hours ago
It's a ZIONIST revolution and white people are so brainwashed by them they can't figure it
out. Even when they're told from people like us, they still don't believe it lol. I just
laugh anymore.
Horace Walpole , 9 hours ago
It's not a Zionist revolution; it's a Deep State disturbance.
WorkingClassMan , 8 hours ago
Have to disagree for once. The Zionists are perfectly happy with Trump and joo Kushner in
the Oral Office. They do NOT want greater instability in their cash cow now. This is joo
Soros, it's his MO and fits his ideology of world communism to a T.
rtb61 , 9 hours ago
The problems will start to ease, when the shutdown is ended and a lot of them are busy
back at work.
I mean seriously, those people overseas who never had African slaves (who were sold by
other Africans to Americans) are now protesting black lives matter, just bored angry people
jumping on the bandwagon, pissed off and looking to express it publicly.
end the ******* ****down already before your society explodes
SabOObas , 9 hours ago
" The truth. That nothing, no matter how horrible, ever really happens without the
approval of the government. Over there, and here. The problem isn't the doing. It's the
people in power having to admit that they knew. The prisoners are tortured at Abu Ghraib, and only the underlings go to jail.
Their bosses knew. We know their bosses knew. But you don't say it."
Shooter (2007) Michael Sandor
Voice-of-Reason , 9 hours ago
Can we actively spread Covid19 to black lives matter? This might solve problems on both
fronts.
khnum , 9 hours ago
Declaring an independent zone demonstrates these people think they can play with the big
boys...I say let them
VWAndy , 8 hours ago
You might be surprised at what can be pulled off with cubic dollars and nothing else. Its
as autonomous as a leach.
G. Wally , 9 hours ago
Curious:
" Anyone who has paid close attention to the war in Syria for the last nine years will
find this highly ironic, given the U.S. military support for another infamous "autonomous
zone" of Kurdish nationalists in Northern Syria's Rojava federation. The Kurdish sub-region
and de facto self-governing territory purports to be a "libertarian socialist direct
democracy" style of government and has been the subject of romanticized praise by the Western
pseudo-left despite the fact that the autonomous administration's paramilitary wing, the
People's Protection Units (YPG), were until recently a cat's paw for American imperialism as
part of the
U.S.-founded coalition , the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)...Ankara and the U.S.
repeatedly butted heads over Washington's decision to incorporate the Kurds into the SDF,
since the YPG is widely acknowledged an off-shoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the
militant and cult-like political group regarded as a terrorist organization that has been at
war with Turkey for over forty years. It is also no secret that jailed PKK founder Abdullah
Öcalan's theories of "democratic confederalism" are heavily influenced by the pro-Zionist
Jewish-American anarchist theorist, Murray Bookchin."
Well, there may be a very good reason Zionists and Kurds align: according to the Hindu
tales, there was once an "Emperor" that had two lines of family: The "Puru" and the "Kuru"
and his name was Yudishthira...the Blind Emperor. The Kuru are the Kurds. The Puru? I would
suspect they are the "Jewish" Persians. The "Puru" kingdom (historical reality) had a king in
the 1400s BC named "Yayati" followed by a king named Ayati." In Egypt, in 1400 BC, was a
"Vizier" named Yuya, and his son Aye.
Yuya's mummy shows pale skin around his eyes, where he wore a "Zorro-like" mask...and a
scar where a spike had been driven through his right eyebrow into his right eye..."Popping"
it. Hindu tales of the "Precept of the Asura" (demons) give varying versions of how he lost
that eye.
This is a blacksmith, pouring molten metal (bronze) into a mold.
This is Yuya. His son, or grandson Akhenaton, was a fervent worshiper of "Shu" the
"Egyptian god of the wind": the smithy that worked the bellows, fanning the fire of the
smelt. Shu is "The Aten" according to E.A. Wallis Budge. Akhenaton is shown offering lotus
blossoms to "The Aten": that is Shiva worship. Shiva, said to be "covered in ashes"...yes,
blown up on him while fanning the smelting fire.
Yahweh is Yuya, Yuya is aka the Elamite god Qaus : "The God that Blows". (An alleged
"mystery" why he is called that...but now ZH readers know). If you don't believe me? Try
academia.org ..."Yahweh is Qaus" and see
the numerious article on it.
There is a photo of a statue of the young Yuya...wearing a Buddhist monk's robe and
calling himself "Ptah" (Butah/Buddha, according to E.A Wallis Budge's translation) ...with a
painful looking injury to his right eye: https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml05.htm
(scroll down to "Ptah" statue)
In fact, the Hindu tale is that his bride also wore a mask to "see the world as my husband
sees it." See the pale skin around her eyes, too???
Voice-of-Reason , 9 hours ago
Occupy Wall Street was a protest. This is a racial war developing. Two completely
different things. I dislike the current corrupt system too but I'm not burning down and
looting people's businesses they worked hard to build.
sickofthepunx , 9 hours ago
Apparently occupy wasn't loud enough because its been 10 years of the same old **** on
Wall Street. Maybe the should have broke some ****
Ms No , 9 hours ago
Even Bloomberg calls for dollar collapse, just blamed on trump, but the fact that they
even bring it up..
We have the biggest military and intelligence budget in the world.
And the ****ERS in Washington can't seem to stop the riots, looting and violence.
That's because.... just like 9/11... THEY'RE IN ON IT.
They're being paid to destroy Americans.
The government is the biggest terror organization in the world.
Burn the government to the ground. Burn the homes of those who serve this evil.
Until then, be prepared for these monsters to continue to terrorize you and your
family.
Be prepared for these mother ****ers to destroy your children's future.
They are evil. They only respond to violence.
They wouldn't know what to do if someone actually fought back against them Guerilla
Style.
The FBI is busy SWAT teaming Doctors offices.
They're too busy arresting Doctors prescribing Vitamin C to strengthen people's immune
systems
and planning more false flags to terrorize other humans.
They are evil. Pure evil. Every single mother ****** who works for the FBI is evil.
Those who sit by in the FBI and watch these people do evil **** are just as guilty.
Just ask the Nazis who stood by while Mengele experimented on children.
DocD , 9 hours ago
What a bunch of BS! The one thing that criminal like Soros is not interested in is
"philanthropy"! What this creep is, however, interested in is consolidating of power for his
bosses. Was he a front for the Cocaine Importing Agency! - No doubt! But what are the goals
of those fools at the top of the Agency? Does it look like they're interested in protecting
freedom of speech, expression, communication, movement or privacy in this country? Are not
all media heads repeating the same phrases all day?
The forces which were first used to
subvert those who were tough to subvert due to their long standing Christian traditions are
the same being used to "transform" or deconstruct (solve) and reconstitute (coagula) this,
much easier and well prepped system. If there's anything that the Q messenger is right about,
it is that nothing can stop what's coming; NOTHING!
@Ashino Wolf Sushanti As far as I know BLM is also dead silent on the black slave markets
care of Obama and the EU in Libya.
There are also stories that money contributed to BLM will end up going to the DNC.
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it
will be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has
gone on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that
will crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984, and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment). What a country, what a ship of fools.
The former New York senator published her
thoughts on her on Medium blog , where she appeared to endorse the Black
Lives Matter movement, something she has previously stayed well clear of doing. "George Floyd's
life mattered. Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor's lives mattered. Black lives matter," she
began by stating.
"I promise to keep fighting alongside all of you to make the United States a place where all
men and all women are treated as equals, just as we are and just as we deserve to be," she
added, positioning herself on the same side as the protestors, many of whom are demanding the
abolition of the police. Clinton commended the amazing "power of solidarity" she had seen and
promised to "speak out against white supremacy in all its forms," declaring that America is
long overdue for "an honest reckoning" with its racism problem.
However, an honest reckoning with Clinton's past unearths a myriad of troubling incidents
and positions that are difficult to square with her newfound radical antiracist stance. She
supported her husband and Joe Biden's
1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration across the country.
He observes too, the anticipatory raising of bail money; the preparing of medical teams,
ready to treat injuries; and of caches of flammable materials (suitable for torching official
vehicles), pre-positioned in places where protests would later occur. All this – with
simultaneous protests in more than 380 U.S. cities – in my experience, signals much
bigger, silent backstage organization. And behind 'the organisation', the instigators lie, far
back: maybe even thousands of miles back; and somewhere out there will be the financier.
However, in the U.S., commentators say they see no leadership; the protests are amorphous.
That is not unusual to see no leadership – a 'leadership' appears only if negotiations
are sought and planned; otherwise key actors are to be protected from arrest. The most telling
sign of a backstage organisation is that on one day, it is 'full on', and the next all is quiet
– as if a switch has been pulled. It often has.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of protestors in the U.S. this last week, were –
and are – decent sincere Americans, outraged at George Floyd's killing and continuing
social and institutional racism. Was this then, an Antifa
and anarchist operation, as the White House contends? I doubt it – any more than those
Palestinian youth in Beit El constituted anything other than fodder for the front of stage. We
simply don't know the backstage. Keep an open mind.
Tom Luongo presciently suggests that should we wish
to understand better the context to these recent events – and not be stuck at stage
appearances – we need to look to Hong Kong for indicators .
Writing in October 2019, Luongo noted that: "What started as
peaceful protests against an extradition law and worry over reunification with China has
morphed into an ugly and vicious assault on the city's economic future. [This is] being
perpetrated by the so-called "Block Bloc", roving bands of mask-wearing, police-tactic defying
vandals attacking randomly around the city to disrupt people going to work ".
An exasperated local man exclaims : "Not only you
[i.e. Block Bloc protestors are] harming the people making their living in businesses,
companies, shopping malls. You're destroying subway stations. You're destroying our streets.
You're destroying our hard-earned reputation as a safe, international business centre. You're
destroying our economy". The man cannot explain why there was not a single police officer in
sight, for hours, as the rampage continued.
What is going on? Luongo quotes a September Bloomberg
interview with HK tycoon, Jimmy Lai, billionaire publisher of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
scourge, the Apple Daily, and the highly visible interlocutor of official Washington notables,
such as Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. In it, Lai pronounced himself convinced that
if protests in HK turned violent, China would have no choice but to send the People's Armed
Police units from Shenzen into Hong Kong to put down unrest: "That," Lai said on Bloomberg TV,
"will be a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre; and that will bring in the whole world
against China Hong Kong will be done, and China will be done, too".
In brief, Lai proposes to 'burn' Hong Kong – to 'save' Hong Kong. That is, 'burn it to
save it' from the CCP – to keep its residue in the 'Anglo-sphere'.
"Jimmy Lai", Luongo writes, "is telling you what the strategy is here. The goal is to
thoroughly undermine China's standing on the world stage and raise that of the U.S. This is
economic warfare, it's a hybrid war tactic. And the soldiers are radicalized kids in uniforms
bonking old men on the heads with sticks and taunting cops. Sound familiar? Because that's
what's going on in places like Portland, Oregon with Antifa And that cause is chaos". (Recall,
Luongo wrote this more than six months ago).
Well, here we are today: Steve Bannon, closely allied with what he, himself, terms the U.S.'
China super-hawks , and
allied with yet another Chinese billionaire financier, Guo Wengui ( a fugitive
from the Chinese Authorities, and member at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club), is pursuing an
incandescent campaign of denigration and vitriol against the Chinese Communist Party –
intended, like Lai's campaign, to destroy utterly China's global standing.
Here it is again – the tightly-knit band of U.S. and exile super-hawks want to 'burn'
down the CCP, to 'save' what? To save the 'Empire Waning' (America), through 'burning' the
'Empire Rising' (China). Bannon (at least, and to his credit), is explicit about the risk:
A failure to prevail in
this this info-war mounted against the CCP, he says, will end in "kinetic war".
So, back to the U.S. protests, and drawing on Luongo's insights from Hong Kong – I
wrote last week that Trump sees himself fighting a hidden global 'war' to retain America's
present dominance over global money (the dollar) – now America's principal source of
external power. For America to lose this struggle to a putative multi-lateral cosmopolitan
governance – Trump perceives – would result in the whole, white Anglo-sphere's
ejection from control over the global financial system – and its associated political
privilege. It would entail control of the global financial and political system slipping away
to an amorphous multi-lateral financial governance, operated by an international institution,
or some global Central Bank. Since before WW1, control of global financial governance has been
in the hands of the Anglo-American nexus running between London and New York. It still does,
just about – albeit that today's Wall Street elite is cosmopolitan, rather than Anglo,
yet still it is firmly anchored to Washington, via the Fed and the U.S. Treasury. For this to
slip would be the 'end of Empire'.
To maintain the status of the dollar, Trump therefore has assiduously devoted himself to
disrupting the multi-lateral global order, sensing this danger to the unique privileges
conveyed by control of the world's monetary base. His particular concern would be to see a
Europe that was umbilically-linked to the financial and technological heavy-weight that is
China. This, in itself, effectively would presage a different world financial
governance.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But, is the fear that the threat principally lies with Europe's Soros-style vision
justified? There may – just as well – be a fifth-column at home. The billionaires'
club of the very rich has long ceased to be culturally 'Anglo'. It has become a borderless,
'self-selecting', governing entity unto itself.
Perhaps an earlier 'end of Époque' metamorphosis shows us how readily an
old-established elite can swap horses in order to survive . In the historical Sicilian novel,
The Leopard, Prince Salina's nephew tells his uncle that the old order
is 'done' , and with it, the family is 'done' too, unless "Unless we ourselves take a hand
now, they'll foist a republic on us. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to
change".
It is clear that some billionaire oligarchs – whether American or not – can see
the 'writing on the wall': A financial crisis is coming. And so, too, is a social one. A recent
survey done by one such member, showed that 55% of American millennials supported the end to
the capitalist system. Perhaps the brotherhood of billionaires is thinking that 'unless we
ourselves take a hand now, they'll foist socialism on us'. If we want things to stay as they
are, things will have to change. The recent disorder in the U.S. will have unnerved them
further.
The push towards radical change – towards that global financial, political and
ecological governance that threatens dollar hegemony – paradoxically may emerge from
within: from within America's own financial elite. 'Burning' the dollar's privileged global
status may become seen as the price for things to stay as they are -- and for the elite to be
saved. The future of Empire hangs on this issue: Can US dollar hegemony be preserved, or might
the financial 'nobility' see that things must change – if they are to stay as they are?
That is, the Revolution may come from within -- and not necessarily from abroad.
In recent days, Trump has pivoted to being the President of 'Law and Order' – a shift
which he explicitly connected to 1968, when, in response to protests in Minneapolis after the
police suffocation last week of George Floyd, Trump tweeted: "When the looting begins, the
shooting starts". These were the words used by Governor George Wallace, the segregationist
third-party candidate, in the 1968 Presidential election: Republicans launched their "southern
strategy" to win over resentful white Democrats after the civil rights revolution.
Trump is determined to prevail – but today is not 1968. Can a Law and Order platform
work now? U.S. demography in the south has shifted, and it is not clear that the liberal, urban
electorates of America would sign up to a law-and-order platform, which implicitly appeals to
white anxieties?
In a sense, President Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place. If the protests
are not quelled, and "the right normal (not) restored" (as per Esper's words), Trump may lose
those remaining 'law and order' conservatives. But, were he to lose control and over-react
using the military, then it may be Trump who has his own 'Tiananmen Square' – one, which
Jimmy Lai (gleefully) predicted in Hong Kong's case would bring in the whole world against
China: "Hong Kong will be done, and China will be done, too."
Or, in this instance, Trump might be done, and the U.S. too.
"Paid protesters are real ," writes the Los Angeles
Times , after a lawsuit filed by a Czech investor against a business rival spotlighted the
seedy, and very real business of people hired to express fake outrage, support, and everything
in between.
According to a lawsuit filed by investor Zdenek Bakala, Prague-based investment manager
Pavol Krupa hired Beverly hills company Crowds on Demand (COD) to stage a protest near Bakala's
home in Hilton Head, SC.
In the Bakala case, Crowds on Demand is accused of spreading misinformation through a
website, putting on protests and organizing a phone and email campaign targeting several U.S.
institutions with ties to Bakala, who got an MBA from Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business and
had an estimated net worth topping $1 billion earlier this decade, according to Forbes. -
LA Times
Crowds on Demand provides pop-up "protests, rallies, flash mobs, paparazzi events and other
inventive PR stunts," according to its website.
The dispute between Bakala and Krupa goes back for several years, and has been the subject
of inquiries by the European Commission and the Czech government, involving a formerly
state-owned coal mining business, OKD, which Bakala assumed control of in 2004. Bakala has been
accused of bribing officials to buy the government's equity in the mining company at a
below-market price, which broke a promise to sell company-owned apartments to employees before
the company ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2016.
According to Bakala, the COD smear campaign didn't stop there, claiming that the company
also called and sent emails to the Aspen Institute and Dartmouth College, where Bakala sits on
advisory boards, urging them to cut ties with him. Bakala claims that Krupa threatened to ramp
up the COD campaign unless the Czech investor coughs up $23 million.
Bakala, who holds U.S. and Czech citizenship, says in his lawsuit that all of those
allegations are false and are part of Krupa's extortion campaign. He alleges that Krupa
offered to cease his campaign if Bakala paid $23 million for OKD shares owned by Krupa's
investment fund.
...
Crowds on Demand founder Adam Swart and Krupa neither confirmed nor denied that they are
working together. They declined to answer specific questions about Bakala's allegations,
though Swart, in an emailed statement, called the claims meritless.
" Not only will I vigorously defend myself against the allegations in the complaint but I
am also evaluating whether to bring my own claims against Mr. Bakala ," Swart said. -
LA Times
"Defendants are pursuing a campaign of harassment, defamation, and interference in the
business affairs of Zdenek Bakala, which they have expressly vowed to expand unless he pays
them millions of dollars," reads Bakala's lawsuit (see below).
That said, it's not clear that Krupa's alleged campaign had the desired effect.
Elliot Gerson, an executive vice president at the Aspen Institute, said in an emailed
statement that the institute has received calls and emails from "individuals associated with
Crowds on Demand" and that the nonprofit's general counsel has spoken with Swart "about this
campaign of harassment."
" From the beginning, we assumed that these manufactured communications were linked to
political issues in the Czech Republic and Mr. Bakala's high profile in that country ,"
Gerson said. " Nothing we received has altered our views about Mr. Bakala ." - LA
Times
So paid protesters are a thing...
Bakala's lawsuit brings to light an ongoing debate in the national dialogue over paid
protesters. President Trump, for example, has repeatedly claimed that protesters have been paid
by left-wing billionaire activist George Soros and others in order to disrupt and undermine
conservative events.
"There are hundreds of lobbying firms and public affairs firms that do this work, though not
all in the same way," said USLA sociology professor Edward Walker - who wrote a book on the
business of paid protesting, also known as Astroturfing. "Some only do a little bit of this
grass-roots-for-hire, but things adjacent to this are not uncommon today."
In 2014, ABC's "Nightline" reported that a group backed by the beverage industry was hiring
people to protest a soda tax measure - posting ads on Craigslist for paid protesters at $13 an
hour.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, many noted what
appeared to be a man, Vinay Krishnan - who works for progressive activist organization Center
for Popular Democracy, paying a woman named Vickie Lampron who was later seen in the Kavanaugh
hearing.
Krishnan said that the money was given to people to pay fines in case they were
arrested.
As the Times notes, paid protesters aren't a recent phenomenon.
Longtime California political consultant Garry South, who was a campaign strategist for
California Gov. Gray Davis, said it's long been common for campaigns and political parties to
pay people a few bucks or perhaps provide a meal in exchange for attending a rally. He
recalled a 2002 rally in San Francisco where he said that tactic was used.
" It turns out, the San Francisco Democratic Party, to bolster the crowd, had basically
gone down to skid row and paid people $5 or something to tromp up to Union Square ," South
said.
But he sees a big difference between that kind of activity and the paid protests allegedly
organized by Crowds on Demand.
"What's different is the commercialization of the process," he said. "It just contributes
to the air of unreality that exists in this day and age with essentially not being able to
believe your own eyes or ears. I don't think it's particularly healthy. But it probably
inevitably was going to come to this." - LA Times
Crowds on Demand, meanwhile, shamelessly boasts on their website that they were hired by a
business rival to "cripple the operations" of a manufacturing business owned by a convicted
child molester, which resulted in the hiring company buying the molester-owned business for "5
percent of its previous value."
In another "case study," COD brags about staging a rally to support an unidentified foreign
leader who was visiting the United Nations.
"The concern was ensuring that the leader was well received by a U.S. audience and confident
for his work at the U.N. We created demonstrations of support with diverse crowds.," says
COD.
"A lot of times, companies don't want to be known for using this kind of strategy," Walker
said. "Crowds on Demand, they're more out about it. ... It is strikingly brazen. "
Very interesting. Hiring a mob to cause economic damage and set the stage for extortion certainly sounds
"actionable". Talking head Mark Levin has talked from time to time about suing people for "tortious
interference". I've never heard about such suits, but Levin is a legal heavyweight and likely knows what
is a credible legal threat.
"... While people of goodwill sincerely debate, the black political class does everything in its power to make sure that nothing much is accomplished at all. The Congressional Black Caucus pulled out their kente cloth prop and added taking a knee with Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer in one of the worst photo opportunities of all time. ..."
Everything has changed since the world witnessed George Floyd's murder at the hands of police.
Suddenly, workers are publicly criticizing their bosses. Politicians are backpedaling and
newspapers face revolts when they are caught spreading propaganda. In Europe and the United
States monuments to genocidaires are defaced and pulled down.
But no one should think that the black misleaders have given up allegiance to their
overlords among the Democratic Party donor class. The scoundrels are giving lip service to
change but are committed to business as usual and they co-opt the language and imagery of the
movement to do it.
In addition, the movement itself is sometimes a source of confusion. While well-meaning,
proposals such as defunding the police are highly problematic. They do nothing to address the
foundational nature of state violence and allow budgetary sleight of hand to create new methods
of law enforcement. The demands for community control and abolition must remain at the top of
the list.
While people of goodwill sincerely debate, the black political class does everything in its
power to make sure that nothing much is accomplished at all. The Congressional Black Caucus
pulled out their kente cloth prop and added taking a knee with Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer
in one of the worst photo opportunities of all time.
Pelosi and other members of Congress, kneel at the Capitol's Emancipation Hall, June 8,
2020, on Capitol Hill. Manuel Balce Ceneta | AP
They are proposing reforms that will never be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate
or Donald Trump. They are also keeping their police-empowering Protect and Serve Act in place.
Protect and Serve makes assaulting a police officer a federal offense, and nearly every victim
of police violence is again victimized by this spurious charge.
The chicanery must be pointed out, yet it must be acknowledged that changes are far-reaching
and events are occurring which no one would have predicted just a few months ago. Kente cloth
charlatans are not only the ones being exposed. When New York City mayor Bill de Blasio's
daughter was arrested at a protest the police union revealed her name to the press in an effort
to embarrass him. In return, de Blasio defended cops who drove vehicles into a crowd, beat
protesters and bystanders alike, and even arrested legal observers from the National Lawyers
Guild.
In response, New York City employees signed an open letter to the mayor condemning his supine support of a
police department that hates him. They broke every rule of politics and conventional wisdom
given to employees anywhere. The dictum of never criticizing a boss has gone out the window
along with everything else.
Corporate media propaganda has also taken a hit. James Bennet was the editor of the New
York Times opinion page but is now without a job after a similar employee revolt. Staff was
rightly angry when the Times printed an editorial from Arkansas senator
Tom Cotton , who advised sending the military to quell nationwide protests. When
Times employees spoke up it was revealed that the newspaper pitched the idea to Cotton,
and not the other way around. Bennet also had to admit that he didn't even read the fascistic
screed.
The "paper of record" has long been a purveyor of war propaganda and the utterances of
conservatives like Cotton. But the standard operating procedure isn't good enough now and
someone a few weeks ago can now be the scapegoat who gets pushed under a bus.
In Europe, thousands of people have turned out to protest for Floyd and against the United
States. In Athens, the U.S. embassy was the target of demonstrators. Europe has its own history
of racism and condemnation of this country has inspired people to be brave about their own
nations' criminality.
Parisians marched but not just for George Floyd. Adam Traore was killed by French police in
2016 and the anger about his death never disappeared. That is why a crowd of thousands gathered
to say both of their names.
Long dead criminals are also being taken to task. Belgium's
King Leopold presided over one of the world's worst genocides in the Congo where up to 10
million people were killed in quest to maximize rubber production. In recent days monuments to
Leopold have been defaced with graffiti and red paint representing the blood he spilled. In
Britain, the statue of Edward Colston was pulled down and dumped into a river in the city of
Bristol. Colston made a fortune selling 100,000 Africans to colonies in the Caribbean. His name
is still present in his hometown in recognition of the philanthropy that came from selling
people and working them to death.
A statue of King Leopold II is smeared with red paint and graffiti in Brussels, June 10,
2020. Virginia Mayo | AP
No one is safe. New York Times editors, mayors of major cities, and even long-dead
criminals are being called to account. People have lost their fear because they are desperate
and angry. It is harder to convince them that all is well when their suffering was deliberately
created and their pleas for redress were ignored.
The reaction to these acts of rebellion has been all too predictable. Politicians are
running scared and dare to do what they would never have considered before. The Minneapolis
city council voted to
disband its police department. But the mayor has already expressed opposition and the state
of Minnesota would also have to approve. Not only can the council not deliver on their vote,
but they have done nothing to bring justice to those already killed by police in that city. The
movement would do well not to be taken in by unworkable schemes meant to silence them.
While the well-meaning struggle with direction, the powerful see the handwriting on the wall
and respond with their own kente cloth moments. The CEO of Chase, Jamie Dimon, photographed
himself taking a knee, but outside of a bank vault, just in case anyone didn't know whose side
he was on. Corporations are claiming they will do better in their treatment of black employees
and the NFL is making mealy-mouthed apologies to Colin Kaepernick. Nike says it will donate $40
million to as yet unnamed organizations serving black communities.
All of the opportunism is the result of a mass determination to see change that benefits the
people. The moment was rife as kleptocracy enriched the already rich and a pandemic decimated
already shaky economies. Now white people have themselves faced the wrath of police goon squads
and are now accepting proposals they would have opposed or ignored not too long ago.
There is the possibility of advancement but also of reaction. The system knows how to defend
itself and how to appeal to the public. This moment requires great vigilance. The people in
movement can bring about great changes. But the kente cloth wearing rascals will not disappear
anytime soon.
Feature photo | House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck
Schumer of N.Y., center, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C., right, and top
Congressional Democrats, raise their hands during a news conference to unveil policing reform
and equal justice legislation on Capitol Hill, June 8, 2020, in Washington. Manuel Balce Ceneta
| AP
Margaret Kimberley writes the Freedom Rider column which appears weekly in BAR, and is
widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at
patreon.com/margaretkimberley and she regularly posts on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms.
Kimberley lives in New York City and can be reached via e-Mail at
Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International
License.
An honest reckoning of Clinton's past unearths a myriad of troubling incidents and positions that are difficult to square
with her newfound radical antiracist stance.
A
fter the
killing
of
George Floyd in Minneapolis two weeks ago, a spontaneous nationwide movement of millions of people protesting racist
policing has gripped the country. Politicians of all stripes have staked out their positions, condemning, endorsing, or
trying to co-opt the radical movement. The latest of these is failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The
former New York senator
published
her
thoughts on her on
Medium
blog
,
where
she appeared to endorse the Black Lives Matter movement, something she has previously stayed well clear of doing. "George
Floyd's life mattered. Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor's lives mattered. Black lives matter," she began by stating.
"I promise to keep fighting alongside all of you to make the United States a place where all men and all women are treated
as equals, just as we are and just as we deserve to be," she added, positioning herself on the same side as the protestors,
many of whom are demanding the abolition of the police. Clinton commended the amazing "power of solidarity" she had seen
and promised to "speak out against white supremacy in all its forms," declaring that America is long overdue for "an honest
reckoning" with its racism problem.
However, an honest reckoning with Clinton's past unearths a myriad of troubling incidents and positions that are difficult
to square with her newfound radical antiracist stance. She
supported
her
husband and
Joe
Biden's
1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration across the country. In 1996, she went further,
using well-established racial dog whistles to argue that a new class of people had emerged in America: that of the
superpredators,
stating
:
We need to take these people on, they are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore.
They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they
ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel."
In practice, this largely meant young men of color, and was part of the "New Democrats'" swing to the right, turning
against working-class people and racial minorities.
Clinton has hardly been an ally to black people outside the United States either. In 1998, she supported her husband's
missile strike on a Sudanese drug factory, a largely forgotten attack that the German Ambassador to Sudan
estimated
killed
"several tens of thousands" of civilians by depriving them of much-need medicines. President Clinton also
continued
George
H. W. Bush's destruction of a fledgling democracy in Haiti, giving his support to the removal of the newly elected head of
state Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After the 2010 earthquake that wrecked the country, Clinton, in her role as Secretary of
State, presided over what
amounted
to
a U.S. invasion and occupation of the island, one whose consequences
reverberate
to
this day.
In Libya too, Clinton
pushed
for
a supposedly humanitarian intervention in the country, cajoling other nations into complying. Leaked emails show that she
was aware that the extremist groups they were funding were carrying out massacres against black Libyans and that NATO was
committing war crimes. However, she was triumphant in her achievement; speaking of the deposed and executed head of state,
Muammar Gaddafi, she laughed,
stating
,
"We came, we saw, he died!" Today, the extremist groups who control the country regulate open
slave
markets
where black Africans are bought and sold.
Despite her new proclamations that black lives matter, it is unclear whether activists will accept her apparent change of
heart. For one, a
leaked
2015
Democratic Party memo on dealing with Black Lives Matter told members to "listen to their concerns" but instructed them
clearly: "don't offer support for concrete policy positions." Black Lives Matter responded to the leak, stating they were
"disappointed at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's placating response," adding that "black communities
deserve to be heard, not handled."
Clinton herself was accosted by Black Lives Matter activists during her 2016 election campaign, who asked her to apologize
for the mass incarceration state she helped build. "I am not a superpredator," one told her.
From same-sex marriage to trade to Iraq, Clinton has often
changed
her positions
in tune with what is politically expedient. In reality, any "honest reckoning" would involve taking a
look at her own hand in upholding and enforcing structural racism across the country and the world.
Feature photo | Hillary Clinton winks as she speaks to Lesley McSpadden, right, the mother of Michael Brown, while working
the rope line during a campaign stop at a union hall on Dec. 11, 2015, in St. Louis. Brown was shot and killed by a
Ferguson police officer in Aug. 2014 setting off the Black Lives Matter movement. Jeff Roberson | AP
"... From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems: protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least partially city council and the governor supported.) ..."
"... The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand: radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon. ..."
"... The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves. Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here) ..."
"... I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all the bridges. ..."
Trump is staggering. He's plunging in the polls, and his behavior has become erratic
and unhinged. I don't mean he's being crude, infantile and wrapped in a world of fantasy
-- he's always like that. Rather, I see him as suddenly incoherent, fumbling with threats
and catchphrases as if he were locked out of his house at night, frantically trying one
key after another to see if any will work.
I think the personalities of Trump and Biden no longer matter: the level of polarization
of the USA electorate is a more important factor now.
In other words, the reaction to the protests of independents will determine the results
on 2020 elections.
From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems:
protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by
neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple
Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least
partially city council and the governor supported.)
The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand:
radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law
and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon.
The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of
protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves.
Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security
benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor
infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here)
One minor point: exaggerated threats is the way Trump operate. He like poker players use
bluffing as a part of the political strategy. It's like he is trying to determine some
limits for each situation and sense how far he can go, as well as putting the opponents off
balance provoking them to overreact,. Then he retreats to a more reasonable position.
I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not
between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is
forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all
the bridges.
Please note that Biden political history is the history of a staunch neoliberal,
completely hostile to the interests of the majority of the USA population and, especially,
Afro Americans and white working class (aka deplorable). As such he will now look as
hypocrite no matter what he say.
BLM is a pack of useful idiots doing the service of the super-rich, setting the proles
against each other while our overloads sip champagne from the safety of their walled estates
and mansions.
BLM is not spontaneous. It has been created and managed by the corporate press. They take
a single bad thing, and play it 24/7 and scream and holler that this proves that the nebulous
evil spirit of RACISM is to blame and it has nothing to do with our industrial base being
outsourced, or rents being unaffordable, or medical care being unaffordable, or education
being unaffordable, or people being forced into a lifetime of debt servitude and no longer
able to get out from under via bankruptcy, and trillions spent on pointless foreign wars, and
tens of trillions in subsidies and bailouts for the super rich - no, don't talk about that,
anyone mentions those things and clearly it's because they are RACIST and infected with white
privilege and they could easily lose their jobs... Indeed, the extreme top-down pressure in
business and academia
reminds me a lot of the "cultural revolution" in Mao's China. Whip up the peasants into an
ideological frenzy fighting imaginary enemies to distract them from how the government was
responsible for a massive famine...
If there would be video footage of a black man killing a white man, would CNN play it over
and over and start harping about how white lives matter? Of course not, that's just a single
event, and in a country of 340 million you can always fond one bad thing that breaks
whichever way you choose....
Occupy Wall Street was a spontaneous protest - and look how easily the elites cancelled
them out. Harass them, arrest them, deprive them of any media coverage, corral them in 'free
speech zones' out of view of the public... and today they are gone as if they had never been.
BLM has been created and is maintained by deliberate elite policy.
It
takes a lot to build a civilization, and though it is much easier to destroy a civilization, it
takes a lot to do that, too... But now we have four roots of evil that are guaranteed to do
so...
Authored by Dennis Prager via RealClearPolitics.com,
It takes a lot to build a civilization, and though it is much easier to destroy a
civilization, it takes a lot to do that, too.
But now we have four roots of evil that are guaranteed to do so.
No. 1:
Victimhood.
The first is victimhood. The more people who regard themselves as victims -- as individuals
or as a group -- the more likely they are to commit evil. People who think of themselves as
victims feel that, having been victimized, they are no longer bound by normal moral conventions
-- especially the moral conventions of their alleged or real oppressors.
Everyone knows this is true. But few confront this truth. Every parent, for example, knows
that the child who thinks of him or herself as a perpetual victim is the child most likely to
cause and get into trouble. And criminologists report that nearly every murderer in prison
thinks of himself as a victim.
On a societal scale, the same holds true -- and being on such a larger scale, the chances of
real evil ensuing are exponentially increased. One of the most obvious examples is Germany
after World War I. Most Germans regarded themselves as victims -- of the Treaty of Versailles;
of a "stab in the back" German government; of the British, Americans and French; and, of
course, of the Jews. This sense of victimhood was one of the most important factors in the
popularity of the Nazis, who promised to restore German dignity.
That millions of black Americans regard themselves as victims -- probably more so today than
at any time in the past 50 years -- can only lead to disaster for America generally and for
blacks specifically. While victims generally feel free to lash out at others, they also go
through life angry and unhappy.
No. 2: Demonization.
The second of the four ingredients of this civilization-destroying witches' brew is
demonization -- demonizing a group as inherently evil.
That is being done now with regard to the white people of America. All -- again, all --
whites are declared racist. The only difference among them is that some admit it and some deny
it. The notion that whites are inherently evil has long been associated with Louis Farrakhan.
But it has apparently migrated out from his relatively small following to many blacks, even
those who might consider Farrakhan a kook. Former President Barack Obama, hardly a Farrakhan
follower, described America as having racism in its DNA. That is as close to inherently and
irredeemably evil as it gets; you cannot change your DNA.
In that sense, not only are whites demonized, but America is, too. Unlike traditional
liberals, the left regards America as a moral cesspool -- not only racist but, according to The
New York Times, founded to be so. The New York Times has created a history of America that
declares its founding not in 1776 but in 1619, when the first black slaves arrived. The
American Revolution was fought, according to this malign narrative, not merely for American
independence but in order to preserve slavery, a practice the British would have interfered
with. This "history" will now be taught in thousands of American schools.
The combination of victimhood and demonization alone is dangerous enough. But there are
still two more horsemen galloping toward the looming apocalypse.
No. 3: A Cause To
Believe In.
Most Americans throughout American history found great meaning in being American and in
being religious -- usually Christian. Since World War II, we have lived in a post-Christian,
post-nationalist age. Until very recently, Americans would have found the expression "for God
and country" deeply meaningful; that term today, on the left, is risible and execrable.
But people need something to believe in. The need for meaning is the greatest human need
after the need for food. Leftism, with all its offshoots -- feminism, environmentalism, Black
Lives Matter, antifa -- has filled that vacuum. In Europe, communism, fascism and Nazism filled
the hole left by the demise of nationalism and Christianity. Here it is leftism and its
offshoots.
No. 4: Lies.
The fourth and most important ingredient necessary for evil is lies. Lies are the root of
evil. Ironically, slavery itself was made possible only because of the lie that the black was
inferior to the white. Nazism was made possible thanks to the lie that Jews were not fully
human. And communism was built on lies. Lenin, the father of Soviet Communism, named the Soviet
communist newspaper "Truth" ("Pravda") because truth was what the Communist Party said it
was.
The New York Times, CNN and the rest of the mainstream "news" media are becoming our version
of Pravda. Objective truth doesn't exist on the left. The universities have already declared
"objective truth" as essentially an expression of "white privilege." See what happens to a
student who says in class, for example, that "men cannot give birth."
The public self-debasement demanded of anyone who differs with the left -- like New Orleans
Saints quarterback Drew Brees just did when he said not standing for the national anthem
desecrated the flag and those who have died for it -- happens almost daily. The only difference
between this and what dissidents underwent during Mao's Cultural Revolution is that the
self-debasement here is voluntary -- thus far.
Last week, when this Jew saw a store in Santa Monica with a sign reading "black-owned
business" so as to avoid being destroyed, it evoked chilling memories.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed News: As protesters demand an end to
police brutality and the coronavirus pandemic sweeps the nation, police departments around the
country are using software that can
track and identify people in crowds from surveillance footage -- often with little to no
public oversight or knowledge. Dozens of cities around the country are using BriefCam, which
sells software that allows police to comb through surveillance footage to monitor protests and
enforce social distancing, and almost all of these cities have hosted protests against police
brutality in the weeks since George Floyd was killed in police custody, BuzzFeed News has
found. Some of the cities using BriefCam's technology -- such as New Orleans and St. Paul --
have been the site of extreme police violence, with officers using rubber bullets, tear gas,
and batons on protesters. Authorities in Chicago; Boston; Detroit; Denver; Doral, Florida;
Hartford, Connecticut; and Santa Fe County, New Mexico have also used it.
Founded in 2007 by Hebrew University researchers and now owned by camera company Canon , the
Israel-based company sells a system called "Protect & Insights" that lets police and
private companies filter hours of closed circuit television and
home surveillance and create excerpts of a few relevant moments. Protect & Insights has
built-in facial recognition and license plate reader searches, and lets police create "Watch
Lists" of faces and license plates. The company
also said its tool could filter out "men, women, children, clothing, bags, vehicles,
animals, size, color, speed, path, direction, dwell time, and more." [...] There are currently
no federal guidelines restricting the use of video analytics, license plate reader, and facial
recognition software offered by companies like BriefCam. Neema Singh Guliani a senior
legislative counsel with the ACLU said that city governments often acquire these technologies
without public oversight or debate.
If this is the same company whose product we evaluated around 2005 when I worked with a
public safety software company. The initial request from our clients was to use it to
identify suspects from mug shots.
We elected not to pursue the product - too many false positives and misidentifications.
And, that was on clear mug shot photos.
Itâ(TM)s scary...horrifying, actually, knowing that it is capable of using less than
HD video feeds.
Microsoft, Google and Amazon are taking heat over delivering software for this purpose.
But in truth, much of this software is already open source and freely available.
Anyone with access to Python can easily hack together facial recognition. OpenCV does most
of the work.
The problem is having a huge database and a massive amount of processing power. This is
also really quite easy. If law enforcement agencies each invest in a few stacks of nVidia or
IBM machine learning nodes and a few stacks of Ceph nodes, it will not even require much
effort. I know, I work with this every day.
Make the compute nodes boot from LAN with CentOS. Write a script to manage elasticity
using IPMI. Mount machine specific partitions as NFS based on MAC address. Deploy K8S on
previously unmanaged nodes. Then when it is all up, just run a brute force algorithm as a
container.
The algorithm is simple... covnet images of who you are looking for, establish a series of
points of interest (wrinkles, nostrils, etc...) then look for points in a database of
previously scanned images. Add points for matching characteristics between images and once
passing a given threshold, use ML to attempt positive/negative matching in an is it a hotdog
style.
It will have horrible results in the beginning, but as the ML is trained, it will increase
accuracy over time.
The ease of doing this is very high. It is no longer a science requiring top companies
with top talent to accomplish. It is strictly a matter of money and time.
Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday June 13, 2020 @01:34PM from the wrong-arm-of-the-law dept.
" An innocent man faced
a torrent of online threats and abuse after being mistakenly identified in a viral video in
which an angry cyclist hurt a child," reports the BBC: Mr. Weinberg was falsely identified
when the wrong date was attached to the initial appeal made by the police in Bethesda, U.S. Mr.
Weinberg used the popular fitness tracking app Strava, which showed him as having been on the
Maryland bike trail on that day.
However on the correct date he was working at home...
Once his address had been shared by others -- a practice known as doxxing --
the police had to patrol the area for his safety , reported New York magazine... Mr.
Weinberg has since received dozens of apologies from people who abused him online.
Weinberg mistakenly thought his app only shared his bike-ride routes with his network of
friends, New York Magazine reports.
They add that Weinberg also discovered tweets wrongly accusing another man -- a former
police officer in Maryland -- which had been retweeted and liked more than half a million
times. And that the woman who'd posted Weinberg's home address later "deleted it and posted an
apology, writing that in all of her eagerness to see justice served, she was swept up in the
mob that so gleefully shared misinformation, depriving someone of their own right to
justice.
"Her correction was shared by fewer than a dozen people."
"... Wokeness is a gnostic cult that asks its sectaries to adopt a platform of national self-loathing. These are not protests. They are religious celebrations. The cult needs to be consistently classified as a religion, and conservatives must resist the temptation to view it as merely a silly sideshow distraction. Its bizarro liturgy is increasingly enshrined in all of our institutions, and conservatives must act as if a cult has hijacked the nation. ..."
At a park in New York City, I witnessed something odd. A group of women silently formed a
circle in the middle of a large lawn. Their all-black outfits contrasted with the surrounding
summer pastels, and they ignored the adjacent sun bathers as they began to kneel and slowly
chant. They repeated a three word matin. The most striking feature of this scene was its
familiarity. Any half-decent anthropologist would label this a religious ritual.
Yet, few are willing to explicitly describe these events as part of a religion. The women
may have been kneeling in a circle while chanting, but they repeated the words "black lives
matter." Politics obscures the obvious. Wokeness is a religion, and conservatives must act as
if large parts of our institutions are run by this cult.
Americans are united in their disgust at what happened to George Floyd. Everyone agrees: A
minor run-in with the police should never lead to death. Yet, the past two weeks do not
actually seem connected to the events in Minneapolis. Most East Coast yuppies would have
trouble placing Minneapolis on a map. Does it really make sense to gather in a mass crowd
during a pandemic because of something that happened a half-continent away? It does when you
recognize that it's a religious movement.
Wokeness has been identified as a religion by several writers and commentators. Linguist
John McWhorter wrote an article on " Antiracism, Our Flawed New
Religion " several years ago. Harvard professor Adrian Vermeulle wrote a must-read analysis
of the liturgical nature of liberalism
in 2019. And all the way back in 2004, historian Paul Gottfried wrote a prescient book on the
topic with the subtitle "towards a secular theocracy." The increasing intensity of woke culture
suggests that this is no longer just a curiosity, or a point of ridicule. It is the most
clear-eyed way of viewing current politics, and this is most obvious when viewing the
protests.
The nationwide protests are best understood as religious ceremonies, and this can be seen in
the way they keep engaging in off-brand Christianity. In Portland, Maine, protestors lay
stomach down on the sidewalk in order to ritualistically reenact Floyd's arrest. They
prostrated themselves in the exact way Catholic priests do in their ordination ceremony.
Journalist Michael Tracey noted the religious feeling in New Jersey protests. Protestors knelt
and held up their hands in a mirror image of how Evangelicals pray over each other at revivals.
The Guardian ran an article on how people must keep repeating the names of police
victims, and protestors routinely chant a list of names as if it is a litany of the saints. It
is a transparent attempt to transform the victims into martyrs. And while Floyd's killing is a
tragedy and an outrage, he had no agency over his death.
Perhaps the appropriation of Christian liturgy is just coincidental, and not evidence that
the woke have become a cult. It's not like they're trafficking in classic cult behavior, like
trying to separate devotees from their family, right? Wrong: Taking a cue from the
Scientologists, The New York Times ran an op-ed encouraging readers to stop visiting,
or speaking to family members until they pledge to "take significant action in supporting black
lives either through protest or financial contributions." Very normal! Shaking down family
members for money by threatening not to talk to them is classic cult behavior and is not how
well-adjusted adults voice political opinions. The insidious engine of this religious impulse
can be seen in the most egregious ripoff from Christianity so far.
In North Carolina, a pastor organized an event where white police officers knelt before her
and washed her feet. She claimed God told her directly to do this. Only the
most delusional would try to call this a protest. This is a pathetic perversion of Christian
liturgy. To state the obvious: washing feet is a Christian tradition with Biblical origins.
Washing feet was a chore reserved for the lowest servants. Jesus, God himself incarnate as man,
washed the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper. The disciple Peter objects to this and
doesn't want Jesus to lower himself. Jesus replies "if I don't wash you, you don't really
belong to me."
The white people washing feet are only pretending to lower themselves. In reality, they're
symbolically placing themselves in the role of God. For white people, woke anti-racism offers a
way to worship themselves. "White privilege" is a purely subjective concept that allows
unremarkable white people to recast their own ordinary lives in a flattering light. It's not
enough to simply point this out and laugh at it. The religious nature of the woke has real
policy implications.
The woke make policy decisions in reference to the values of their religion. Back in
January, it was considered racist to be concerned about the coronavirus. CNN ran
headlines about how racism was spreading faster than COVID, Al Jazeera ran an op-ed
with a headline suggesting racism was the more dangerous epidemic, and New York City
politicians encouraged people to join crowds in Chinatown. Now, after months of stringent
social distancing, suddenly the "experts" are telling us that massive crowds gathering in every
city around the globe won't impact the ongoing pandemic. A certain type of person pretends to
be above all culture war topics, and always wants to get back to the "real issues." Yet it
should be clear that in any long and protracted economic struggle with China, the woke cult has
the ability to distort priorities and jettison all good sense. You may not be interested in the
culture war, but the culture war is interested in you.
In 2014, and 2015, many conservative pundits made a name for themselves laughing at the
"SJW" phenomenon on college campuses. Older conservatives loved to make jabs about "snowflakes"
who they predicted wouldn't be able to tough it in the real world. This was a complete
misreading of the situation. Woke Yale graduates do just fine in their careers, and these
extremist students are now rising through institutions of power. Ivy League-educated lawyers
are throwing molotov cocktails in New York. The scholastics grew out of an institutional
arrangement where Christianity was the official religion of the university. Wokeness is the
scholastic form of anti-racism. It is enshrined in our institutions because the Civil Rights
movement coincided with the formation of our new upper class.
In the 20th Century, corporations and government grew to unforeseen scale. Experts,
managers, bureaucrats, and new types of lawyers were required to run these organizations, and
this changed the nature of the middle class, and how people achieved power. As Fred Siegel
argued in his book "Revolt Against the Masses," this new class became conscious of itself as a
distinct class through the Civil Rights movement. The South was a poor and backwards place, and
the new class of experts could use their position to correct a grave injustice.
Civil Rights legislation then needed more lawyers, managers, and bureaucrats to enforce. The
concrete forms of discrimination in the Jim Crow south slowly disappeared as racism was openly
confronted, but we are left with a class structure that still defines itself around these
issues. Those with power have a vested interest in finding ever new forms of racism because
this allows them to create new instruments to fight racism. Universities and corporations
create more and more administrative jobs that produce a brahmin class whose only purpose is to
keep vigilant for bigotry. This is why the woke capital phenomenon cannot be dismissed as
posturing. One implication of this is that striving political leaders who seek to enter the
upper class must prove their anti-racism bonafides again, and again. Another, much darker,
implication is that we may live in a theocracy.
Wokeness is a gnostic cult that asks its sectaries to adopt a platform of national
self-loathing. These are not protests. They are religious celebrations. The cult needs to be
consistently classified as a religion, and conservatives must resist the temptation to view it
as merely a silly sideshow distraction. Its bizarro liturgy is increasingly enshrined in all of
our institutions, and conservatives must act as if a cult has hijacked the nation.
Yeah, there's nothing 'mere' about religion. It organized two of premodern society's major
cultural spheres (Christendom and dar al-Islam) and started countless wars. You could make
a pretty good case for Communism as a religion.
According to Bertrand Russell Communism WAS a religion! Indeed, ideologies are, at bottom,
indistinguishable from religions. The French Revolution was Exhibit One of that phenomenon.
Spanish Inquisition was a religion
English Civil War was about religion
Abolitionism was a religion
Communism was a religion and National Socialism was a religion too
Every religion has its sacred content, though not every religion involves God,
reconciliation or redemption
Ah, but in America, we are not supposed to pay too much attention to the supposed truth or
falsity of each other's religions.
You can't fight something with nothing. The traditional religions seem to be spent
forces. The wokeness seems to attract devout, or at least fervent believers.
I'Ve seen much larger and more involved ceremonies worshipping capitalism, if that's how
we're determining religions now.
And the worshipping capitalists had a complete theology, with their religion driving
their ethics and behavior much more than almost all professed Christians I've met.
A religion with heresy trials and excommunications as well. And, at least In some states,
well on its way to becoming the established state religion. In March and April,
practitioners of the old religions from Christianity to Judaism to Islam discovered that
their religions were non-essential and subject to lockdown. In May, they learned that the
new religion is essential and not subject to lockdown.
Want to talk about cults? Let's talk about the New Apostolic Reformation cult and right
wing evangelicals who are part of and/or closely associated with this fake Christian cult.
Let's talk about 7 Mountains Mandate heresy and the right wing evangelicals who have bought
into and even preach that heresy. I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says these
fake Christian and cult members have to take over the world to make it safe for Jesus to
return. Until they do this, Jesus CANNOT return? Yes, Ted Cruz's father preaches the 7
Mountains heresy as do many other evangelicals.
How about the false teacher and fraud that Trump claims is his closest Christian
advisor, Paula White. Why would he say such a thing when Paula White is nothing more a
prosperity gospel fraud who said Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God. Who has been
investigated several times by the IRS. Who commanded 'All Satanic Pregnancies to
Miscarry'
Maybe we should talk about some of those who are part of Trump's evangelical advisory
council.
One of the leaders, Kevin Copeland, said "God is the biggest failure in the Bible" and his
wife, Gloria, who has said her husband controls the weather and can make tornadoes and
storms disappear.
Or the man Trump asked to come to DC, lay hands on and pray for him. Sick weirdo Rodney
Howard Brown who says he is Jesus' bartender.
I also seem to remember Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress and a few right wing
evangelicals promoting frauds Paula White, Kenneth Copeland and few other fake
Christians.
If you are going to express concern about people and their "religion", how about talking
about the evangelicals who are a threat to the Christian faith and that Romans 16:17-18, 2
Corinthians 11:13-15, 1 John 1:5-10, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Timothy 6:4-5 and others warn
about.
A strange mixture of Black nationalism with Black Bolshevism is a very interesting and pretty alarming phenomenon. It proved to
be a pretty toxic mix. But it is far from being new. We saw how the Eugène Pottier famous song
International lines "We have been naught we
shall be all." and "Servile masses arise, arise." unfolded before under Stalinism in Soviet Russia.
We also saw Lysenkoism in Academia before, and it was not a pretty picture. Some Russian/Soviet scientists such as Academician Vavilov
paid with their life for the sin of not being politically correct. From this letter it is clear that the some departments
already reached the stage tragically close to that situation.
Lysenkoism was "politically correct" (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with the broader Marxist doctrine.
Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living
under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man
"Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with
faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his
followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting
the advance of the new modern Marxism."
The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory
Notable quotes:
"... In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. ..."
"... any cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders . Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques. ..."
"... The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians ..."
"... Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. ..."
"... If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? ..."
"... Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position , which is no small number. ..."
"... The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is. ..."
"... The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. ..."
"... Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession. ..."
"... Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations. ..."
"... The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes , carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed. ..."
"... MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing? ..."
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely,
and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job,
and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity
of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative
narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice
system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of
the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and
white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself,
such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject
a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders
. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the
form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should
be vigorously challenged by historians . Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration
of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and
our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email.
Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi
Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion
of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However,
if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it
is anti-black .
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see
that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated
at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple
jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation
that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt .
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian
Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish
Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of
Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed
in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority
myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to
silence and oppress discourse . Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are , common
to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently
exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is
being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position.
Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those
of us in a precarious position , which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative , and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the
administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear
danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my
job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message
is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires
explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence.
This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the
point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention
of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders . Home invaders like George Floyd . For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality
of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart.
For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical
claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent
rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively.
Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform
white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to
point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation
is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation
is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention,
and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter,
an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately
redirected to ActBlue Charities , an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates.
Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American
cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis
itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat
administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden
statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics
which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election
campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence . This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement
for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent
in academic circles . I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this
damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes
, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves
in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves,
many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity.
Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking
the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal
political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth , we can regard ourselves as
a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at
harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically
segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly,
to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively
racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global
political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was
a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at
her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children , playing no part in their
support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer,
a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors .
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his
name to virtual sainthood . A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department,
corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA,
he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise . Americans are being
socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist . A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying
with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid,
as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color . My family have been
personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The
humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM , that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life,
is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward
in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively
on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating . No other group in America is systematically
demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping
and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites.
If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely
be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional
promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda
and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his
disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death
and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything
other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end .
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she
is free. play_arrow
Blacks will always be poor and fucked in life when 75% of black infants are born to single most likely welfare dependent mothers...
And the more amount of welfare monies spent to combat poverty the worse this problem will grow...
taketheredpill , 37 minutes ago
Anonymous....
1) Is he really a Professor at Berkeley?
2) Is he really a Professor anywhere?
3) Is he really Black?
4) Is he really a He?
LEEPERMAX , 44 minutes ago
BLM is an international organization. They solicit tax free charitable donations via ActBlue. ActBlue then funnels billions
of dollars to DNC campaigns. This is a violation of campaign finance law and allows foreign influence in American elections.
CRM114 , 44 minutes ago
I've pointed this out before:
In 2015, after the Freddie Gray death Officers were hung out to dry by the Mayor of Baltimore (yes, her, the Chair of the DNC
in 2016), active policing in Baltimore basically stopped. They just count the bodies now. The clearance rate for homicides has
dropped to, well, we don't know because the Police refuse to say, but it appears to be under 15%. The homicide rate jumped 50%
almost immediately and has stayed there. 95% of homicides are black on black.
The Baltimore Sun keeps excellent records, so you can check this all for yourself.
Looking at killings by cops; if we take the worst case and exclude all the ones where the victim was armed and independent
witnesses state fired first, and assume all the others were cop murders, then there's about 1 cop murder every 3 years, which
means that since has now stopped and the homicide rate's gone up...
For every black man now not murdered by a cop, 400 more black men are murdered by other black men.
taketheredpill , 46 minutes ago
"As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used
to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude
that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black ."
It is the RATIO of UNARMED BLACK MALES KILLED to UNARMED WHITE MALES KILLED in RELATION TO % OF POPULATION. RATIO.
RATIO. UNARMED.
BLACK % POPULATION 13% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 37%
WHITE % POPULATION 74% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 45%
Is there a trend of MORE Black people being killed by police?
No. But there is an underlying difference in the numbers that is bad.
>>>>> As of 2018, Unarmed Blacks made up 36% of all people UNARMED killed by police. But black people make up 13% of the (unarmed)
population.
There's a massive Silent Majority of Americans , including black Americans, that are fed up with this absurd nonsense.
While there's a Vocal Minority of Americans : including Democrats, the media, corporations and race hustlers, that wish to
continue to promulgate a FALSE NARRATIVE into perpetuity...because it's a lucrative industry.
Gaius Konstantine , 57 minutes ago
A short while ago I had an ex friend get into it with me about how Europeans (whites), were the most destructive race on the
planet, responsible for all the world's evil. I pointed out to him that Genghis Khan, an Asian, slaughtered millions at a time
when technology made this a remarkable feat. I reminded him the Japanese gleefully killed millions in China and that the American
Indian Empires ran 24/7 human sacrifices with some also practicing cannibalism. His poor libtard brain couldn't handle the fact
that evil is a human trait, not restricted to a particular race and we parted (good riddance)
But along with evil, there is accomplishment. Europeans created Empires and pursued science, The Asians also participated in
these pursuits and even the Aztec and Inca built marvelous cities and massive states spanning vast stretches of territory. The
only race that accomplished little save entering the stone age is the Africans. Are we supposed to give them a participation trophy
to make them feel better? Is this feeling of inferiority what is truly behind their constant rage?
Police in the US have been militarized for a long time now and kill many more unarmed whites than they do blacks, where is
the outrage? I'm getting the feeling that this isn't really about George, just an excuse to do what savages do.
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies."
George Orwell
You know that the reason he is anonymous is that Berkley would strip him of his teaching credentials and there would be multiple
attempts on his life...
Ignatius , 1 hour ago
" The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The
message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence
requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly
is."
A former fed who trained the police in Buffalo believes the elderly protester who was hospitalized after a cop pushed him
to the ground "got away lightly" and "took a dive," according to a report.
The retired FBI agent, Gary DiLaura,
told The Sun
he thinks there's no chance Buffalo officers will be convicted of assault over the
now-viral video showing the
longtime
peace activist Martin Gugino fall and left bleeding on the ground.
" I can't believe that they didn't deck him. If that would have been a 40-year-old guy going up there, I guarantee you they'd
have been all over him, " DiLaura said.
" He absolutely got away lightly. He got a light push and in my humble opinion, he took a dive and the dive backfired because
he hit his head. Maybe it'll knock a little bit of sense into him, " added the former fed, who trained Buffalo police on firearms
and defensive tactics, according to the report...
It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is]
demoralization ; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number
of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of
the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American
students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals)
are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system.
You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. T hey are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain
stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you
prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other
words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need
another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting
in favor and in the interests of United States society.
Yuri Bezmenov
American Psycho , 16 minutes ago
This article was one of the most articulate and succinct rebuttals to the BLM political power grab. I too have been calling
these "allies" useful idiots and I am happy to hear this professor doing the same. Bravo professor!
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but [unlike in the past] they are only
considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing
honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it
did not do.
This video has 6,333,414 views and as such is probably the most watched commentary on the incident. She did not touch attempt to
exploit the death of Floyd but Clinton wing of Democratic Party
Personal accountability of blacks is important topic (and that includes rather low level of academic achievement among them; horrifies
number of singles mother and other ills that facilitate sliding into criminal behaviour) , but the we also need to distinguish between
a part that is due to blacks idiosyncrasies, and the part that is due to the fact that most blacks are poor. Although the standard of
living of most blacks in the USA is much higher then while people in Ukraine.
George Floyd is no hero. He was a troubled man with many problems. The issue should only be about his death. Regardless if you liked
or disliked him, no police has the legal authority to play judge, jury and executioner. According to witnesses, there was little if
any resistance on George's part. No self defense on the police's part was necessary. The only issue is that George was denied "due process".
THAT, is the problem. You cannot kill bad people that are not resisting arrest without due process. The clause in the Fifth Amendment
reads: No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. While the clause in the Fourteenth
Amendment says: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
As a young conservative I have noticed that our generation is being taught to be victims. Instead of combating the issues, we complain
and look for people to manipulate, and being driven by emotions rather than to take time and think. Not all but it's just my pov
I love Candace Owens because she does not use her race as a means for lack of responsibility and works for a dream....black Americans
or all Americans are played by the media and our obsession with actors, actresses and multimillionaires....wake up...
I listened to Sirius XM and the
DJ said "I couldn't wait to hear from jay z because he is one of the most intelligent men on earth." Really!!!!
The truth is being exposed much more brightly after many lies and brainwashing. If this brave woman would have spoken early at beginning
of riots, she would have been disregarded. But now the lies are being blown up when people understand they were fed up with lies and
half-truths and only partial picture by general media. We wish you Americans to make peace within you and heal the wounds. Cheers from
Israel
Your insight towards this BLM chaos actually has convinced people there are still some "upstanding" black Americans out there. Thank
you and stay safe!!
This is getting out of hand. An American criminal was killed due to police brutality, has now led to a statue of winston Churchill being
vandalised in London. These protesters arre brainless
He should have been arrested and not killed BUT, he was a crook the the media failed to tell but they have to hide the truth so they
can keep it going....They are criminals too.
She nailed it. Theft, drugs, counterfeit currency, woman assault, threaten people at gun point. He would have died of drugs anyway,
though he did not deserve the dastardly act. He is NOT.a HERO. The cops involved were also not heros. Both deserve to be condemned.
But the movement is to change the police brutality, it was murder captured on video. It was the first time my daughter watched a murder
on video repeated again and again as it was normal!. No it should NEVER be a normal.
Neal Blair wears a hoodie that reads "Black Lives Matter" as he stands on the lawn of the
Capitol during a rally to mark the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March on Oct. 10, 2015,
in Washington.
Some of the biggest donors on the left plan to meet behind closed doors next week in
Washington with leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement and their allies to discuss funding
the burgeoning protest movement, POLITICO has learned.
The meetings are taking place at the annual winter gathering of the Democracy Alliance major
liberal donor club, which runs from Tuesday evening through Saturday morning and is expected to
draw Democratic financial heavyweights, including Tom Steyer and Paul Egerman.
The DA, as the club is known in Democratic circles, is recommending its donors step up check
writing to a handful of endorsed groups that have supported the Black Lives Matter movement.
And the club and some of its members also are considering ways to funnel support directly to
scrappier local groups that have utilized confrontational tactics to inject their grievances
into the political debate.
It's a potential partnership that could elevate the Black Lives Matter movement and heighten
its impact. But it's also fraught with tension on both sides, sources tell POLITICO.
The various outfits that comprise the diffuse
Black Lives Matter movement prize their independence. Some make a point of not asking for
donations. They bristle at any suggestion that they're susceptible to being co-opted by a
deep-pocketed national group ― let alone one with such close ties to the Democratic Party
establishment like the Democracy Alliance.
And some major liberal donors are leery about funding a movement known for aggressive
tactics ― particularly one that has shown a willingness to train
its fire on Democrats, including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders .
"Major donors are usually not as radical or confrontational as activists most in touch with
the pain of oppression," said Steve Phillips, a Democracy Alliance member and significant
contributor to Democratic candidates and causes. He donated to a St. Louis nonprofit group
called the Organization for Black Struggle that helped organize 2014 Black Lives Matter-related
protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police killing of a black teenager named Michael
Brown. And Phillips and his wife, Democracy Alliance board member Susan Sandler, are in
discussions about funding other groups involved in the movement.
The movement needs cash to build a self-sustaining infrastructure, Phillips said, arguing
"the progressive donor world should be adding zeroes to their contributions that support this
transformative movement." But he also acknowledged there's a risk for recipient groups.
"Tactics such as shutting down freeways and disrupting rallies can alienate major donors, and
if that's your primary source of support, then you're at risk of being blocked from doing what
you need to do."
The Democracy Alliance was created in 2005 by a handful of major donors, including
billionaire financier George Soros and Taco Bell heir Rob McKay to build a permanent
infrastructure to advance liberal ideas and causes. Donors are required to
donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups, and their combined donations to
those groups now total more than $500 million. Endorsed beneficiaries include the Center for
American Progress think tank, the liberal attack dog Media Matters and the Democratic data firm
Catalist, though members also give heavily to Democratic politicians and super PACs that are
not part of the DA's core portfolio. While the Democracy Alliance last year voted to endorse a
handful of groups focused on engaging African-Americans in politics ― some of which have
helped facilitate the Black Lives movement ― the invitation to movement leaders is a
first for the DA, and seems likely to test some members' comfort zones.
"Movements that are challenging the status quo and that do so to some extent by using direct
action or disruptive tactics are meant to make people uncomfortable, so I'm sure we have
partners who would be made uncomfortable by it or think that that's not a good tactic," said DA
President Gara LaMarche. "But we have a wide range of human beings and different temperaments
and approaches in the DA, so it's quite possible that there are people who are a little
concerned, as well as people who are curious or are supportive. This is a chance for them to
meet some of the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, and understand the movement
better, and then we'll take stock of that and see where it might lead."
According to a Democracy Alliance draft agenda obtained by POLITICO, movement leaders will
be featured guests at a Tuesday dinner with major donors. The dinner, which technically
precedes the official conference kickoff, will focus on "what kind of support and resources are
needed from the allied funders during this critical moment of immediate struggle and long-term
movement building."
The groups that will be represented include the Black Youth Project 100, The Center for
Popular Democracy and the Black Civic Engagement Fund, according to the organizer, a DA member
named Leah Hunt-Hendrix. An heir to a Texas oil fortune, Hunt-Hendrix helps lead a coalition of
mostly young donors called Solidaire that focuses on movement building. It's donated more than
$200,000 to the Black Lives Matter movement since Brown's killing. According to its entry
on a philanthropy
website , more than $61,000 went directly to organizers and organizations on the ground in
Ferguson and Baltimore, where the death of Freddie Gray in police custody in April sparked a
more recent wave of Black Lives-related protests. An additional $115,000 went to groups that
have sprung up to support the movement.
She said her goal at the Democracy Alliance is to persuade donors to "use some of the money
that's going into the presidential races for grass-roots organizing and movement building." And
she brushed aside concerns that the movement could hurt Democratic chances in 2016. "Black
Lives Matter has been pushing Bernie, and Bernie has been pushing Hillary. Politics is a field
where you almost have to push your allies hardest and hold them accountable," she said. "That's
exactly the point of democracy," she said.
That view dovetails with the one that LaMarche has tried to instill in the Democracy
Alliance, which had faced internal criticism in 2012 for growing too close to the Democratic
Party.
In fact, one group set to participate in Hunt-Hendrix's dinner ― Black Civic
Engagement Fund ― is a Democracy Alliance offshoot. And, according to the DA agenda, two
other groups recommended for club funding ― ColorOfChange.org and the Advancement Project ― are set
to participate in a Friday panel "on how to connect the Movement for Black Lives with current
and needed infrastructure for Black organizing and political power."
ColorOfChange.org has helped Black
Lives Matter protesters organize online, said its Executive Director Rashad Robinson. He
dismissed concerns that the movement is compromised in any way by accepting support from major
institutional funders. "Throughout our history in this country, there have been allies who have
been willing to stand up and support uprisings, and lend their resources to ensure that people
have a greater voice in their democracy," Robinson said.
Nick Rathod, the leader of a DA-endorsed group called the State Innovation Exchange that
pushes liberal
policies in the states , said his group is looking for opportunities to help the movement,
as well. "We can play an important role in facilitating dialogue between elected officials and
movement leaders in cities and states," he said. But Rathod cautioned that it would be a
mistake for major liberal donors to only give through established national groups to support
the movement. "I think for many of the donors, it might feel safer to invest in groups like
ours and others to support the work, but frankly, many of those groups are not led by
African-Americans and are removed from what's happening on the ground. The heart and soul of
the movement is at the grass roots, it's where the organizing has occurred, it's where
decisions should be made and it's where investments should be placed to grow the movement from
the bottom up, rather than the top down."
Candace
Owens is being called a racist by supporters of the protests over George Floyd's death for
simply highlighting his criminal past and arguing against him becoming a "martyr" to black
Americans. "I do not support George Floyd and a media depiction of him as a martyr for black
America," Owens said in a video that has now gone viral.
Owens acknowledges Floyd should not have died in police custody -- the four officers
involved in the incident are now being charged -- and she hopes his family "gets
justice."
She added the response to Floyd's death shows a "broken black culture" in America,
one that celebrates criminals.
"We are unique in that we are the only people that fight and scream and demand support
and justice from the people in our community that are up to no good," she said. "You
would be hard-pressed to find a Jewish person that's been five stints in prison that commits a
crime and dies while committing a crime and the Jewish people champion and demand justice
for."
Owens called the movement to lionize Floyd "bulls**t" and added, "We shouldn't be
buying T-shirts with his name on it."
Floyd's criminal
history includes five years behind bars for robbery and assault.
Owens, who is black, has been called everything from "racist" to a "white
supremacist" in tweets that have gotten thousands of reactions.
Candace Owens ONLY job for the MAGA crowd is to make them feel good about being racist
#CandaceOwens
--
ABlackWomanWhoDontGiveAF*ck (@battletested5) June 4,
2020
Good morning. Candace Owens is a Black, white Supremacist who profits off of being the
black face of white racism. Black people can always make a quick buck being willing to say
all the racist stuff white racists want to but can't. #CandaceOwens
pic.twitter.com/vtqNZRgVFO
-- Benjamin Dixon 🏴🚩🇺🇸
(@BenjaminPDixon) June 4,
2020
I just told y'all only a couple of days ago about ignoring #CandaceOwens
...stop sending me her tweets! This person with zero cognitive capacity or cultural compass
is blocked and out of my life https://t.co/22MDQal8tR
Owens is not the first person to be criticized for blasting parts of the movement protesting
Floyd's death. Others have been attacked and even
fired for criticizing
looters involved in protests across the nation.
The outspoken Trump supporter has responded by blasting her critics as intolerant.
The best way to practice tolerance, is through intolerance.
Following the viral video of Floyd's death at the hands of Minneapolis officers, protests
kicked off across the country demanding police reform and charges against those involved in the
incident. All four officers have been charged while some
protests have devolved into looting , violence , and even
murder .
Racial issues have traditionally been among the most highly charged in American public life,
and the nexus of crime and race has been exceptionally contentious for many decades. Under
these circumstances respectable scholars tend to be cautious in discussing or merely
investigating this topic, and the mainstream media is usually even more gun-shy. The striking
racial findings presented above require only trivial statistical calculations and may be
glimpsed in any casual inspection of the crime rankings of our major cities. But I remain
uncertain to what extent they are already recognized by our experts in social policy.
For example, when I presented my correlation results to one very prominent conservative
social scientist, he found them shocking and remarkable, and said he had never imagined that
the statistical relationship between race and crime was so extremely strong. But when I showed
the same data to an equally prominent liberal academic, he took the information in stride and
said he assumed that almost all experts were already quietly aware of the general facts. The
reactions of other knowledgeable individuals fell all along this spectrum ranging from surprise
to familiarity. Knowledge so explosive that it is usually unspoken and unreported may easily
remain unknown even to many of our foremost intellectuals.
But whether or not most of our ruling elites explicitly recognize the stark racial character
of American crime, the reality still exists, and we should consider exploring whether these
unpublicized facts may have had broader influences in our society, possibly in seemingly
unrelated areas. After all, urban crime has frequently been a leading issue in American public
life, during some periods ranking as one of the most important. Certain matters may not be
easily discussed in polite company these days, but if even just a portion of the citizenry is
intuitively aware of the situation, their attitudes might have broader ripple effects
throughout the entire population. Is there any substantial evidence for this?
ORDER IT NOW
Consider the electoral behavior of American whites, and especially their inclination to
support either Democratic or Republican candidates. Because of gerrymandering, most individual
congressional districts are overwhelmingly aligned with one party or another, and general
elections are a mere formality; this is often also true of statewide races for senator or
governor. However, in presidential elections both parties almost always field viable national
candidates with a reasonable chance of winning, so these provide the best means of gauging
white political alignment. And for these campaigns, the racial lines are clearly established,
with the modern Republicans being the "white party," drawing over 90% of their support from
that demographic group, while over 90% of blacks regularly vote the Democratic ticket, which
also usually attracts the overwhelming majority of other non-white voters.
As I pointed out in a
2011 article , there has been a striking statewide pattern to white voting behavior over
the last couple of decades. Many conservative activists and media pundits have spent years
attacking immigrants, illegal or otherwise, and have regularly denounced the cultural threat
posed by the growing population of non-English-speakers or non-white foreigners. Nevertheless,
the empirical fact is that presence or absence of large numbers of Hispanics or Asians in a
given state seems to have virtually no impact upon white voting patterns. Meanwhile, there
exists a strong relationship between the size of a state's black population and the likelihood
that local whites will favor the Republicans. The weighted-average correlations between the
racial compositions of the fifty states and the degree to which their white voters favor
Republican presidential candidates is summarized in the following chart.
GOP leaders are always fearful of being denounced as "racist" by the major media, and often
seek to camouflage the underlying source of their electoral support by adopting the most
extreme forms of tokenism, promoting black party leaders and spokesmen while heavily recruiting
black candidates and focusing almost entirely upon non-racial issues. Conservative activists
often rhetorically identify themselves as heirs to the "party of Lincoln" and may even accuse
their Democratic opponents of seeking to keep blacks in Welfare State bondage. But the actual
data tells a very different story about the likely sources of Republican support.
The strength of this pattern may be seen at its extremes. Mississippi is the state with the
highest black percentage and across all six elections its white population was the most likely
to vote Republican, with the figures recently running at nearly the 90% level. Louisiana,
Georgia, and South Carolina are generally clustered together as the next blackest in
population, and in most elections their white populations were the next most likely to support
the Republican ticket, although being sometimes exceeded by the whites of Alabama, the fifth or
sixth blackest state during those decades.
By contrast, consider the three states with the largest non-white percentages: Hawaii,
California, and New Mexico. The whites of the first two have actually been far less likely to
vote Republican than whites nationwide, while those in New Mexico fall close to the national
average. This tends to confirm the national statistical results that the widespread presence of
non-whites, even in overwhelming numbers, seems to have little impact upon white voting
behavior.
While I would not argue that black crime is the sole determining factor behind the racial
polarization in white voting behavior, I do suspect it is one of the largest contributors.
Empirically, the presence of blacks causes whites to vote the "law-and-order" Republican
ticket, while the presence of Hispanics or Asians seems to have negligible political
impact.
Nevertheless, we should remain cautious in interpreting these results. For example, although
these national correlations are certainly substantial, they are almost entirely due to the
weighting of the Southern states, in which blacks are almost 20% of the total population and
racial tensions have traditionally been the strongest. In non-Southern states, the correlations
are nil, perhaps partly because blacks are found in far smaller numbers, being less than 9% of
the total.
Consider also the highly contentious issue of immigration. Obviously, much of the underlying
conflict is purely economic in character, with workers aware that restricting the supply of
available labor will protect their bargaining power over wages, while businesses seek to
maximize their profits by expanding the pool of potential employees, whether low-skilled or
high-tech.
But all involved participants quickly discover that despite endless protestations to the
contrary there is also a clear racial subtext, usually accounting for the emotionality of the
debate. For the last half-century, the overwhelming majority of immigrants, especially illegal
ones, have been non-white, and the resulting racial fears have been a central motivating force
driving many of the most zealous restrictionists, who fear being swamped by a tidal wave of
"the Other." However, I believe that racial considerations, whether fully conscious or not,
might also be found on the other side of the issue, helping to explain why our national
leadership today so uniformly endorses very heavy foreign immigration.
America's ruling financial, media, and political elites are largely concentrated in three
major urban centers -- New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. -- and all three have
contained large black populations, including a violent underclass. During the early 1990s, many
observers feared New York City was headed for urban collapse due to its enormously high crime
rates, Los Angeles experienced the massive and deadly Rodney King Riots, and Washington often
vied for the title of American homicide capital. In each city, the violence and crime were
overwhelmingly committed by black males, and although white elites were rarely the victims,
their fears were quite palpable.
One obvious reaction to these concerns was strong political support for a massive national
crackdown on crime, and the prison incarceration of black men increased by almost 500% during
the two decades after 1980. But even after such enormous rates of imprisonment, official FBI
statistics indicate that blacks today are still over 600% as likely to commit homicide than
non-blacks and their robbery rate is over 700% larger; these disparities seem just as high with
respect to Hispanic or Asian immigrants as they are for whites. Thus, replacing a city's blacks
with immigrants would tend to lower local crime rates by as much as 90%, and during the 1990s
American elites may have become increasingly aware of this important fact, together with the
obvious implications for their quality of urban life and housing values.
According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased
by one-third in Los Angeles, by nearly 50% in New York City, and by over 70% in Washington,
D.C. The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which
declined, often substantially, in each location. And all three cities experienced enormous
drops in local crime, with homicide rates falling by 73%, 79%, and 72% respectively, perhaps
partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes. Meanwhile, the white population
increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in
housing prices. It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike,
are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible
recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an
important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.
As an anecdotal example, consider the case of Matthew Yglesias, a prominent young liberal
blogger living in Washington, DC. A couple of years ago
he recounted on his blogsite how he was suddenly attacked from behind and seriously beaten
by two young men while walking home one evening from a dinner party. At first he was quite
cagey about identifying his attackers, but he eventually admitted they were blacks, possibly
engaged in the growing racial practice of urban "polar bear hunting" so widely publicized by
the Drudge Report and other rightwing websites.
Few matters are more likely to trouble the minds of our Harvard-educated intellectual elite
than fear of suffering random violent assaults while they walk the streets of their own city.
Yet no respectable progressive would possibly focus on the racial character of such an attack,
let alone advocate the removal of local blacks as a precautionary measure. Instead Yglesias
suggested that housing-density issues might have been responsible and that better urban
planning would reduce crime.
But consider that support for very high levels of foreign immigration is an impeccably
liberal cause, and such policies inevitably displace and remove huge numbers of urban blacks;
it is easy to imagine that Yglesias quietly redoubled his pro-immigration zeal in the wake of
the incident. Multiply this personal example a thousand-fold, and perhaps an important strand
of the tremendous pro-immigration ideological framework of American elites becomes apparent.
The more conspiratorially-minded racialists, bitterly hostile to immigration, sometimes
speculate that there is a diabolical plot by our ruling power structure to "race-replace"
America's traditional white population. Perhaps a hidden motive along these lines does indeed
help explain some support for heavy immigration, but I suspect that the race being targeted for
replacement is not the white one.
Such factors may also play a role outside the major urban centers discussed above and even
where least suspected. Among all American businessmen, Silicon Valley executives are probably
strongest in their pro-immigration advocacy, as indicated by the major political advertising
campaign recently launched by top technology CEOs, organized together as "FWD.us." Obviously,
their own cosmopolitan background and desire for an unlimited supply of inexpensive,
high-quality engineers is their primary motive. However, widespread sentiments in favor of
lesser-educated immigrant groups such as undocumented Latin Americans also seem quite strong,
and we find Steve Jobs' wealthy widow Laurene Powell Jobs focusing her efforts almost
exclusively on that particular aspect of the legislation, with her sentiments hardly being
discordant with those of her wealthy peer group. Could hidden racial factors be part of the
explanation? That might seem quite unlikely since Silicon Valley's black population has been
very low for decades, running in the 3 or 4 percent range.
However, a closer examination reveals a very different situation. The small city of Palo
Alto is one of the most desirable local residential areas, home to the late Steve Jobs, as well
as the current CEOs of Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and a host of other companies; by some
estimates, it may contain the world's highest per capita concentration of billionaires. On
three sides, Palo Alto abuts communities of a similar character: Mountain View, containing
Google; the Stanford University campus; and Menlo Park, the center of America's venture capital
industry. But on the fourth side, mostly separated by Highway 101, lies East Palo Alto, which
for decades was a dangerous ghetto, overwhelmingly black.
I moved back to Palo Alto from New York City in 1992, and that year East Palo Alto recorded
America's highest per capita murder rate; although relatively few of the homicides, robberies,
and rapes spilled across the border, enough did to leave many people uneasy. Gated communities
and even street fences are quite uncommon in the region, and for years anyone who wished could
go to the home of Steve Jobs and walk around his yard or even peer into his windows. Meanwhile,
the sort of harsh racial profiling widely practiced in some large cities was completely
abhorrent to the socially liberal citizenry. One may easily imagine a scenario in which
escalating street crime from the ghetto next door might have produced a collapse in high
housing prices and sparked a massive flight of the wealthy.
One reason this did not occur was the vast influx of impoverished immigrants from south of
the border that swept into the less affluent communities of the region during those same years
and rapidly transformed the local demographics. Between 1980 and 2010 the combined Hispanic
population of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties nearly tripled. A city offering cheap housing
such as East Palo Alto saw far greater relative increases, reversing its demographics during
that period from 60% black and 14% Hispanic to 16% black and 65% Hispanic. Over the last twenty
years, the homicide rate in that small city dropped by 85%, with similar huge declines in other
crime categories as well, thereby transforming a miserable ghetto into a pleasant working-class
community, now featuring new office complexes, luxury hotels, and large regional shopping
centers. Multi-billionaire Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife recently purchased a large
$9 million home just a few hundred feet from the East Palo Alto border, a decision that would
have been unthinkable during the early 1990s. Technology executives are highly quantitative
individuals, skilled in pattern recognition, and I find it difficult to believe that they have
all remained completely oblivious to these local racial factors.
ORDER IT NOW
However the powerful role of immigration in transforming the crime rates of important urban
centers probably had a much smaller impact on the national totals. The combined black
populations of New York City, Washington, and Los Angeles may have dropped by half a million
over the last two decades, but the individuals pushed out did not disappear from the world;
they merely moved to Atlanta or Baltimore or Riverside. But from the personal perspective of
America's ruling elite, they did indeed disappear.
For over thirty years, local black activists in Washington, D.C. have accused the ruling
white power structure of promoting "The Plan," a deliberate strategy of removing most of the
black population from our national capital and replacing them with whites; and this "conspiracy
theory" has been endlessly ridiculed as absurdly paranoid nonsense by our elite Washington
media. Meanwhile, during this same thirty year period, Washington's black population dropped
from over 70% to less than half and will probably fall below the white total within the next
few years.
Indeed, the strong support of our political elites for Section 8 housing vouchers may be
less connected with any alleged social benefits these provide than with their important role in
moving large numbers of impoverished urban residents away from the near vicinity of wealthy
neighborhoods out into the remote suburbs of the middle class. Several years ago the
Atlantic published a major
article by Hanna Rosin on the rapid changes in the geographical pattern of crime induced by
these demographic shifts, and the piece provoked much discussion even though the author avoided
unduly emphasizing the troubling racial aspects. Elite selfishness is hardly surprising and a
policy of exporting those populations with a strong link to crime into other localities seems a
natural strategy, especially if this can be accomplished under the altruistic guise of
socially-uplifting anti-poverty programs.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that this clear political interplay between heavy
levels of immigration and black urban displacement is a relatively recent development and
certainly was not anticipated by the original promoters of the 1965 Immigration Act. Indeed,
although restrictionists routinely denounce that legislation for having flooded America with
Hispanic immigrants, the facts are precisely the opposite. While the 1924 Immigration Act had
drastically curtailed immigration from Europe (and Asia), the entire Western Hemisphere was
totally exempted, and the U.S. retained its previous "open borders" policy for Mexico and the
rest of Latin America until strict quotas were finally introduced as part of the 1965 law.
Although these 1965 changes were expected to enable renewed European immigration, no one
anticipated the vast inflow of Hispanic and Asian immigrants in the decades that followed, nor
the resulting impact upon the racial composition of our major cities. But today these
continuing urban demographic changes may have now become a significant motive in the minds of
the elites advocating increased immigration under the legislation being considered by
Congress.
During the 1960s black author James Baldwin coined the widely-quoted phrase "Urban renewal
means Negro removal." I suspect that a somewhat similar semi-intentional national policy is
today transforming America's leading urban centers, although it remains almost entirely
unreported by our mainstream media.
On rare occasions, the mask slips and the underlying mental workings of our national elites
are momentarily revealed. Consider New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of our most vocal
pro-immigration voices on the national stage and a man whose vast wealth and influence often
allow him to be far more candid on controversial topics than most other public figures. In May
2011 Bloomberg was
interviewed on Meet the Press , and explained that if he had full authority, he could
easily fix the seemingly insoluble problems of a city like Detroit at no cost to the taxpayer.
He proposed opening wide the floodgates to unlimited foreign immigration on the condition that
all the additional immigrants moved to Detroit and lived there for a decade or so, thereby
transforming the city. I suspect this provides an important insight into how he and his friends
discuss certain racial issues in private.
Powerful quantitative evidence for social determinism may be dispiriting, and when the main
determinant seems to be race, many Americans will choose to throw up their hands and ignore the
statistical facts, simply hoping that these might somehow be proven incorrect. That is
certainly their privilege, but for those individuals who prefer to grit their teeth and mine
the data for contrary indications, there do exist a few interesting nuggets.
Weighted average correlations are a very useful summary statistic, but they neither tell the
whole story nor do they preclude the existence of outlying cases, which might provide some
insights on ameliorating the grim situation we have described. And it so happens that among our
many dozens of major urban centers one of the most extreme race/crime outliers is neither small
nor obscure: New York City. Our largest metropolis often has crime rates that deviate sharply
from the usual urban pattern observed almost everywhere else.
Recall our earlier mention of the surprising absence of any correlation between urban
population density and crime rates. Those summary statistics were correct, but they also hid
some important variations and the null overall result was almost entirely due to the extremely
high density and low crime rates in America's largest city, combined with its huge
population-weighting. If we excluded New York City from our calculations, the remainder of
America's major urban centers would demonstrate some moderately strong and fairly stable
correlations between density and crime over the last dozen years; for example, density has
generally had a positive correlation of around 0.35 with robbery rates.
Similar anomalies appear in the racial crime calculations that have been the central focus
of our analysis. Based on its racial composition, we would expect New York City's homicide rate
to be some 70% higher than it actually is, with robbery and violent crime also being far more
widespread. Cities like San Jose and San Diego may have homicide and violent crime rates only
half that of New York City, but given the stark differences in their underlying demographics,
it is New York City's Finest who deserves praise for their remarkable effectiveness in crime
prevention. Evaluating the apparent success or failure of urban law enforcement policies
without candidly considering a city's demographic challenges may lead to incorrect policy
judgments.
Little of New York City's success in crime prevention seems due to the relative size of its
police force, which is roughly similar to those of Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston
on a per capita basis, and far below that of Washington, D.C., all cities whose crime rates
reflect their demographics. So it appears that New York City's crime-fighting methods rather
than merely the number of its officers has been the crucial factor.
Ideas have consequences, as do attempts to avoid them. For most of the last twenty years,
the policing methods implemented under mayors Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg won
enormous national praise as they so dramatically cut New York crime rates: murders dropped by
over three-quarters. But during the last few years, some of these same policies have begun
receiving widespread criticism among those pundits who may have forgotten just how bad things
were two decades ago.
Our simple statistical analysis obviously does not allow us to disentangle the relative
importance of the different factors behind New York City's success. Since the early 1990s, the
city implemented a "community policing" model as well as pioneering the rapid use of local
crime data to pinpoint dangerous hotspots and allocate resources more accurately. But other
elements of the package have included strict, even harsh policing methods, such as the
widespread use of "stop-and-frisk" to reduce gun violence. Denouncing these techniques as
unconstitutional or racially discriminatory may be perfectly justified, but those who do so
must consider the trade-offs involved, including the very real possibility of a 70% rise in
homicides if local policing effectiveness declined to levels found in the rest of the
country.
Let us compare the demographic and crime trends of New York City and Washington, twin abodes
of our East Coast urban elite. Between 1985 and 2011, Washington's homicide rate dropped by
26%, robbery fell 27%, and violent crime in general was cut by 30%; but the city's black
population also dropped by 27% during this same period. Meanwhile, New York City's
corresponding declines in crime were far greater, 67%, 78%, and 67% respectively, but were
accompanied by only a small 7% decline in black numbers. For all these serious crime rates to
decline at nearly ten times the rate of their primary racial determinant is absolutely
remarkable, a combination that left the city an exceptional outlier among America's major urban
centers.
Put another way, if America's other cities with large black populations had somehow managed
to achieve the same surprisingly low crime rates as New York City then most of the high racial
crime correlations that have been the central findings of this article would disappear.
Conversely, if New York City were excluded from our current national statistics, many of the
existing racial crime correlations would exceed 0.90. These are objective facts and
well-intentioned analysts who sharply criticize New York City policing methods should recognize
that they may face some unpalatable choices.
Perhaps further research would establish that the widely-lauded elements of local police
practice are the ones primarily responsible for such results, and the more controversial
methods may safely be eliminated without negative consequences. But for whatever combination of
reasons, the overall results achieved by New York City have been quite remarkable and caution
should be exercised before drastic changes are made in such a successful model.
Obviously New York City is not the sole positive outlier on these crime statistics, though
it is by far the most significant, both because of its size and the magnitude of its deviation
from the predicted results. If we examine the 2011 homicide rates for our set of sixty-six
large cities, seventeen of these were at least 30% below the projected trendline, with four
cities -- Charlotte, Raleigh, St. Paul, and Virginia Beach -- achieving even better results
than New York City. But many of these successful cities have numerically small black
populations, and the total for all seventeen combined is not much larger that of New York City
alone. One intriguing fact is that although fewer than one-third of the all our large cities
lie in the South, these Southern cities account for over two-thirds of those particularly
successful examples, and a roughly similar pattern applies both for other crime rates and for
other recent years. The exact mix of cultural, socio-economic, or demographic factors
responsible for such notable Southern success in achieving relatively low urban crime rates is
unclear, but might warrant further investigation.
Over the last decade or two, liberal intellectuals have regularly denounced their
conservative opponents for allowing ideological considerations to trump objective facts,
sometimes styling themselves the "Reality-Based Community" as an ironic riposte to the foolish
criticism of a top Bush Administration official. Many of these liberal accusations have
considerable merit. But individuals who claim to accept reality undercut their credibility if
they pick and choose which portions of reality they acknowledge and which portions they
carefully ignore. Our academic and media elites should not avoid factual evidence that they
dislike.
Consider that over one-quarter of all the urban black males in America have vanished from
our society, a loss-ratio approaching that experienced by Europeans during the Black Death of
the Middle Ages. Yet these astonishing statistics have largely remained unreported by our major
media and hence unrecognized by the general American public. Should the medieval scribes of the
Fourteenth Century have ignored the annihilating impact of the bubonic plague all around them
and merely confined their writings to more pleasant news?
It is said that very young children sometimes believe they can hide themselves by covering
their eyes, and that seems to be the general approach taken by our major media to the
unpleasantly grim racial crime statistics analyzed in this article. But the reality continues
to exist whether or not we ignore it.
I found the correlation between whites-voting-Republican and race interesting. It seems to me
that those whites who have lived around lots of blacks, who would be likely to know and
understand the black culture, are most likely to vote Republican, while those whites who have
never lived with blacks vote Democrat. I wonder why that would be.
Perhaps the reason liberals fail to make any progress on gun control policy is that they
ignore the best evidence for its arguments: black crime. In ignoring black crime, they
exaggerate "white crime" -- and whites must find this infuriating and antagonizing. It's no
wonder they refuse to give up their guns.
If liberals started to argue that gun control is needed to curb the high rate of black
crime, then i would bet that they would win many more blue collar whites to their cause. But
they wont' do this because criticizing blacks is counter productive to their more important
goal :racial polarization.
If you asked your average liberal, he would tell you that black crime is a myth. If this
is so, then who is committing all the crime in America? "White people!," he will say. Indeed,
liberals must believe that American's high crime rate is predominately due to whites --
because blacks certainly aren't contributing to it, to think so it a myth!
It's very odd, at first glance, that Hispanic crimes rates have dropped at exactly the same
time that white crime rates have soared. It's doubly odd because the average age of the
Hispanic population is so young (and crime is a young persons game) while the average age of
the white population is increasing.
But you don't have to search very far to find the explanation. Most crime commited by
Hispanics is now attributed to "whites". Have a look at this "white" criminal on the Texas
Most Wanted list.
Too bad, so sad, that "truth" makes no significant difference to sociopolitical systems
based on being able to back up lies with violence. The only real roles for truthful facts
within those systems is to better enable backing up bigger lies with more violence.
Since it is quite relevant to the exhortations presented in the article above
(particularly given that the author is certainly correct that that author would soon be fired
and broke if named ) I repeat what I recently posted under:
It became painfully obvious long ago that the continued triumphs based on the bullies'
******** would automatically get worse faster. Since Globalized Neolithic Civilization was
always based on being able to back up lies with violence, and those methods worked all too
well, in the short to medium term, over and over again, it became painfully obvious that
those excessively successful applications of the methods of organized crime through the
political processes would inevitably result in Civilization manifesting runaway criminal
insanities. It was always painfully obvious that would happen at about exponentially
accelerating rates, which would seem slow at first, but then would happen faster and
faster.
As usually the case with writing from John Rutherford, as well as almost all other authors
republished on Zero Hedge , there is superficially correct analysis of the political
problems, followed by collapsing back to the same old-fashioned impossible ideals as the
basis for similarly superficial, but thus bogus, "solutions:"
"we need civic engagement and citizen activism, especially at the local level"
There is nothing which is going to stop the series of collapses into chaos and psychotic
breakdowns of Civilization NECESSARILY based on the principles and methods of organized
crime. There is nothing which is going to stop that Civilization from going through the
longer term consequences of runaway criminal insanities.
Articles like the one above, as well as practically all of the rest of the content
published on Zero Hedge , are worthwhile to read for the sake of their superficially correct
analysis. However, since they do not engage in deeper analysis of how and why Civilization
NECESSARILY operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime , which have
been applied on larger and larger scales, those kinds of arguments ALWAYS collapse back to
bogus "solutions" based on impossible ideals , which always backfire badly in the real world,
by causing the opposite to those ideals to actually happen.
"... real reform that holds government officials a t all levels accountable to playing
by the rules of the Constitution, then shame on us."
While a democratic republic operating through the rule of law was a good theory, in
practice "playing by the rules of the Constitution" could NEVER be anything more than
divisions of powers providing checks and balances to the ACTUAL operations of governments as
the biggest forms of organized crime , dominated by the best organized gangsters.
Money was ALWAYS measurement backed by murder. The debt controls were ALWAYS backed by the
death controls. The vicious feedback spirals of the funding of the political processes
resulted in the monetary and taxation systems becoming more and more corrupted, in the
craziest possible ways, because that was due to the excessive successfulness of applying the
methods of organized crime , in ways which NECESSARILY drove runaway criminal insanities.
In that context, it has become GOOFY to recommend "real reform" achieved by "civic
engagement and citizen activism!"
Metaphorically speaking "the fish has already thoroughly rotted from the head to the
tail." The entrenched debt slavery systems (legalized counterfeiting as the supreme
achievement of organized crime) have ALREADY generated numbers which are debt insanities,
which ARE going to provoke death insanities, on astronomically amplified magnitudes, due to
about exponentially advancing technologies enabling those sociopolitical systems based on
enforcing frauds to become about exponentially more fraudulent.
What I recommend regarding the runaway fascist plutocracy juggernauts' runaway fascist
police, are series of intellectual revolutions and profound paradigm shifts in political
science. That would require deeper analysis of how and why Civilization NECESSARILY operates
as organized crime , and then follows through with genuine solutions consistent with that
deeper analysis, as indicating better organized crime.
"We the People" can NEVER go back to the old-fashioned Constitution and Bill of Rights. It
is only possible to go forwards through the eruptions of death insanities, to perhaps direct
the development of better death controls, which could back up better debt controls.
While it is theoretically possible that enough human beings could better understand
themselves as manifestations of general energy systems, integrated into all other energy
systems, as nested toroidal vortices engaged in entropic pumping of environmental energy
flows, doing so would require greater scientific revolutions, which would then inspire and
guide political science to be radically revolutionized.
The old-fashioned DUALITIES of false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals
are not going to work. What might work are developing UNITARY MECHANISMS to better understand
politics as manifestations of the general energy systems, which always were, are, and will
be, the same as the principles and methods of organized crime , despite that when those
succeeded on larger and larger scales, then the bullies' ******** with respect to that drove
public debates of those issues to become more and more irrational.
The laws of nature are never going to stop working. However, those laws of nature have
driven the laws of men to become as dishonest as possible, which includes now becoming about
exponentially more dishonest as the methods of organized crime are applied using the powers
and capabilities of about exponentially advancing technologies.
There is nothing which can stop Globalized Neolithic Civilization, with the USA leading
the way, as the American Dollar/Military, from manifesting runaway criminal insanities . It
is only remotely possible that such events will enable the development of real, radical,
revolution, which is primarily revolution in political science.
Enough of the "civic engagement and citizen activism" should STOP believing in achieving
"real reform" by series of political miracles based on old-fashioned impossible ideals.
While the more mainstream media do not even engage in superficially correct political
analysis, but rather continue to promote Huge Lies, most of the people on various alternative
media, such as Zero Hedge , still manage to switch from superficially correct analysis to
similarly superficial "solutions."
POLITICAL PROBLEMS have become globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by
threats of force from apes with atomic weapons (into which have recently been released
viruses made by primates to become more infectious on primates .)
Despite those being the FACTS, somehow most people can either continue to deliberately
ignore those FACTS, or perhaps recommend going back to old-fashioned ideals as the basis for
bogus "solutions" to those PROBLEMS, despite that those ideals never imagined those
PROBLEMS.
Political science ought to be radically transformed in order to reconcile political
science with the progress in other sciences (which physical sciences also have to be
radically transformed, because of the history of the corruption of those physical sciences,
which accompanied the corruption of every other aspect of Globalized Neolithic
Civilization.)
"Reforms" are NEVER going to be enough. Only revolution might be enough, and such a real
revolution goes far beyond the old-fashioned, fake revolutionaries' notions regarding
politics.
Political science would have to become more consistent with physical sciences such as
quantum mechanics, the special theory of relativity, and molecular biology, and so on and so
forth, for that revolutionized political science to begin to cope with the PROBLEMS presented
by the technologies enabled by prodigious progress in those physical sciences.
Given the awesome degrees of difficulty with respect to achieving anything like that, I
believe that the most reasonable predictions for the 21st Century are for the human
population to not reach almost 10 billion, but rather, to drop below one billion.
Given that the article above was superficially correct about how bad the situation has
become, and given that its bogus "solutions" are practically impossible, the most reasonable
expectations are for democidal martial law to mass murder the majority of Americans, either
directly or indirectly. Indeed, that is the most reasonable scenario (Civilization gets
crazier as Nature goes nuts) in which it might be possible to develop better organized crime
, as the only actually possible better government.
"... For years I have said here that the identity-politics left has no idea what kind of demons it is calling up by endorsing illiberal, positive discrimination on behalf of nonwhites. Well, they’re about to show themselves in a big way in Weimar America ..."
"... And in the age of the reformation, after a hundred and fifty years of war and around twenty million deaths, there were still Catholics and there were still protestants. Neither side just went away. ..."
"... .I've said it my whole life, Identity politics are poison. I don't believe in race, as far as I am concerned it's a pernicious social construct. None of the statistics about mass numbers of "racial" characteristics ..."
"... I can now assume they will prejudge me, however, according to their own subjective madness. Well, I guess, if to no one else, the Christians can still witness to and be a good influence on the white nationalists. ..."
"... Egalitarianism is the rule of the Woke and Diversity and Inclusion and Equity are the holy principles. The problem is that these principles deny the reality of life and make a devil of "whiteness" and create a magic worldview of "systemic racism". Moreover, the principles are anti-Christian. ..."
"... We also need to acknowledge that increased multiculturalism causes increased intergroup conflict and weakens social capital. ..."
"... I ran into identity groups in grad school, as I encountered La Raza and MeCHA, two radical Hispanic identity groups bent on the Reconquista. It was weird. It seemed un-American. ..."
The militants have chosen the most sympathetic states, governors and mayors for these protests, riots, arson, assault, etc and
most recently urban takeovers but success against pacifist mayors and governors breads hubris and conceit and over confidence.
Eventually they are going to try this in a less sympathetic state ...
Trump is going to use the inaction of the democratic mayors and democratic governors to get the citizenry so fed up that those
long time democratic states will turn republican. Trump similarly boxed in democratic mayors and democratic governors by letting
them keep their states closed while Trump was re-opening the economy.
These are all bricks in the wall of resentment building against democrats, but I don't think anything is going to happen until
the states request it....
First: get yourself in order. Get out of debt, this will give you financial margin and make you better able to withstand the shocks
to come. Critically evaluate how you spend your time, this will allow you to focus on what's important (starting with your family,
then church, then neighbors).
Buying books, standing in line for 3 hours to vote and endless doom-scrolling has never changed the world, and won't this time
either. I'm not the only one to notice that the Left has made more concrete gains in 2 weeks of protests and setting things on
fire then they have in the last decade pathetically voting for Centrist Dems.
One thing I believe conservatives have to be willing to do is to withdraw from supporting public and private institutions that
endorse and implement wokeness. Take your money and your labor away. Stop supporting institutions and organizations that are working
against you. If we don’t know yet how to effectively fight the putsch, at least we can stop supporting the organizations that
putschists have conquered.
This is about the only thing most people at this point can do. But conservatives could be doing this already, and most aren't.
Why? It is literally the **very least** you can do, and conservatives had damned well better do it if they want to retain any
sway whatsoever.
The first and most important task in fighting a war is to choose your battles.
In an earlier post, Rod, you talked about the "collapsing Imperium." Exactly. And would a fleeing Roman have wasted their precious
time and energy arguing with the Visgoths rampaging around the city?
No — you fight when you can meaningfully influence the outcome by fighting; if you can't, then your "fight" is tilting at windmills.
In my opinion, what we're experiencing are symptoms of the end of the era of the nation-state. For centuries, the nation-state
was a valuable way to organize power. Today, much (and increasing) power belongs to rootless globalized corporations. Today's
heads of state spend more time meeting with representatives from Amazon, Google, the banks etc. than they do meeting with each
other (or with their constituents).
The problem begins and ends with our leadership class. I say this often. It's still true. I think that many people don't like
what is happening right now. Many are frustrated. Some are angry. The problem is that no one in the leadership class is really
taking up their cause and articulating what they feel, so they end up feeling alone and isolated. The appeal of white nationalism
comes in part from a sense that the movement is revealing hidden truths; they offer a story to make sense of things that isolated
young people find frustrating but lack a narrative to explain. What this amounts to is a new mythology to replace the one we are
in the process of losing.
Individualism only works if both sides practice it. If one side practices individualism and the other practices identity politics,
the identity politics side has a systematic, unfair advantage. Left wing identity politics makes right wing identity politics
inevitable. Otherwise the right will just be routed (as it is being currently).
Re Hawley's speech. It was decent and I agree with about half of it. What I do not get is the desire to retain the names of Confederate
generals on military bases. They, after all, fought for a flag other than the one that flies over those bases today. It strikes
me as odd that a president who wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy our armed forces in American cities wants to continue
to honor those who led the biggest insurrection in our history. Having a military base named ofter you is an honor, not a mere
commemoration of history. I'd rather have a Fort Eisenhower than a Fort Bragg.
"For years I have said here that the identity-politics left has no idea what kind of demons it is calling up by endorsing illiberal,
positive discrimination on behalf of nonwhites. Well, they’re about to show themselves in a big way in Weimar America."
I'm from the left, but I hope you'll consider this constructive.
I have lived in Orange County, California since 2008. It used to be a strongly conservative area, but it has become "purple"
in recent years. Clinton carried it by a hair in 2016, and our representation in the CA legislature has oscillated back and forth
between Rs and Ds recently. Being somewhat active in my community, I know many liberals and many conservatives, and we all get
a long just fine day to day. Most people here, I sense, really aren't all that interested in politics.
But interestingly, for the first time since I have lived here, I have seen two houses in my neighborhood flying confederate
flags. Yes, as an epidemiologist, I'd rather have real statistics from well designed surveys. But I read those two events as indicating
something big happening.
The DSA, and really the "internet" left as a whole, is going through a similar situation which you may find interesting. Recently
the DSA branch in Philly canceled a talk with Adolph Reed because he's a "class reductionist". Which led to the Class Unity DSA
writing this response
So.....you may need to consider that pro-working class leftists are the only people who actually want to protect anyone from
being canned by their employer for ridiculous reasons. Perhaps Christians should considering "unionizing"
Also, I am not affiliated with the DSA in anyway nor do I have any desire to.
In a hundred years, we are still going to have the "woke". The specifics of their ideology may change dramatically between now
and then. Maybe none of them will care about sexuality or race anymore. Maybe the new front line will be animal liberation or
cyborgs or what people are allowed to do to AIs in virtual reality, but the woke will still be with us.
And those who oppose them will still be with us too. Cultural conservatism is bound to change as well, though more slowly than
progressivism does. I hope Christianity is still a factor in a hundred years, even if Christians are in the minority. Regardless,
there will still be people who regard the rapid changes in society and technology with suspicion or dismay.
And in the age of the reformation, after a hundred and fifty years of war and around twenty million deaths, there were still
Catholics and there were still protestants. Neither side just went away.
It seems to me we can either reach some accommodation now, or after a century of misery. Neither side is going anywhere.
Here are some suggestions for beleaguered folks in these tense times.
1. Document everything . Save the emails. If you attend a meeting and hear something oppressive, take note of it, write
it down as accurately as you can, date, and save it.
2.Never broaden the conflict. Don't create what will turn into a muddle if, for your part, you possibly can. Don't give them
any pretext, by anything you write or say, or by your facial expression or tone of voice, to claim that you are clinging to white
privilege.
3.Don't ever trust the wokesters, the administrators, etc. Don't make it obvious that you don't trust them, but realize that
friendly and reasonable-seeming people can turn quickly into something else.
4.Know what the employer can point to to try to make you knuckle under. For example, if you are a college teacher, know what
the university says about "affirming" people of all sexual proclivities. Say nothing and write nothing that *unnecessarily* conflicts
with the interpretations they may give their mission statement, organizational policy, etc. You want to be able, when the time
comes, to look back and know that, if necessary, you said what you had to say, did what you had to do, but to have a mind free
of regret because you flew off the handle, or were sarcastic, etc. When you are frightened, don't show it, e.g. by venting anger,
if you can help it. Subdue your passions even while those around you are acting like nuts.
5.Know your rights. You may end up needing to take somebody to court.
First. Get money and I mean lots of money. Be in a position where you can't lose your job because you don't need to have one.
Second, be aggressive. Don't hesitate to do everything possible to utterly destroy your enemy. They will do it to you Engage in
litigation at the drop of a hat. Use investigators to expose criminal activity. The only good Liberal is one dying in prison.
Third, embrace the ways of Cosimanian Orthodoxy. Never give the enemy a foothold. If they accuse you of racism, laugh and say,
"Yeah. So what?" Never, ever, show or feel the slightest sign of guilt.
Be ruthless in all your ways.
And remember the words of Admiral Halsey. "Attack. Repeat. Attack."
...I've said it my whole life, Identity politics are poison. I don't believe in race, as far as
I am concerned it's a pernicious social construct. None of the statistics about mass numbers of "racial" characteristics ever
tell me anything important or accurate about any other individual person I will meet myself. I suppose if they are Woke, I can
now assume they will prejudge me, however, according to their own subjective madness. Well, I guess, if to no one else, the Christians
can still witness to and be a good influence on the white nationalists.
I have been pondering on this for awhile. Egalitarianism is the rule of the Woke and Diversity and Inclusion and Equity are the
holy principles. The problem is that these principles deny the reality of life and make a devil of "whiteness" and create a magic worldview
of "systemic racism". Moreover, the principles are anti-Christian.
The gospel invites all to come onto Christ. There is no place for hatred in Christendom. But people are different and God give
salvation to those that refuse to obey him. God invites all to him but many won't be in heaven.
This means we can't hate the haters either, which the intolerant Left believes in doing. We need to forgive and not demand
people to make amends for things done by their ancestors. We need to face reality and move on instead of firing those that speak
against the Great God Diversity.
So, we need to utterly reject the blank slate. We are not all the same and God made us all different. Groups of people do share
common traits, which is why the concept of "race" is real. Some groups are faster than others due to genetics. Some are smarter
than others.
God loves all of us, no matter where he placed us on this planet and wants all of us to come onto him. But we are not all the
same and He made us different.
To acknowledge differences isn't racism, but is "living not by lies". To acknowledge that some groups have a much higher rate
of violence than others isn't racist or discriminatory. Instead, honesty allows us to not push square pegs in round wholes.
So, we need to reject the entire "racism" construct as invalid. It is a tool to manipulate people and create intergroup conflict.
We also need to acknowledge that increased multiculturalism causes increased intergroup conflict and weakens social capital.
Why was the USA so successful in the 20th century? One reason was the holy Melting Pot, as we created a single general American
identity and focused on that. I really liked my childhood in SoCal. My classmates were from around the world and had grabbed hold
of the American identity.
We did have one student in my advanced math classes in high school. He didn't understand what was being taught and spent the
class period every day demanding help on the previous day's work that he didn't understand. He should have moved to a lower class,
but instead wasted our time and dragged everyone down.
It seems we are doing the same thing today.
I ran into identity groups in grad school, as I encountered La Raza and MeCHA, two radical Hispanic identity groups bent on
the Reconquista. It was weird. It seemed un-American.
So, let's not give lip service to the DIE agenda. Let's reject the Great God of Egalitarianism. Instead, let's be full of love
but be honest and truthful. We don't exclude based upon race, but we don't believe in equality of outcome or bringing everyone
done to the lowest individual. We don't invite everyone in the world in. We stop immigration long enough to integrate those we
have imported.
Spiritually get closer to God and pray for a nonviolent resolution. We are going to need a new ethos that focuses on people not
politics or policy. That is literally the point of the gospel. Be a city on a hill!
Some of the other actions I've been thinking quite a bit about is moving to a more red or conservative state. I know this is
not a panacea but at least, in my opinion, you can more easily cultivate strong relationships that are going to be needed to help
guide and fend off this competing "religion".
As you said, make a mental note of the institutions that are spreading "wokeness" to the best of your ability. Here in MA that
can be very difficult but I do to a degree have some agency here. Colleges and/or businesses not another dime.
Lastly I've completely written off all sports entirely. Not another dollar to the "toy box" of my world and for most men in
my opinion. Looking back I made sports an idol and was it was complete waste of time.
RD have you yourself considered stepping past writing and into the field of action? I could easily see a nationwide tour to include
a talk with you and another person, but more importantly allowing others to network with one another and make some real life connections.
Because more than anything that’s what we need, relationships with likeminded people.
And let’s be honest, come the revolution, you’re already going to be in the first batch sent to the gulag regardless of what
you do now anyway. Might as well kick a ball forward for future generations while you have the ability. I’d gladly contribute
to such an event.
Wow... this may be the first time I've actually been really convinced by your pessimism. There really be no way to fight this.
I hope that someone find some way. I have always hoped we wouldn't really get to Solzhenitsyn... but now
This may be unpopular with some readers, but here goes: Would your friend be willing to identify as a Cultural Christian? That
is, could you convince him to identify as a non-believing Christian and spend some time engaging in Christian ritual (reading
Scripture/church fathers, going to church occasionally)? I've found that those attracted to white nationalism at least have some
reverence for the ancient and medieval Christian heritage. There are countless artists and thinkers over the centuries that have
take a position of wrestling with Christ for their entire lives, without ever becoming full-fledged Christians. The presumption,
of course, is that your friend may be more open to receiving God's Grace within the church than outside it. And it might prove
to be that moderating influence he needs.
I have a few thoughts and, not necessarily advice, but a few words for the woman whose friend has become a white nationalist.
Like many here, over the past week I’ve been inundated with reading lists and things I have to do to be an ally (decent human),
all written in the unabashedly threatening tone of a ransom note. (I work in a very liberal environment.) While I reflexively
balk at these things and am a natural contrarian, I’ve actually been diving into some of these suggested books, articles, and
movies and I have to say: I’ve become quite ashamed of American history and myself in a way I’ve never been before. Yes, I knew
about slavery and Jim Crow, etc., but redlining, contract lending – the denial of mortgages, social security and the GI Bill to
the majority of blacks – these were things I honestly had never known or thought about. White Americans had an incredible opportunity
in the middle of the 20th century to lift up black people and give them a real opportunity and instead we created ghettoes and
tenements. We blew it. And the biggest tragedy to me is the failure of white Christians to be a model for racial harmony and integrate
our churches. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Good Christians are trying to jump on the Black Lives Matter bus when
that movement should be jumping on our bus. We should’ve been leading the drive for racial unity, but we hung back and let other
people, whose agenda and beliefs are in many ways incompatible with Christianity, take the lead and now anyone who goes against
them will be on the chopping block. Rod, I’m very happy that you have stated so strongly that this cannot be a white vs black
thing. I’m not sure everyone in the back is hearing this. We have to be unequivocally and strenuously FOR our black brothers and
sisters in Christ, but against woke madness. In fact, I see this as our only way forward. People of all races who uphold Christian
or traditional religious values have to join together and support each other in a way we never have before. We have to take the
criticisms and complaints of people seriously even if we don’t agree on the solutions. For your friend, my only recommendation
would be to watch the documentaries by Deeyah Khan. You can find them on YouTube. She has one on white nationalists and one on
jihadists. It’s the same deal – young men who need a sense of purpose. What seems to help is becoming friends with the “enemy”
and seeing them as a real person. But the enemy has to want to understand and be your friend, too. That’s the part the woke crowd
doesn’t get, but Christians should know and do better.
"... As author Jim Keith explains, "Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control, police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is Orwell's vision of 1984 , a society of total control: synthesis." ..."
"... This isn't about racism in America. ..."
"... This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic corruption predicated on the police state's insatiable appetite for money, power and control. ..."
The Deep State, the powers-that-be, want us to turn this into a race war, but this is about
so much more than systemic racism. This is the oldest con game in the books, the magician's
sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is
being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.
It was February 1933, a month before national elections in Germany, and the Nazis weren't
expected to win. So they engineered a way to win: they began by infiltrating the police and
granting police powers to their allies; then Hitler brought in stormtroopers to act as
auxiliary police; by the time an arsonist (who claimed to be working for the Communists in the
hopes of starting an armed revolt) set fire to the Reichstag, the German parliamentary
building, the people were eager for a return to law and order.
Fast forward to the present day, and what do we have? The nation in turmoil after months of
pandemic fear-mongering and regional lockdowns, a national election looming, a president with
falling poll numbers, and a police state that wants to stay in power at all costs.
Then again, it's also equally possible that the architects of the police state have every
intention of manipulating this outrage for their own purposes.
It works the same in every age.
As author Jim Keith explains, "Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind
control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control,
police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is
Orwell's vision of 1984 , a society of total control: synthesis."
Here's what is going to happen: the police state is going to stand down and allow these
protests, riots and looting to devolve into a situation where enough of the voting populace is
so desperate for a return to law and order that they will gladly relinquish some of their
freedoms to achieve it. And that's how the police state will win, no matter which candidate
gets elected to the White House.
You know who will lose? Every last one of us.
Listen, people should be outraged over what happened to George Floyd, but let's get one
thing straight: Floyd didn't die
merely because he was black and the cop who killed him is white. Floyd died because America
is being overrun with warrior cops -- vigilantes with a badge -- who are part of a
government-run standing army that is waging war on the American people in the so-called name of
law and order.
Not all cops are warrior cops, trained to
act as judge, jury and executioner in their interactions with the populace. Unfortunately,
the good cops -- the ones who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their
fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace -- are increasingly being
outnumbered by those who believe the lives -- and rights -- of police should be valued more
than citizens.
These warrior cops may get paid by the citizenry, but they don't work for us and they
certainly aren't operating within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
This isn't about racism in America.
This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by
greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with
militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic
corruption predicated on the police state's insatiable appetite for money, power and
control.
This is a military coup waiting to happen.
Why do we have more than a million cops on the taxpayer-funded payroll in this country whose
jobs do not entail protecting our safety, maintaining the peace in our communities, and
upholding our liberties?
This is the new face of war, and America has become the new battlefield.
Militarized police officers, the end product of the government -- federal, local and state
-- and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a "standing" or permanent army,
composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband.
Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill
of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.
American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor were they
meant to be private security forces for the reigning political faction. Instead, they were
intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units, composed of citizens like you
and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
As a result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however, the
police now not only look like the military -- with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of
lethal weapons -- but they function like them, as well.
Thus, no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving and
protecting the American people. Instead, today's militarized law enforcement officials have
shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the state, acting preemptively to ward off any
possible challenges to the government's power,
unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment .
For years now, we've been told that cops need military weapons to wage the government's wars
on drugs, crime and terror. We've been told that cops need to be able to crash through doors,
search vehicles, carry out roadside strip searches, shoot anyone they perceive to be a threat,
and generally disregard the law whenever it suits them because they're doing it to protect
their fellow Americans from danger. We've been told that cops need extra legal protections
because of the risks they take.
Militarized police armed with weapons of war who are allowed to operate above the law and
break the laws with impunity are definitely not making America any safer or freer.
Militarism within the nation's police forces is proving to be deadlier than any
pandemic.
This battlefield mindset has gone hand in hand with the rise of militarized SWAT ("special
weapons and tactics") teams.
Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but
extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams have
become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial
federal assistance and the Pentagon's military surplus recycling program, which allows the
transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp
discounts while increasing the profits of its corporate allies.
Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these SWAT teams --
outfitted, armed and trained in military tactics -- are assigned to carry out relatively
routine police tasks, such as serving a search warrant. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been
employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community
nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and
misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.
Remember, SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely
sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine police work such
as serving a warrant. Unfortunately, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a
level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as
these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers.
Yet the tension inherent in most civilian-police encounter these days can't be blamed
exclusively on law enforcement's growing reliance on SWAT teams and donated military
equipment.
It goes far deeper, to a transformation in the way police view themselves and their line of
duty.
Specifically, what we're dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which
police, trained
to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war , whether against drugs, or terror, or
crime, must "get" the bad guys -- i.e., anyone who is a potential target -- before the bad guys
get them. The result is a spike in the number of incidents in which police shoot first, and ask
questions later.
Making matters worse, when these officers, who have long since ceased to be peace officers,
violate their oaths by bullying, beating, tasering, shooting and killing their employers -- the
taxpayers to whom they owe their allegiance -- they are rarely given more than a slap on the
hands before resuming their patrols.
This lawlessness on the part of law enforcement, an unmistakable characteristic of a police
state, is made possible in large part by police unions which routinely oppose civilian review
boards and resist the placement of names and badge numbers on officer uniforms; police agencies
that abide by the Blue Code of Silence, the quiet understanding among police that they should
not implicate their colleagues for their crimes and misconduct; prosecutors who treat police
offenses with greater leniency than civilian offenses; courts that sanction police wrongdoing
in the name of security; and legislatures that enhance the power, reach and arsenal of the
police, and a citizenry that fails to hold its government accountable to the rule of law.
Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing -- whether it's shooting
unarmed citizens (including children and old people),
raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports , trafficking drugs, or
soliciting sex with minors -- but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for
misconduct, it's only a matter of time before they
get re-hired again .
Incredibly, while our own Bill of Rights are torn to shreds, leaving us with few protections
against government abuses, a growing number of states are adopting Law
Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBoR), which provide cops accused of a crime with
special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.
This, right here, epitomizes everything that is wrong with America today.
As I explain in my book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we need civic engagement and citizen activism,
especially at the local level. However, if it ends at the ballot box without achieving any real
reform that holds government officials at all levels accountable to playing by the rules of the
Constitution, then shame on us.
There is a need for competent counterintelligence to, in effect, crack the egg and isolate
and take action against the hardcore network of trained provocateurs who have the capacity to
hijack genuine protest to further their goal: Chaos and civil conflict as the endgame.
Anyone see the photo of the FBI agents kneeling at the "protest" in DC?
Think this FBI is going to find out ANYTHING about these scumbags?
If they (accidently) did, they'd bury it.
Only thing preventing the FBI's corruption from doing real damage is their massive
incompetence.
Plus this is an existential war for the deep state. They have the most to gain and the most
direct interests in winning. Just don't be blind to the underlying motivations - there are no
coincidences, right? Past is prologue - get a copy of the 2012 Breitbart documentary "Occupy
Unmasked". The similarities exposed to what is again happening in 2020 will give one pause.
If the deep state can't pr won't handle it, perhaps vigilantes can come in from the
surrounding areas to liquidate the seditious secession move. It is obvious that the official
elements of the imperium have left the reservation so an unofficial initiative is
necessary.
1. Every member of the U.S. military swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution
and
the values embedded within it This document is founded on the essential principle that all
men
and women arc bom free and equal, and should be treated with respect and dignity. It also
gives
Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. We in uniform - all
branches,
all components, and all ranks - remain committed to our national values and principles
embedded in the Constitution.
2. During this current crisis, the National Guard is operating under the authority of
state
governors to protect lives and property, preserve peace, and ensure public safety.
3. As members of the Joint Force - comprised of all races, colors, and creeds - you embody
the
ideals of our Constitution. Please remind all of our troops and leaders that we will uphold
the
values of our nation, and operate consistent with national laws and our own high standards
of
This was a test - and Trump has failed it. His authority is consequently shot and he doesn't
appear to have the will to reassert it (the memo is over a week old now). The soft coup just
got a whole lot harder. Are we looking at the leader of a military junta?
By this memo CJCS has thrown in his hand with the coup. He claims to have a higher loyalty
than obeying the CinC. This is what all militaries do when they get involved in
revolutions.
What this means in practice is that the military will no longer obey orders from the CinC
that are not approved by Antifa and its chief supporter in Congress - Pelosi. That means that
Trump is effectively a prisoner in the Whitehouse if Antifa decides to keep him there. To put
that another way, you can forget the National Guard assisting the police.
Expect other officials to follow Milleys lead shortly unless Trump successfully fires
Milley and reassert his authority. What follows next is renewed civil disobedience and
breakdown of law and order including demanding Trump resign, in response to which the police
can do nothing and the troops will do nothing.
Trump will then be urged to go "for the good of the country". We have scripted such
morality plays in foreign countries ourselves.
Soros is actually a specialist in supporting color revolutions and played an important role in financing of both Ukrainian
Maidans. As such he is closely connected to CIA and the State Department.
Proposals for the CHAZ flag – featuring pink umbrellas and the black stenciled fist so
familiar from "color revolutions" around the world – also point in that
direction.
Still farce remains a farce, not matter how hard some people try this is not a revolution, this is a controlled opposition to
Trump.
As part of its series of undercover videos exposing left-wing organizations like Antifa,
Project Veritas released footage claiming to show far-left Democrat activists bragging about
George Soros funding and political connections. Tom Steyer – who unsuccessfully
campaigned for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination for 2020 – and liberal
financier George Soros are both named as financial contributors in the new clip on Refuse
Fascism, an organization dedicated to removing President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike
Pence from office.
Andy Zee, national organizer for the group, mentions during the seven-minute video that
Steyer "may not want to be directly connected" to the group because he has "political
ambitions" that may be hurt by such a relationship, but Zee says the group is in communication
with Steyer's assistant and "main adviser on impeachment."
Zee also mentions that past employees of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign have
also been involved in the group.
Tee Stern, head of the group's Atlanta chapter, is seen eating dinner with undercover
Veritas reporters at another point, and reveals the group received a "grant" from
controversial billionaire Soros.
Silicon Valley is also mentioned as a major source of income for the group.
Stern later makes repeated calls for "thousands of people, then millions" to "come
into the streets" and act as a disruptive force until the president is made to leave
office.
The video is the third part in a series from Veritas meant to expose left-wing organizations
like Refuse Fascism and Antifa, groups that are behind or are part of many of the ongoing
protests across the US.
Refuse Fascism is a group gaining more and more attention from conservatives. Author and
filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza described them as part of a left-wing "paramilitary force" this
week.
"The left has deployed a paramilitary. They literally have a paramilitary force on the
street. It's not just Antifa. It's all the other groups: Refuse Fascism, Black Lives Matter,
and on it goes," D'Souza
said .
Previous Veritas undercover videos exposed Antifa members promoting violence like eye-gouging and
even fight training for upcoming
protests.
The Black Lives Matter campaign is correct to demand justice for George Floyd's brutal death. But trying to turn this violent
ex-con into a Mandela-like martyr does this crusade a great disservice.
I wonder what ran through
George Floyd's terrified mind during those agonising eight minutes and 46 seconds. Did his life flash before his eyes?
Perhaps he was a religious
man and – realizing his number was up after he mumbled those famous last
words
:
"Please,
I can't breathe!"
– he silently prayed to God for help, or maybe even made an act of contrition.
But Floyd sadly hadn't got
a prayer with such a sadistic b*****d kneeling on his windpipe and literally sucking the life out of him, while three of his
colleagues – who had undertaken an oath to protect and serve – didn't lift a finger to help.
However, it's not right that he is now being canonized by the liberal left in their Black Lives Matter campaign, because the
truth is: this ex-con who has been
described
as
a
"career criminal"
was certainly no saint, judging by his past sins – which
include
aggravated
robbery, theft, criminal trespassing, and drug-related arrests.
Floyd's
"violent
criminal past"
once
saw
him break into a pregnant woman's home and point a loaded gun at her unborn child as he demanded money and drugs from her.
It's hard to imagine just how terrified his helpless victim must have felt with a firearm pressed against her unborn child.
Perhaps Floyd – seeing as
he was apparently a loving father – was racked with guilt about that particularly callous crime, right up until the very end.
It's also very possible
that there weren't any profound thoughts running around his head considering he might have been high at the time of his death.
The autopsy report discovered he had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his
system
at
the time of death (as well as Covid-19).
This type of evidence
hardly suggests a
"changed man,"
as is being
claimed
by
liberals and their media outlets, who are being allowed to run with this false narrative without being pulled up on it. Come
on! I mean, how can a drugged-up man with a violent past be absurdly portrayed as a
"gentle
giant"
? As the black conservative activist Candace Owens, who is now being pilloried for speaking her mind,
mused
,
"Was
he really going to turn things around? It's just not true."
If there is an
all-forgiving God – and only Floyd knows the answer to that question now – he would have certainly been welcomed through those
pearly white gates. But the last thing the Almighty would've ever contemplated would be how to turn this particular sinner
into a saint.
It's nothing short of ridiculous that he is being
hailed
as
a
"mentor to a generation of young men."
I can't believe the false hagiography,
coming from a liberal agenda wishing to use him as a propaganda prop, is being bought hook, line and sinker by a gullible
public. As Owens said,
"George Floyd was not a good person. I don't care who wants to
spin that, I don't care how CNN wants to make you think that he had just turned his life around."
Similarly, you'd have to
question if the Alt-Right try to use his death to their own advantage, which no doubt Donald Trump will attempt to do during
the upcoming presidential election. There's clearly already been a dirty tricks campaign to smear and demonise Floyd, judging
by some of the disgusting memes about his death, and there's also been some unnecessary information stuck up online about him
apparently
appearing
in
a sordid pornographic film – with the graphic footage itself being passed around for sickening laughs on WhatsApp in recent
days.
Floyd does not deserve to
have his name dragged through the mud, but he also shouldn't be falsely portrayed as a prophet either, if society wants to
properly mourn and protest against the gruesome manner in which he was cruelly taken from this world. There needs to be a
middle ground here.
At the end of the day, it
would be a fantastic tribute if his violent death radically shakes things up and actually helps to finally amputate, once and
for all, everything that is rotten at the core of America's soul.
But we must not turn him
into a saint because, sorry, the truth might hurt here, but – given his track record – it's not unfair to say he himself could
conceivably have been involved in the looting and rioting that's ripping apart America.
Owens'
comment
that
"the
fact that George Floyd is held up as a martyr sickens me"
was most certainly OTT, to say the least. But – apart from the
insensitive timing of broadcasting such contentious views just before the poor man was being buried – I really don't
understand all the hullabaloo about most of her other views on his death.
Whatever way you spin it,
she was right in saying that Floyd is not a martyr – not in the true sense of the
definition
,
which is
"a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs."
He
was not like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, both of whom were willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their causes. It's an
insult to their memories to even mutter Floyd's name in the same breath as theirs – with no disrespectful pun intended there.
I'm not one for conspiracy
theories, but even I'm beginning to wonder if his death might not have even been racially motivated and was perhaps something
more sinister, given the fact that Floyd and his killer's paths had
crossed
when
they both worked security at the same club.
Owens was also correct when she said that other ethnic minorities, such as Jews or Hispanics, would not have embraced someone
who had done
"five stints in prison"
as a hero. The truth is, Floyd was nothing
more and nothing less than an unfortunate victim, if you want to put a label on him.
Owens – who as an
African-American herself is allowed to vocalize her thoughts in a way that I would be crucified for doing as a so-called
privileged white man – explained:
"[Black Americans] are unique in that we are the only
people that fight and scream and demand support and justice for the people in our community who are up to no good."
It would be a great
disservice to the memory of Floyd if in 50 years' time schools kids were to crack open their history books and read a
distorted account of his true story.
I've no doubt there was
some good in the man, but it's pushing the boat out if he ends up on tacky t-shirts with an iconic-style image of him with a
halo over his head. Floyd was not even an iconoclastic figure out there fighting the good fight, never mind some kind of a
religious icon.
Either way, let's hope his
six-year-old daughter Gianna will grow up to be able to genuinely repeat these poignant
words
:
"Dad
changed the world."
It will still be a proud legacy for her to cherish, but let's stop with all this nonsense of putting
this victim up on a pedestal. He was not a saint in life, so let's not make him one in death.
Junk article that promotes black as it they are new proletariat. Kind of rehashing of Marxism
on the foundation of black racism with blacks as new "progressive class" fighting for its
liberation. But from whom? IfF they want the liberation from financial capital, this is stupid --
they act as a Trojan force of financial capital avtilve splitting people who are able and willing
to fight neoliberalism along racial lines. Actually "white supremacy" is pretty ingenious
neoliberal propaganda trick. It helps to divide lower income people along racial lines, while
doing nothing to address the redistribution of the wealth under neoliberalism. such a perfect
smoke screen.
But two point made at the end are worth repeating
That fact that Black politician betrayed black voters and now are asking them to support
Creepy joe is not surpzing on bit. It is a part of neoliberal system when politicians serve the
financial oligarchy.
The term "Black Power," as we learned in the Sixties, can be misused in myriad ways. Black
Democratic Party loyalists claim that Blacks were empowered by voting for Joe Biden in huge
numbers in the primaries, thus saving his presidential candidacy. "Hands that once picked
cotton, now pick presidents," the Black Democrats exult, as if power flows from abject
servitude to the corporate dictatorship. In reality, Black voters gave the presidential
nomination to a politician who claims he "wrote" the crime bill that resulted in the
imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Black people; whose opposition to single payer health
care guarantees that Black people will continue to die disproportionately from damn near all
causes; and who opposes defunding the police, a minimal demand of the current mass
movement.
The oligarchs that rule the country and control both of its corporate parties and all of its
major media want the people to believe that politics is limited to the electoral process, and
that street activism, labor militancy and community organizing are outside the realm of "real"
politics. The events of the past ten days have proven the opposite: that massive street actions
and unrelenting people-pressure can yield far better results than decades of pulling levers for
corporate duopoly candidates.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
[email protected].
Neoliberalism and organized crime are twin brothers. Unemployment creates fertile ground for
gangs recruitment. The increase in size of gags provokes fight for the territory.
Saw an article from a retired cop comparing themselves with doctors, which I am one, and the accidental or negligent deaths in
the latter profession and how the society has come to accept those deaths.
More concern trolling. I find this tragic and horrifying, truly. It's taboo to talk about
it or mention it though, because if you do, regardless of who you are, you will be branded a
racist and the killing will continue because the issue is too sensitive to discuss
intelligently and constructively with those who have an agenda. It's clear militarized police
forces and more brutal police enforcement isn't the answer to this. The roots of it go much
deeper and are much more complex.
@31, concern trolling my ass, you sick f*ck. All of this is interrelated. No one said a
damn thing about blacks being more violent than anyone else. It's disingenuous of you to
claim I am what you have claimed I am. I am not that. Not by any stretch.
This is real. This is happening and it's all-too-often overlooked because it's a difficult
problem that persists because it doesn't lend itself to an easy fix. Yes, it is an issue of
class and this is a class war of which racism is a tool used by the elite to divide and
conquer.
While the gunfire is particularly pervasive in certain distressed and disinvested parts of
the city, it can arise anywhere, though some neighborhoods remain comparatively safe. Some
residents ponder leaving, while others live in constant fear that their family will fall
victim next -- and for good reason.
Peter Moskos, a Baltimore cop turned criminology professor at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, said he estimates, based on census data and the city's elevated rates of
gun violence, that upwards of 10% of black men in the most violent neighborhoods of East
and West Baltimore will be shot dead, most before they turn 35.
"It's hard to fathom," he said.
Those in its path say the violence comes like a tornado: Sending shrapnel in all
directions, it is impossible to ignore and crushing in its impact.
For some, it's a repeated horror.
"This violence will tear your family apart," said Arnetta Brown, 55, whose 28-year-old
son, Brian Simms Jr. was fatally shot in the city's Edgecomb neighborhood in 2013, and
whose 16-year-old grandson, Markell Hendricks, was fatally shot in Franklin Square in
March.
"This violence will suck all the breath out of your body and will wake you up in the
middle of the night and make you think you're suffocating," Brown said.
For you foreigners, I highly suggest you watch The Wire in its entirety. It's one
of my favorite series of all time. It's an education. You can't help feel for the characters.
They are victims of their circumstances for sure, because they have no options.
Yes, the widespread censoring of the real amount of gun related violence committed within
the Outlaw US Empire is totally counterproductive and was replaced by all the "cop reality
shows" populating cable TV, which I liken to the lurid penny press True Crime and Police
Gazette types of publications for the masses.
I do think all the violence has produced one
positive outcome: The realization by the vast majority that the Outlaw US Empire has a very
sick, dysfunctional society & culture that's anything but Civilized.
For me, that's been
apparent since the mid-1960s not long after 11/22/1963 and confirmed beyond doubt on 4/4/1968
when I was just 12. The national heritage of the Outlaw US Empire is one of slaughter,
oppression and exploitation that's ongoing, although it seems to have slowed some.
One big
problem is many people don't want to know about their reality and how they contribute to its
perpetuation, although that too seems to be changing somewhat.
Perhaps its the lack of sports
distractions at all levels that's forced more people to look in the mirror and their
community to see what's been there all along for the first time. But whatever the reason, I
welcome the admittedly unfocused social ferment--For an Empire that promotes Chaos, that
Chaos is now growing within I see as a welcome turn of the screw.
@karlof1
Just read that "History of Policing" article you recommended. Amazing stuff. Pretty clearly devastates the notion that police
are even remotely effective at dealing with crime - and were never intended to be. This equates with the experience in Europe
especially as it relates to the history of anarchism in Europe.
So I double down on my anarchist line: The only good cop is a dead cop.
Going further with my "human nature is the problem" philosophy, I think the description of events in the History of Policing
article demonstrates that "American democracy" was basically dead by the mid-1800's. As I've noted before, it was actually
basically dead in the late 1700's - both before and after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created, as a result of
the economic elites being opposed by the lower classes leading to riots that resulted in the suspension of habeas corpus - by
one of the "Founders", no less.
The "American Dream" is almost like the Zionist dream of a "Fortress Israel" protecting Jews from harm forever: a complete
fantasy that never had any possibility of being realized, any more than Hitler's dreams of Germany dominating the world.
People keep thinking "all we have to do is..." - and it immediately founders on human nature. This is why I'm a radical
Transhumanist - only the complete supersedence of human nature offers a way forward.
And the fact that less than 1 in a million humans agrees with that is proof of the point.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 11 2020 0:13 utc | 47
karlof1 #22
Yes, "organized crime" was developed by the police and their politico allies as further means of social control and to
augment their salaries. Still happens today with the nation's supposedly most important intelligence agency--CIA--being the
most formidable criminal organization on the planet.
Thanks for that fascinating post karlof1, I suspect that in the early 1900's those USA scientists collaborating and learning
alongside Pavlov's experimental lab were also developing theories of social control and practising various stimulus on animals
and perhaps people. It is very important to remember that Pavlov spent three decades and more exploring the ways
conditional reflexes could be created, refined and nullified.
That is a prodigious effort and must have produced some extraordinary talking points at the various conferences and science
symposia of the day.
The escalation in direct home attacks on USA lands by 'rogue' terrorists and 'psychotic' shooters has severely heightened fear
and loathing and demand for police effectiveness. But that expectation of effectiveness is confronted and rejected as policing
declines every year and public mass shooting increases.
The public drooling for a better world remains incessant and yet entirely frustrated - just like a dog.
There seems to be some mighty sinister experimentation being played out on the USA public. A thorough reassessment of USA
published papers and the labs that foster wide social experiments derived from Pavlov and his successors seems well past due.
The policing practice in the USA is grotesquely distorted from its primary social need or purpose and it is way past time to
reign it in and refocus. Policing should never be about assaulting civilians for trivia even if they pass a miserable
counterfeit $20 bill or sell a cigarette or get noisy at a demonstration. In my land there are large numbers of counterfeit
bills in circulation but the big distributers and printers get busted NOT unwitting civilians.
The many reports of police setting out rocks and pavers etc to enable destruction by passing agents provocateur or angry people
is a blatant indicator of a malign instruction set within policing. This evidence alone is sufficient to warrant a major
judicial inquiry in some rational form. I saw one video from Canada that was simply extraordinare as to police methodically
wandered around a public park gatherin rocks and piling them on a cairn on the roadside in advance of a passing demonstration
against police violence.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jun 11 2020 1:54 utc | 61
... ... ...
When the societal order breaks down the predators amongst us have free reign to have their way with the sheep. If it finally
comes to that, those of us sheep still alive and well will rue the day we celebrated tearing it all down.
Be careful what you wish for. A coercive power will always eventually emerge in society and the new one may not be so benign
compared with the one currently being pilloried based on the presentation of selective facts. There was a reason the French
people turned to Napoleon after many years of chaos and REAL blood flowing in the streets from the Revolution. But since we
can’t ask them, just ask an average citizen of Hong Kong who actually lives there what the recent “democracy” demonstrations in
that country were like and how the CCP looks good now as a result.
Posted by: Activist Potato | Jun 11 2020 2:03 utc | 63
As Jimmy Dore pointed out in his recent videos, it is the *system* that prevents police from being professional. Cops who *do*
want to "protect and serve" are weeded out. And the history article shows that this is based on the history of the country. It
is endemic and can't be corrected by half-measures.
"Good people would not be attracted to the profession if it were otherwise."
But they don't stay. They either become corrupted or they leave. Perhaps a handful of "good cops" remain. Remember the history
article mentioned the Knapp Commission in New York in the 1970's. I remember reading once that the Commission found that *every
single cop in New York* was on the take. Not a few "bad apples" - *every single cop*. That can't be explained by the "few bad
apples" trope.
"When the societal order breaks down the predators amongst us have free reign to have their way with the sheep."
No one is denying that there are predators. The predators were *created* by the system that runs this country. But in the end,
it comes down to the people to deal with those predators. It's like the movie, "The Magnificent Seven" (the original, not the
remake). This was an explicitly anarchist movie - and a right-wing anarchist movie at that. Bandits (representing the state)
coerce a small village to hand over most of their crops to feed the bandits (i.e., taxes.) The people raise a little money and
hire seven American gunslingers to take on the bandits. This might be considered the equivalent of the anarchist "private
protection agency" concept. The gunslingers initially set the bandits back on their heels, but are eventually put in a bad
situation by the bandits, and are on the verge of losing. But the people, emboldened by the example of the gunslingers, take up
whatever weapons they have and attack the bandits themselves, defeating them.
This is what *has* to happen. Except, to quote Percival Rose yet *again*: "That ain't gonna happen." And the reason once
*again*: human nature. As someone once said, if you made an average American President, he would govern like Idi Amin.
"pilloried based on the presentation of selective facts."
Now you've drifted off into complete bullshit. The history of the US - and the history of the state and society everywhere - is
overwhelmingly against your thesis.
"There was a reason the French people turned to Napoleon after many years of chaos and REAL blood flowing in the streets from
the Revolution."
And there was a reason the Paris Commune arose. And a reason it was suppressed by corrupt police. History doesn't start where
you want it to.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 11 2020 2:50 utc | 68
" .a white president and a black president both signed off on drone attacks "
Who was this "black president"? I'm only aware of Nobel Peace Prize "winner", destroyer of
Libya, sponsor of jihadis in Syria and Nazis in Ukraine, genocidaire of Yemenis, and mass
murderer extraordinaire Barack Hussein Obama, who, if being the child of a black father makes
him "half-black", is, from being the child of a white mother, equally "half-white".
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix
of SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK.
Same way that the Polish communist government couldn't effectively attack the Solidarity
worker's uprising. Government propaganda was designed to attack capitalists, exploiters of
the working class etc. which didn't make any sense against shipyard workers.
This aspect and legacy of George Floyd is being repressed and suppressed by
#BlackLivesMatter. Blacks are killing each other in epidemic numbers and it's via gun
violence. Floyd preached against this and lamented it. It's part of his legacy. Where are the
protests against this? #BlackLivesMatter, right? Of course they do, and they matter just as
much when a black person takes another black person's life.
In an undated post on social media, George Floyd, who worked as a mentor to young people,
condemned gun violence: "I got my shortcomings and my flaws, and I ain't better than nobody
else. But, man, the shootings that's going on, I don't care what religion you're from or
where you're at. I love you, and God loves you. Put them guns down."
Floyd's anti-gun activism attracted the attention of two Houstonians, hip-hop artist and
entrepreneur Corey Paul and Pastor Patrick "P.T." Ngwolo, who were looking for contacts in
the Third Ward for their social justice religious outreach. "We were extremely fortunate to
meet George," Corey Paul said on the Democracy Now! news hour. "George was already
preaching peace, love, God, unity, advocating against gun violence before we showed up. So,
when we got there, George basically said, 'If it's God business, then it's my
business.'"
It's an insult to George Floyd, to his name and his legacy, that we're not using his death
to talk about blacks murdering blacks at an epidemic rate and what needs to be done to
reverse the epidemic.
It is also a demand that, in insisting that for all intents and purposes police violence
must be seen as mainly, if not exclusively, a black thing, we cut ourselves off from the
only basis for forging a political alliance that could effectively challenge it. All that
could be possible as political intervention, therefore, is tinkering around with
administration of neoliberal stress policing in the interest of pursuing racial parity in
victimization and providing consultancies for experts in how much black lives
matter.5
There is some truth to it. However, this argument is based on a premise, largely correct,
that the racist white majority will be oblivious as long as it is "black problem". It reminds
me when many years ago Republicans wanted to semi-privatize Social Security, cutting the
guaranteed benefits etc. In their propaganda, they invented the argument that this would
benefit Blacks because they contribute the same share of income as everyone else, or more on
the average (this tax is somewhat regressive), but benefit less because of lower life
expectancy. The support for the reform in Southern states
(most conservative) collapsed.
Many comments on the root causes mentioned the misbegotten "qualified immunity" doctrine
that lets the official kill, endanger lives etc. with impunity. For example, a recent killing
in Louisville was outrageous, because of some faint suspicion that a home can be a place
where a drug trafficker keeps his drugs, police invaded that home in the middle of the night
without knocking, the boyfriend of the young women shot at them -- people are invading the
house, and the police responded with a hail of bullets killing the sleeping woman. This is a
very extreme and dangerous version of a "search". Apparently, lower level police has a
latitude how to conduct a search, and the proposed reform was to require that "no knock"
search has to be approved by the chief of police. However, no hair could fall from his head
if he/she would rubber stamp such request (making stupid decisions that put lethal risks on
citizens is legal). Almost, as a political appointee, police chief can be fired more
easily.
Qualified immunity puts many people at risk, live, limb and property, and it has extensive
libertarian criticism. The rot in American justice system is wider and identified in many
studies, and it has to be reviewed on political arena. However, "law on order statist bias"
is bipartisan, e.g. some outrageous Supreme Court decisions on "qualified immunity" had only
two dissents, Sotomayor (leftmost) and Thomas (rightwing and libertarian).
It's an insult to George Floyd, to his name and his legacy, that we're not using his death
to talk about blacks murdering blacks at an epidemic rate and what needs to be done to
reverse the epidemic.
This is called "concern trolling."
Bringing up black on black violence is a popular tactic amongst racist elements of the
right to deflect attention from the gratuitous brutalization and murder of unarmed black folk
at the hands of American police officers. It also implies that there is an inherent, genetic
disposition towards violence that is unique to people of African descent which, of course, is
a cornerstone of anti-black racism.
I do however agree with people like Adolph Reed Jr. that the overemphasis on race when
talking about police violence is counterproductive and serves to obscure the class dimension
of this epidemic. The fact is that the victims of police violence in the US are
overwhelmingly poor. Not many middle- or upper class people, whether black white, Latino or
any other ethnicity, are boot stomped or killed by cops.
Identity politics based on race and gender gets a lot of support from the liberal
mainstream and is relentlessly promoted by pro-capitalist, pro-Democrat media. Adolph
Reed calls the identitarian left the "left wing of neoliberalism" because they completely
ignore the overwhelming role class plays in determining who gets shafted by the system. It's
not that racism isn't real, it certainly is, and the mechanism by which people under a
capitalist system get excluded from society and discriminated against is always
economic.
But making it all about race, and only race, keeps focus away from the brutal reality
of poverty under capitalism and this very much serves the interests of the establishment,
hence its enthusiastic support of identity politics.
Reed recently got "cancelled" by the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and accused of
being a "class reductionist", a charge leveled by identitarians against anyone they accuse of
giving insufficient attention to race and gender issues.
The American left is failing, and will keep failing, until it can extricate itself from
the clutches of identity obsessive (and the Democratic Party). You can't build a mass
movement by selectively fighting for rights based on the racial or gender
characteristics of the people being victimized. Recognizing the racist aspect of police
violence is fine but if the argument is ultimately framed as "end police violence against
African Americans", as it currently is, the unspoken implication is going to cause
problems.
Race essentialism, which used to be the domain of the racist far-right, is now embraced
by the mainstream American liberal "left" which has lost, or never even learned, how to view
capitalist society through the lens of class analysis. It's kind of ridiculous that all
these bourgeois activists and academic cultural theorists call themselves leftist and Marxist
but recoil in horror when someone mentions class. How can any politics that excludes
criticism of capitalist class relations call itself left wing or Marxist? It's a farce.
Making race/gender essentialism the cornerstone of "the left" makes working class
solidarity impossible, keeps the left weak and divided and benefits the neoliberal capitalist
Democratic Party. The spectacle of white protestors literally bowing down in front of their
black counterparts perfectly encapsulates why identity politics and race essentialism are
epic strategic failures.
It implies a racial hierarchy that is inherent and fixed regardless of an individual's
actions or mindset. It makes being white an "original sin" that even the best intentioned
white person cannot escape.
This makes solidarity and building a working class movement with mass appeal impossible,
it serves the interests of neoliberalism and capitalist imperialism, it makes "multicultural"
friendships and are relationships all but impossible and it is rocket fuel for the racist
far-right because race essentialism is their bread and butter. It can't be overstated how
incredibly f*****g toxic and counterproductive this is. Yeah, lecturing working class white
people who have been under the capitalist boot for decades that they are unfairly privileged
and guilty of oppressing "minorities" just by being born is sure to win them over. Yet this
nonsense is embraced by the American and, increasingly, by the European left as the core of
their politics while capitalism, economics and class analysis are ignored or sneeringly
dismissed as things only "white brocialists" care about. It's going to get very ugly and the
racist right is going to swell its ranks while the liberal "left" helpfully blows its own
feet off with both barrels.
Related to these shifts have been dramatic demographic changes. In just a decade,
Democratic-voting districts have become strikingly better educated and more diverse. For
example, Democratic-voting districts have seen their share of adults with at least a
bachelor's degree rise from 28.4% in 2008 to 35.5%.
For their part, Republican districts have barely increased their bachelor's degree
attainment beyond 26.6% and have meanwhile become notably whiter and older.
Today, therefore, neither party represents the same types of places it did just 10 years
ago. As such, the Democratic Party is now anchored in the nation's booming, but highly
unequal, metro areas, while the GOP relies on aging and economically stagnant
manufacturing-reliant rural and exurban communities.
What might these divides look like in the future? It's hard to imagine the current
extreme shifts going much farther. The concentration of more than 70% of the nation's
professional and digital services economy in the territory of one party would seem to
register an almost unsustainable degree of polarization.
"... You think, should the police go on strike, it will be kumbaya? If the police leave an area who fills the vacuum? This will destroy poor neighbourhoods not make them any better. ..."
Another important excerpt from the liked essay @14 that's highly informative:
"Defining social control as crime control was accomplished by raising the specter of the '
dangerous classes .' The suggestion was that public drunkenness, crime, hooliganism,
political protests and worker 'riots' were the products of a biologically inferior,
morally intemperate, unskilled and uneducated underclass . The consumption of alcohol was
widely seen as the major cause of crime and public disorder. The irony, of course, is that
public drunkenness didn't exist until mercantile and commercial interests created venues for
and encouraged the commercial sale of alcohol in public places. This underclass was easily
identifiable because it consisted primarily of the poor, foreign immigrants and free blacks
(Lundman 1980: 29). This isolation of the 'dangerous classes' as the embodiment of the
crime problem created a focus in crime control that persists to today, the idea that policing
should be directed toward 'bad' individuals, rather than social and economic conditions
that are criminogenic in their social outcomes .
Of course, none of the above is ever related via media when discussing the overall
issue--that it began as a class/immigrant/racial issue is suppressed so the root of the
problem doubly emphasized above is never discussed and is thus another component in the
longstanding Class War. Another input never considered is the many penny press True Crime and
Police Gazette publications that twisted the minds of the gullible during the period from
1880-1930, which today are present in the all too many cop "reality" shows on TV, although
some are now finally being pulled from broadcast.
"Qualified immunity" is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the 4th, 5th, and 7th
Amendments, and has no place in settled law. It will enter the dust bin just as non-majority
verdicts in jury trials did.
vk
, Jun 10 2020 21:30 utc |
34somebody , Jun 10 2020 21:34 utc |
35
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 10 2020 21:01 utc | 29
I wonder. People usually need the police to feel safe. If the police can feel safe in a
country where everyone may carry a gun or not is another matter.
The manner of the deaths doesn't follow any pattern, said Robyn Small with the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Some officers died responding to robberies or domestic
disturbances. Others were ambushed.
Overall, that's less than last year -- 47 officers were gunned down by the end of 2018,
according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
You think, should the police go on strike, it will be kumbaya? If the police leave an
area who fills the vacuum? This will destroy poor neighbourhoods not make them any
better.
The ruling class only needs one tactic: divide and rule.
But how do I try to explain that to a black 16 year old math student who has recently
started looking at me with murder in his eyes? Everything i can think of just sounds like a
cliche.
Also... the media deserve no pity, they made their allegiances clear (for the
millionth time) with Assange.
While the gunfire is particularly pervasive in certain distressed and disinvested parts of
the city, it can arise anywhere, though some neighborhoods remain comparatively safe. Some
residents ponder leaving, while others live in constant fear that their family will fall victim
next -- and for good reason.
Peter Moskos, a Baltimore cop turned criminology professor at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, said he estimates, based on census data and the city's elevated rates of gun
violence, that upwards of 10% of black men in the most violent neighborhoods of East and West
Baltimore will be shot dead, most before they turn 35.
"It's hard to fathom," he said.
Those in its path say the violence comes like a tornado: Sending shrapnel in all
directions, it is impossible to ignore and crushing in its impact.
For some, it's a repeated horror.
"This violence will tear your family apart," said Arnetta Brown, 55, whose 28-year-old
son, Brian Simms Jr. was fatally shot in the city's Edgecomb neighborhood in 2013, and whose
16-year-old grandson, Markell Hendricks, was fatally shot in Franklin Square in March.
"This violence will suck all the breath out of your body and will wake you up in the middle
of the night and make you think you're suffocating," Brown said.
"... There is no need here to go into the evolution of this dangerous regime of policing -- from bogus "broken windows" and "zero tolerance" theories of the sort that academics always seem to have at the ready to rationalize intensified application of bourgeois class power ..."
"... It is also a demand that, in insisting that for all intents and purposes police violence must be seen as mainly, if not exclusively, a black thing, we cut ourselves off from the only basis for forging a political alliance that could effectively challenge it. All that could be possible as political intervention, therefore, is tinkering around with administration of neoliberal stress policing in the interest of pursuing racial parity in victimization and providing consultancies for experts in how much black lives matter.5 ..."
What is clear in those states, however, is that the great disproportion of those killed
by police have been Latinos, Native Americans, and poor whites. So someone should tell
Kai Wright et al to find another iconic date to pontificate about; that 1793 yarn has
nothing to do with anything except feeding the narrative of endless collective racial
suffering and triumphalist individual overcoming -- "resilience" -- popular among the
black professional-managerial strata and their white friends (or are they just allies?)
these days.
What the pattern in those states with high rates of police killings suggests
is what might have been the focal point of critical discussion of police violence all
along, that it is the product of an approach to policing that emerges from an imperative
to contain and suppress the pockets of economically marginal and sub-employed working
class populations produced by revanchist capitalism.
There is no need here to go into the
evolution of this dangerous regime of policing -- from bogus "broken windows" and "zero
tolerance" theories of the sort that academics always seem to have at the ready to
rationalize intensified application of bourgeois class power, to anti-terrorism hysteria
and finally assertion of a common sense understanding that any cop has unassailable
authority to override constitutional protections and to turn an expired inspection
sticker or a refusal to respond to an arbitrary order or warrantless search into a
capital offense.
And the shrill insistence that we begin and end with the claim that blacks are
victimized worst of all and give ritual obeisance to the liturgy of empty slogans is --
for all the militant posturing by McKesson, Garza, Tometi, Cullors et al. -- in substance
a demand that we not pay attention to the deeper roots of the pattern of police violence
in enforcement of the neoliberal regime of sharply regressive upward redistribution and
its social entailments.
It is also a demand that, in insisting that for all intents and purposes police
violence must be seen as mainly, if not exclusively, a black thing, we cut ourselves off
from the only basis for forging a political alliance that could effectively challenge it.
All that could be possible as political intervention, therefore, is tinkering around with
administration of neoliberal stress policing in the interest of pursuing racial parity in
victimization and providing consultancies for experts in how much black lives
matter.5
The race war is used to divert energy from the possibility of a true class war. A class war
where the working classes and middle classes unite in revolt against the banker elite blood
sucker class
...massive cognitive dissonance is the norm across the full "strategy of tension" spectrum.
Powerful factions pull no punches to control the narrative. No one is able to fully identify
all the shadowplay intricacies and inconsistencies.
Hardcore agendas mingle: an attempt at color revolution/regime change (blowback is a bitch)
interacts with the Boogaloo Bois – arguably tactical allies of Black Lives Matter –
while white supremacist "accelerationists" attempt to provoke a race war.
Antifa is criminalized but the Boogaloo Bois get a pass (
here is how Antifa's main conceptualizer defends his ideas). Yet another tribal war, yet
another – now domestic – color revolution under the sign of divide and rule
... ... ...
...Those defending the US Army crushing "insurrectionists" in the streets advocate at the
same time a swift ending to the American empire.
Amidst so much sound and fury signifying perplexity and paralysis, we may be reaching a
supreme moment of historical irony, where US homeland (in)security is being boomerang-hit not
only by one of the key artifacts of its own Deep State making – a color revolution
– but by combined elements of a perfect blowback trifecta:
Operation Phoenix ;
Operation Jakarta ; and
Operation Gladio .
But the targets this time won't be millions across the Global South. They will be American
citizens.
Empire come home
Quite a few progressives contend this is a spontaneous mass uprising against police
repression and system oppression – and that would necessarily lead to a revolution, like
the February 1917 revolution in Russia sprouting out of the scarcity of bread in Petrograd.
So the protests against endemic police brutality would be a prelude to a Levitate the Pentagon remix
– with the interregnum soon entailing a possible face-off with the US military in the
streets.
But we got a problem. The insurrection, so far purely emotional, has yielded no political
structure and no credible leader to articulate myriad, complex grievances. As it stands, it
amounts to an inchoate insurrection, under the sign of impoverishment and perpetual debt.
Adding to the perplexity, Americans are now confronted with what it feels like to be in
Vietnam, El Salvador, the Pakistani tribal areas or Sadr City in Baghdad.
Iraq came to Washington DC in full regalia, with Pentagon Blackhawks doing "show of force"
passes over protestors, the tried and tested dispersal technique applied in countless
counter-insurgency ops across the Global South.
And then, the Elvis moment: General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
patrolling the streets of DC. The Raytheon lobbyist now heading the Pentagon, Mark Esper,
called it "dominating the battlespace."
Wolin showed how "the cruder forms of control – from militarized police to wholesale
surveillance, as well as police serving as judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the
underclass – will become a reality for all of us should we begin to resist the continued
funneling of power and wealth upward.
ORDER IT NOW
"We are tolerated as citizens only as long as we participate in the illusion of a
participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face
of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism," he
wrote.
Sinclair Lewis (who did not say that, "when fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped
in the flag and waving the cross") actually wrote, in It Can't Happen Here (1935), that
American fascists would be those "who disowned the word 'fascism' and preached enslavement to
capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional native American liberty."
So American fascism, when it happens, will walk and talk American.
j" .slightly before the first peaceful Minneapolis protests ."
The writer is hallucinating. The first protest in Minneapolis was hundreds of people with
backpacks in front of the CUP Food Store on May 26th during daylight. The death occurred
between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. the night before. The media said they were from out of town. How
they got there so fast should leave people to wonder.
By May 28th, they already burned the Precinct down. Before then, they were looting,
destroying stores in the town.
There were not initial " .peaceful Minneapolis protests".
The zionist media CAUSED the protests. They engineered the whole thing. They incited the
negroes and loosed them on our cities.
How do you not see this?
The MSM story is White Supremacists attacking innocent black victims. This isn't it.
There's not a white nationalist in sight. These are young blacks in alliance with
disillusioned young whites (more than 50% and few Antifa).
What the ZioGlob/MSM wants is Charlottesville (Antifa vs. White Supremacists) for their
white on black violence meme – not this. This looks like youth (under cover of the
George Floyd story) vs. the state – which in 2020 happens to be the ZioGlob.
– If it was planned, the MSM would have the whole story at high volume from day
one.. In the event they were silent. They ignored the riots until they couldn't.
– The riots forced their pre-planned Covid-19/China attack off the front pages, and
basically wrecked their whole Covid-19 anti-China psyop.
– Now that the ZioGlobs are the government they don't like the unpredictable/ out of
control street action – that was for their anti-Anglo campus days. If they had
organized it, they wouldn't have smashed up their own CNN offices.
Shall I get the manure spreader? International Bankers have financed everyone from Lenin,
Mao, and Hitler. They are financing BLM and Antifa. So given what I know about fascism,
doesn't it mean the white founding stock is slated for extermination by the corporate
socialist (AKA fascists) minions? You see we're already fascist. Started with Lincoln, went
big time with the Fed creation, and the project was completed with Reagan. We pesky little
holdovers from an ancient time, need to go. Can't have any private ownership or freedom of
anything. Also the revolution will absolutely be televised. Not so much with what your
beloved China is currently doing with the Uighurs or on the border with India. Kinda odd how
what is happening here is just like Mao's cultural revolution. Curious indeed, but hey the
Silk Road II.
PS I refuse to make anything for Apple in the FEMA reeducation camps. Nor am I assigning
blame to China. They just do what their multinational corporate masters tell them.
Exactly none of this is about disbanding the police.
America is being intentionally destabilized and primed for crisis by the democrats. The
republican's lack of opposition is complicity in this horrific conspiracy.
Air travel is still banned, churches closed, and there is insurrection in the streets and
sedition in the mass media.
This is a Bolshevik style revolution with Bolshevik style terror and mass murder to follow
if we sit by.
The police will not be disbanded, they will be REPLACED by NKVD-style terror outfits that
will abduct, torture, and murder massive amounts of innocent people.
Candace Owens has stoked the fire amid the protests at George Floyd's death, after she spoke
against the Black Lives Matter movement, claiming riots have "destroyed more innocent black
lives" in a month than cops had in a decade. "Fact: Black Lives Matter riots have destroyed
more innocent black lives in the last month, than white police officers have in a decade,"
Owens tweeted on Wednesday.
Fact: Black Lives Matter riots have destroyed more innocent black lives in the last month,
than white police officers have in a decade.
Owen's declaration has earned plenty of pushback from liberals on social media, something
the conservative commentator is no doubt used-to at this point.
"Putting 'Fact' in front of a bs statement doesn't make it fact," one user tweeted .
"Why do you CONTINUALLY post your opinions as facts?" another replied .
Though Owens does not specify how "innocent black lives" had been destroyed amidst
the protests across the nation, multiple people have
died during demonstrations, including a retired black officer named David Dorn in St.
Louis, a death highlighted by President
Donald Trump. Black restaurateur David McAtee was also shot and killed this week, with
preliminary reports
stating the bullet came from the Kentucky National Guard.
In follow up tweets , Owens called BLM a
"terrorist group funded by white Democrats" and saying she does not relate to Floyd or
others simply because they are black.
"I'm always confused by people who say things like 'Don't you see yourself in George
Floyd.' No. Why? Do all White people see themselves in Ted Bundy? Do all Chinese people see
themselves in Mao Zedong?" she tweeted . "If you expect
me to relate to people based on skin tone, you're an idiot."
You are not by "brother" or my "sister" because we have the same complexion. My
relationships are built on character. I have nothing in common with any person that pressed
the barrel of a gun into a pregnant woman's stomache. Insinuating that I must, is
racist.
Owens was previously blasted on social media as a "white supremacist" and
"racist" for releasing a video declaring Floyd neither a
"martyr" or a "hero," because of his criminal history.
I've had time to reflect on my video about #GeorgeFloyd
and you guys were right -- I was very wrong. He went to prison 9 times, not 7. I missed two
earlier convictions for theft and drugs. But he started a new chapter with meth &
fentanyl -- so let's throw our hero 2 more funerals!
@jadan Who's paying
you, @Trinity? You want a race war? You've already got a police state. You've already got a
boot on your neck one way or another. Feel safer? It's not a race issue @Trinity, it's a
matter of power. You don't have any.
Both sides have it wrong and are talking past each other.
There's no such thing as 'the police'. There are street cops, detectives, forensic
investigators, etc. There are shades of 'the police'.
Defund street cops and leave the rest of the infrastructure alone. The street cops are the
ones in military garb roughing up the citizenry at every opportunity. They also happen to be
absolutely useless in deterring crime or fighting crime as the riots so aptly
demonstrate.
The police departments are majority street cops that are incapable of performing their
advertised duty simply because they are almost never there when a crime occurs. Showing up
after the fact to haul the body away is something anyone can do. Seriously considered, the
average street cop does nothing positive for the community and is always the source of some
police incident. Communities could save a fortune in salaries and bloated pension plus reduce
their law suit exposure by simply eliminating the street cop position because it's a legacy
of days gone by.
Allow the citizenry to assume street cop duties by simply being armed to protect
themselves and their property. It's the cheapest solution and one that has the best potential
to provide street justice to the human trash in the society.
Repeat: "The American Left maintains its relevance by sustaining social and racial tensions
that draw attention away from Wall Street and its crimes."
Get it? In other words, racial tensions are amplified to divert attention from Wall Street's
relentless thievery. That doesn't mean that the killing of George Floyd should be ignored, only
that it should be put in perspective. Wall Street's illicit maneuverings have netted Big
Finance somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 trillion during the Coronavirus lockdown. Meanwhile
working people received a paltry $500 billion in $1,200 payouts and unemployment compensation,
barely enough to scrape by the 10 weeks of quarantine. At the same time, the Fed has
backstopped every sector of the capital markets assuring investors that prices will remain
permanently inflated while the real economy plunges into a second Great Depression. All told,
the Wall Street bailout is the biggest ripoff in American history and it continues as we
speak.
At present, we have not yet felt the sting of recession or seen the vast damage the lockdown
has inflicted on the economy. But the day of reckoning is fast approaching. Many of the states
are drowning in red ink, their only option will be excruciating belt-tightening measures that
savage social programs and essential services for the needy, the elderly, and schoolchildren.
The exploding national debt will require the same medicine from Capitol Hill. As soon as the
ballots are counted in November, both parties' leaders will demand severe budget cuts and
austerity measures to trim the deficits and impose fiscal discipline. These draconian steps
will further widen the gaping chasm between rich and poor exacerbating social tensions and
creating a permanent underclass willing to work for pennies on the dollar. All of these things
will happen, and soon.
Are liberals prepared to fight this class war that could be just weeks away or will they
choose to become even more irrelevant by promoting policies that only prove they are unfit to
lead?
In my opinion, liberalism is a spent-force, a misdirected social dogma that has lost its
luster, an idea whose time has passed. Let's admit it, the zeitgeist has changed, it's a
different world now, and different ideas will be needed to shape events.
[If you listen to BLM] the Straight-White-Gentile-Male (increasingly white women of this
classification also) is the designated "oppressor". Everyone else, to one degree or another,
are the oppressed class.
Yes, another "Occupy Wall Street" moment. The US Congress screwed the taxpayers, so
the revolt took the form of sitting in a park in New York and claiming it as an "occupation"
of Wall Street while roasting marshmallows and singing songs.
Now, the police kill a black man so, white people and black people burn churches and loot
department stores.
If you're going to have a revolution, you need to figure out who to revolt against. The
oligarchs are safe, because the idiots who make up the population of this benighted nation
can't figure out who their enemy is.
contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424
U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston
v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election
Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and
power almost total influence in elections. By gaining control of the SCOTUS the Deep State is
able to further their goals.
There have been ZERO differences seen from the point of view of anyone but an American.
The rhetoric changes but that's nothing.
Yes, the DNC and GOP are two sides to the Deep State coin.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two
parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of
fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
The race war is used to divert energy from the possibility of a true class war. A class war
where the working classes and middle classes unite in revolt against the banker elite blood
sucker class. Not a fake Marxist "revolution' funded by those same banker classes around the
world but a true Nationalist Socialist revolution.
And that is why you have non-Whites in Western countries. To deflect the anger of the
White native/ majority masses against the blood sucker banking elites.
Remember the Jews in those ghettos in medieval Europe always afraid of the European peasants,
tired of the exploitation by an alien obnoxious elite, taking up rakes and torches and
marching to dislodge the parasites. Those "dumb uncouth Redneck" Euro peasants, how dare they
protest their exploitation by us chosen people, wise sophisticated people (smelly
sophisticated people with loads of lice in hair)? There was once a famous Euro peasant
revolution incident with the Cossacks revolting, the whole Hitler revolution was one such
recent incident.
Oy Vey, that may happen again!!! Well now you have black and brown immigrant masses, they
shall act like bodyguards, as bouncers against the exploited Euro peasants, descendants of
those earlier redneck Euro peasants of Europe. That is one reason why most of these financial
capitals like London, New York, Paris are so diverse, in other words have a large number of
body guards and less Euro peasants. The Euro peasants are away somewhere in the rural area,
in some Whitebread land. Their expositors are safe in their ghettos (New York) surrounded by
bodyguards (brown blacks). Let the dumb White, brown, black goyim get at each other and
expend energy while we remain safe.
It is surprising how the social dynamics of medieval Europe continues in North America with
the descendants of tribesmen in Africa as new entrants as shocktroopers for an eventual Jew
Raj Orwellian Satanic Communist revolution and body guard/bouncer population. Those blacks
were in plantations before, their descendants are today in a more dangerous plantation today,
a mental plantation.
" When you don't have a Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X to fight the power, then power
crushes you whatever you do."
Struggle is about power. Those with it desire to keep it: those without it desire a fair
share of it. It's less to do with class, religion, politics or race. "A white president and a
black president signed off on drone attacks on wedding parties in the Pakistani tribal
areas." The fog of war keeps getting thicker, obscuring the apocalyptic conflagration mankind
is stumbling towards. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
If you know your history, you'll know the four men killed in the "Boston Massacre" in 1770
were primarily street hoodlums. Boston was not the godly Puritan city of 1630, but a bawdy
seaport town whose major businesses were bars and whorehouses. Crowds of thugs had been
harassing the men guarding the government house all that fateful day, jeering at them
nonstop, throwing snowballs with rocks in them at the redcoats. Rather than hateful monsters,
those soldiers were frightened teenagers drafted into military service, stationed in a wild
land full of crazed ingrates three thousand miles from home.
Yet from this large crock of manure, a new nation was born. Pay close attention. Whether
George Floyd was a sinner or a saint, his death, like those of 1770, is birthing a new
freedom, in a nation that is still packed to the gills with lawless lunatics.
You'll also want to remember how quickly the new aristocracy disenfranchised "the rabble"
after they used them as fighters for independence from Britain. Of the three million souls
then living in America, only some 42,000 were allowed to cast ballots in the first
presidential election of 1788-89. More than one historical injustice promises to be righted
by the new generation of young people, black and white together in our streets today.
"This could be done in coordination with citizen panels appointed by the City Council. Third,
departments could agree to police black neighborhoods exclusively with black cops whose
conduct could be reviewed periodically by an independent citizen panel."
I tend to lean in a favorable direction with regards to the idea that White cops should be
relieved of the hazards of policing black neighborhoods. But, at the same time – I am
extremely cynical about law enforcement in general and have read far too many stories over
the last several decades where cops are caught up in corruption scandals that often inv0lve
taking payoffs from drug pushers in these inner city, majority black cities and agree to look
the other way and to not interfere with the illegal drug selling industry.
So, my cynicism causes me to wonder if the push to get White cops out of black city areas
might not be a desire of the black criminal gangs to not have to shell out payoffs to White
cops and perhaps, channel those payoffs instead to their black cop brothers? I mean, to get a
preview of what kind of environment will likely fester and grow if blacks are given a
complete dominance over policing in big cities with large black populations – and
without any White oversight – just take a look at the big cities in the blue states
today which are completely under the control of blacks. Black mayors. Entire city councils
that are black. Nearly all city government positions filled by blacks. What do we see? We see
corruption on a scale that rivals the most corrupt, black run, third world nations on the
continent of Africa.
Lest anyone misunderstand, let me say that I am not trying to defend the right of corrupt
and dirty White cops to continue to have access to black districts and be able to haul in
payoffs. I'm merely floating a potential hidden reason behind this idea of only allowing
black cops to police these areas and suggesting how it could create enormous corruption of
law enforcement agencies.
@Alden E. Michael
Jones's Slaughter of Cities chronicles the dispossession of vibrant black
neighborhoods so the University of Chicago could expand in that direction and get the land
for free under the guise of "urban renewal." Blacks never learn. The billionaires paying the
bills of BLM like Soros will be able to buy up the property at ten cents on the dollar and
get free money from the federal gov to "rebuild" what they paid BLM to burn down. The
"education" bullshit will prove to be a once-in-a-lifetime boondoggle for the teachers'
unions arranged by that diapered and toothless old hag Pelosi who's got the Republicans
hiding under the bed. As with all welfare money allocated by Congress to aid blacks in need,
fully 70 cents out of every dollar will go to white bureaucrats while the blacks can rot in
hellish projects until election time when they're bused around town to vote as many times as
they can during the day. Black Panthers in uniform and armed with rifles will be turning
whites away from polling places again this November while the Republicans take a knee and
concede the suburbs to mau-mau'ing blacks and the new Bolsheviks on the block, Antifa.
@Ray Caruso Derek
Chauvin is no Saint and neither is George Floyd. Both of these lower forms of humanity
naturally interact because Police have to interact with Criminals. Officer Chauvin has had
multiple complaints filed against him and yet continued to be employed and on the Street
where he is most likely to have another problem. Mr. Floyd has a documented history of
violent and dangerous criminal activity and frankly should have still been in prison for his
assault with a deadly weapon.
These 2 individuals clearly illustrate the failed Criminal Justice System we currently
have.
Why did Officer Chauvin not get moved to a desk job?
Why is Mr. Floyd out of Prison?
In my personal and professional opinion, Mr. Floyd likely died from his years of bad
health, bad habits and drugs and almost certainly the drugs in his system at the time of
arrest were a major factor in his death. (Officer Chauvin did not kill him.)
Officer Chauvin had some bad luck, but like the person who drinks too much and drives home
sooner or later they are going to get into an accident because they are drunk. This would not
be surprising to anyone who truly knows the individual. I am sure many of the other Officers
of the MPD were not surprised Officer Chauvin was front and center when the perp went TITS
UP. IF you skate on the thin ice or play close to the edge of the cliff, you are most likely
to have it bite you compared to someone who does not live on the Edge.
The Societal Response to this demonstrates the level of insanity in the US and those of us
who see it for what it is need to be prepared for the Shitstorm that is coming next.
How many whites are slaughtered by blacks every year in america? In one year recently,
there were 10 blacks that were killed by police officers, ( my guess is they were justifiable
homicides in each case, for some reason blacks refuse to comply with a policeman's orders or
they feel they can physically attack a cop with and suffer no repercussions.) Anyhow, in a
recent year, i think it was 2018 there were 10 blue on black deaths compared to more than
seven thousand black on black murders.
Now, lest we forget, while black on black crime is out of control, it often involves
criminal blacks killing each other, lets talk about black on white violence in america and
abroad. Tens of thousands of black on white rapes each and every year in america for
decades.
A black man abducts a little white boy from his mother in the Mall of America in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and throws the defenseless child off a balcony. No protests for that
little white kid and the black animal who did this only received a 12-15 year sentence.
A black woman abducts a 12 year old white kid in Texas and burns the boy to death with a
blowtorch. The Wichita massacre, the christian-newsom murders, etc. , etc. The list goes on
and on and none of these victims were committing a crime and all died much more horrific
deaths than Saint George. Where was the outcry then, you hypocrite?
@Delta G Derek
Chauvin must not have been fired or moved to a desk job because none of the previous
complaints against him was substantiated. By the way, do you know if having 18 complaints
during a 19-year-career as a police officer in an ultra-liberal city full of welfare-fed
non-Whites with a vastly inflated sense of entitlement is really unusual? I don't, but I
would guess it's not too much out of the norm. Don't misunderstand me: Derek Chauvin is not
my hero or anything. In fact, I think he's rather a fool. But he probably should not be fired
and certainly should not be incarcerated.
"City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, shares Bender's views on defunding the police
department and issued the following incendiary statement on Sunday: "We are going to
dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. And when we're done, we're not simply gonna glue
it back together. We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and
emergency response. It's really past due."
Actually something like that is what needs to be done. The cops don't represent the
communities they occupy, they enforce an authoritarian status quo. People wanting to correct
this problem have realised reforming these cops is mostly a waste of time. We have been
trying to reform the way cops police for decades with very little practical results. The cop
problems communities have still persist. The cops refuse to be reformed. So they leave people
little alternative, but to use their democracy, what they can of it, to clean house and
rebuild a police service that represents their community and its needs. That's how things
work in a real democracy, as opposed to the authoritarian oligarchy faking democracy that
whitney is shilling for.
The part of whitney's article I quoted is as far as I got before I stopped wasting my
time. The bias expressed is that of an establishment shill. The predominant theme of
whitney's writing I've noticed over the years.
I recall discussing police reform and he said the biggest problem was the union
seniority system. This means the most mature and experienced cops spend their last decade
in nice, quiet jobs at the airport, wealthy neighborhoods, desk jobs, and VIP escort
duty.
Any "union seniority system" for work assignment is based on job vacancies. Obviously the
sheriff deputy either was misleading you intentionally, or didn't have a clue about how the
department ran. I have yet to meet a cop who applied for a job vacancy that didn't have an
interview for that job vacancy. Obviously, if there is a vacancy, irrespective of the
workplace, the senior applicants have a better chance of getting the job, because of their
experience in doing police work. In the "old days", it was part of succession planning. Now,
the whiz kid (or non-white gender fluid person) is the preferred candidate. To hell with
experience.
I find it curious that it's always the police under scrutiny when the fire department
operates in substantially the same way. The Captains and Inspectors/Fire Marshals aren't the
ones with a couple of years on the job.
-- "The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the
overwhelming majority of the population."
-- "[It] presupposes that nothing needs to be done. The migrants can kill, plunder and
rape with impunity because their rights as migrants must be protected. What rights are these?
Every crime must have its punishment."
-- "Deep inside, there must be some fundamental human rules and moral values. In this
sense, traditional values are more stable and more important for millions of people than this
liberal idea, which, in my opinion, is really ceasing to exist."
Ironically, this whole 'defund the police' meme is a stalking horse for the privatization of
law enforcement, which has been a libertarian dream for decades. Once again, the Dumb-o-crats
are unknowingly pushing a "Koch Brothers' plan," as Uncle Bernie would say. Pitiful!
Trump is in the catbird seat where he can lambast the "left" for their kooky "defunding"
idea while promising to restore order by deploying the National Guard or the military.
That's where I disagree. Not sending in the Marines is the best thing that Trump
has done so far in this case. These big-city Dumb-o-crat mayors and police chiefs would love
nothing better than to dump their problems onto Trump's lap. And if The Donald falls for
their ruse, they will brand him a 'military dictator' and use that against him in November.
Worse still–for the rest of us–once the regular armed forces are occupying our
streets, they will be used to force vaccinate all of us next year.
May 20, 2020 Anti-lockdown protests aren't just an American thing. They're a global
phenomenon
Just this month alone, thousands of people from Latin America to Europe have demonstrated
against aggressive government policies intended to curb the coronavirus outbreak. They don't
perfectly mirror the protests in the US, but there are some striking similarities.
And "radical chic" was Wolfe's snarky label for rich people pretending to be
revolutionaries, when, in fact, they were play-acting radicalism for the sake of raising their
social status. That is, leftier-than-thou politics became a new sort of one-upsmanship.
As Wolfe explained, New York's socialites "have always paid their dues to 'the poor,' via
charity, as a way of claiming the nobility inherent in noblesse oblige and of legitimizing
their wealth." Continuing, he added, "In 1965 two new political movements, the anti-war
movement and black power, began to gain great backing among culturati in New York."
As for black power, a mutant sprout from the civil rights movement, Wolfe allowed that "one
does have a sincere concern for the poor and the underprivileged and an honest outrage against
discrimination." And yet at the same time, "one also has a sincere concern for maintaining a
proper East Side lifestyle in New York Society."
And part of that lifestyle-maintenance was espousing the right -- which is to say, trendy
left -- positions on key issues. In Wolfe's words, the embrace of these causes served the
purpose of "certifying their superiority over the hated 'middle class.'"
By now, the reader will have gathered that Wolfe was not a fan of such posturing. In fact,
he was not only a poisoned-pen critic, but also a deep-dyed conservative.
..."Radical Chic invariably favors radicals," he wrote. It lionizes the the "exotic and
romantic, such as the grape workers, who are not merely radical but also Latin; the Panthers,
with their leather pieces, Afros, shades, and shoot-outs; and the Red Indians, who, of course,
had always seemed exotic and romantic."
The most memorable quote was: 'He's a magnificent
man, but suppose some simple-minded schmucks take all that business about burning down
buildings seriously?'"
In other words, radicalism is cool, but let's not let the schmucks get carried away -- at
least not in my neighborhood.
Of course, protests do sometime get carried away; they turn into riots, destroy cities --
and generate fierce backlashes. And Wolfe, his rarified mien notwithstanding, was a part of
that backlash.
Alas, Wolfe died in 2018, and so we can only imagine what he'd be writing, today, about
Radical Chic 2.0.
In the meantime, radicalism is being funded and cultivated in Manhattan and other ritzy
precincts -- not only in penthouses, but now, too, in corporate C-suites.
So perhaps there's a Tom Wolfe 2.0 out there, observing all this wealthy woke posing -- and
hopefully recording it all on a surreptitious cell phone.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, "A civil war is not a war but a sickness. The
enemy is within. and this sickness in the USA stems from Clinton democrats and supprting them
intelligence agencies, which try to cling to power by all means possible.
Notable quotes:
"... There's been a lot of loose talk lately about whether America is careening towards another civil war. The takeaway from last week should be: we'd damn well better hope not. ..."
"... Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, "A civil war is not a war but a sickness. The enemy is within. One fights almost against oneself." Hence why civil wars -- from the Union and the Confederacy to the Republicans and Franco to Salva Kiir and Riek Machar -- have so often been so brutal. The body politic itself becomes dysfunctional, turning its own people against each other, its mediating institutions having broken down. ..."
"... Such wars, as Saint-Exupéry said, stem from deeper pathogens within. ..."
For some, answering that question will mean instinctively siding with law enforcement. For
others, it will mean the opposite, standing in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. I don't
think it's mushy bothsidesism to say that both have a point.
The anarchy of last week saw acts of violence against police and protesters.
Amid such chaos, it's perfectly reasonable to yearn for both order and restraints on those
who do the ordering. James Madison's famous dictum comes to mind here. Madison said, "If men
were angels, no government would be necessary." And certainly that much was proven by the
notably un-angelic actions of rioters, assaulting the innocent and burning shops. A world
without law enforcement, where dialogue and community development dollars heal all ills while
rainbows arc and dip, is a fantasy, one that would leave the poor and vulnerable at the mercy
of the criminal and nihilistic. Yet we also can't forget that Madison added, "If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." This part
is less popular among the dopamine-addled right and the social engineering left. But it's true:
government isn't the philosophical "state," an abstract force that can commune seamlessly with
the good. It's a collection of men, entrusted with power and badges, prone to abuse the same as
anyone else.
It took a government thug only eight minutes and a knee to touch off the worst civil unrest
that America has seen in decades. And that's the trouble of it: neglect one side of the
Madisonian formula and you're likely to negate the other. The common denominator is
lawlessness. If the police act outside the law, that gives cause and license to rioters, which
then elicits a more aggressive police response, and so on down the spiral. Violence feeds off
of a vacuum. Those who seek peaceful change get lost in the smoke.
And therein lies an important lesson out of Minneapolis. A community might not be a social
contract per se, but it does require a certain amount of buy-in from, and integration of, both
the government and the governed. Lacking that, the two pieces drift apart and grow alien to
each other. They become different entities, more likely to see the other as the enemy whenever
there's friction. The federal government, giant and remote, is understandably viewed this way;
the local policeman should never be.
There's been a lot of loose talk lately about whether America is careening towards
another civil war. The takeaway from last week should be: we'd damn well better hope not.
The riots, of course, did not amount to a war, but they did provide a glimpse into the kind of
might-makes-right anarchy that characterizes internecine conflicts.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, "A civil war is not a war but a sickness. The
enemy is within. One fights almost against oneself." Hence why civil wars -- from the Union and
the Confederacy to the Republicans and Franco to Salva Kiir and Riek Machar -- have so often
been so brutal. The body politic itself becomes dysfunctional, turning its own people against
each other, its mediating institutions having broken down.
Such wars, as Saint-Exupéry said, stem from deeper pathogens within.
Matt Purple seems pretty confident that the unrest is over with and I hope he's right. But
this year so far has well exceeded my worst expectations and I'm a pessimist. We still have
two major political conventions and an election to get through while foreign wars are still
ongoing and there seems to be a major push on to abolish the police altogether. Even if the
latter idea has considerable merit (and it may), under current circumstances it will simply
mean the replacement of the police by heavily armed and ruthless gangs and militias. The
body count will not remain low.
Anyone saying that this is class war, is simply hiding behind their white privilege and
denying the essential RACISM of the United States. That's the corporate meme. And it's
probably going to work.
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix of
SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK
In fact the RACISM shield doesn't work. The ZioGlob are left exposed, and in my opinion
they're scared by these protests. If they crack down with the national Guard or the military
it only makes the situation worse. Things polarize, with them being further identified as a
privileged exploitative elite.
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix
of SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK.
Same way that the Polish communist government couldn't effectively attack the Solidarity
worker's uprising. Government propaganda was designed to attack capitalists, exploiters of
the working class etc. which didn't make any sense against shipyard workers.
A counterterrorism expert on Laura Ingraham's show last Wednesday night encouraged viewers to
do online searches of these 2 movements from the 60's since today's groups have similarities
of ideology there goes history rhyming again
The contemporary geographical West bears almost nothing of classical Western culture.
Another good example is that classical Greco-Roman beauty standards opposes almost all kinds
of body modification and mutilations, like tattoos, piercings, scarification, circumcision,
etc. Many of these, especially the first two, became predominant in the last 3 decades.
Very true. Tattoos, piercings and scarification were deemed the sign of a criminal or a
barbarian in the Greco-Roman world. They valued the athletic body as it was and saw no need
to disfigure it. That is why they had such a hard time accepting circumcision.
BLM does not matter one bit. What you're witnessing here is a classic by-the-book Color
Revolution. Look at the analogies with Ukrainian EuroMaydan: is used Western Ukrainians as a ram;
here Afro Americans and assorted groups of anarchists/Maoists like antifa are used.
What is interesting is young whites are probably the majority is many protests. Are they all
unemployed or what? Or are they social media addicts and view this as the latest viral event that
they want to participate in
The latest "saint" in this religion was a highly flawed human
being , to put it charitably. Career criminal, drug dealer, someone who threatened a
pregnant woman with a gun during a robbery and then testified against his "colleagues" in
exchange for a lighter sentence
"... How much of this is virtue signalling by Mitt Romney and others of the elite? Is he willing to disgorge himself of the the hundreds of millions he took from Americans through his company Bain? ..."
These far right social conservatives lost yesterday and they don't even realize it. Mitt
Romney marched with BLM. Mitt is no radical on social issues (he certainly is on. Taxes on
the rich) you won't convince a single one of these hard right wing people that systemic
racism is real, even when you give examples like the North Carolina Republican Party
disenfranchising blacks "with surgical precision" or the direct evidence of the commenter
Dukeboy who states he is a retired police officer and is obviously a white supremacists. But
you don't need to convince them of anything. This is the same group who would have been
against the civil rights protests in the '60's. They aren't needed to create a massive
change.
The hubris to think that your feelings of guilt would be meaningful to black people is off
the charts.
"My local school has been underfunded for generations due to the property tax funding system
and redlining but Karen feels bad about it so all is right with the world!"-Said no black
person ever.
How much of this is virtue signalling by Mitt Romney and others of the elite? Is he
willing to disgorge himself of the the hundreds of millions he took from Americans through
his company Bain?
How much? 100% of it. Romney is a vicious corporate raider who has destroyed countless
jobs and by extension, lives. How many suicides have followed in the wake of Bain's corporate
takeovers? When Romney lived in Belmont, MA, he and his wife petitioned the town to not allow
ambulances to go down their street with sirens on. Seriously.
n The New Criterion , Gary Saul Morson writes about 'Russia's most literate revolutionary,' Alexander
Herzen:
Perhaps the best way to understand the psychology of radicals is to read accounts of
former believers. In that classic collection of essays by disillusioned communists -- The
God That Failed -- six major writers evoke what passionate belief feels like and analyze
the kinds of thinking that sustain it. In the opening selection, Arthur Koestler describes
the heady moment when 'the new light seems to pour from all directions across the skull; the
whole universe falls into pattern like the stray pieces of a jigsaw puzzle assembled by magic
at one stroke. There is now an answer to every question, doubts and conflicts are a matter of
the tortured past' when one still lived among 'those who don't know .' One has at last
achieved complete serenity and assurance, except for the 'occasional fear of losing faith
again, losing thereby what alone makes life worth living.'
The most important lesson Koestler learned was what might be called 'preemptive
refutation,' a series of techniques guaranteed to handle any counter-evidence. When, as a
novice reporter for a communist paper, he pointed out that every word of a major story was
false, the editor explained that Koestler still had the 'mechanistic' outlook instead of the
proper dialectical one revealing what was 'objectively' happening. Once you have assimilated
dialectics, Koestler explains, 'you were no longer disturbed by facts,' which fell
automatically into place. The only remaining difficulty was adjusting to a rapid shift in the
party line. Then you had to search your memory to convince yourself that you had always
accepted the new truth. It's just what Orwell describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four :
'Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.' The whole
process reminded Koestler of the croquet game in Alice in Wonderland 'in which the
hoops moved around the field and the balls were live hedgehogs. With this difference, that
when a player missed his turn and the Queen shouted 'Off with his head,' the order was
executed in earnest.'
Dostoevsky, the only nineteenth-century thinker to foresee what we have come to call
totalitarianism, drew on his own experience as a former revolutionary to represent the
radical mindset from within. He asked himself: what would Russian intellectuals do if they
ever gained power? And he realized that, although his generation was not as bloodthirsty as
the radicals to follow, they, and he himself, could be drawn into committing horrible crimes
in the sincere conviction that they were pursuing justice. The relative moderates, who above
all want to dissociate themselves from the conservatives, can always be shamed into going
along with anything. It is a mistake to think that the decent people we know would never
endorse, let alone commit, vile deeds. 'And therein lies the real horror,' Dostoevsky
explains. In Russia, and eventually everywhere, 'the purest of hearts and the most innocent
of people can be drawn into committing . . . the foulest and most villainous act without
being in the least a villain! . . . The possibility of considering oneself -- and sometimes
being, in fact -- an honorable person while committing obvious and undeniable villainy --
that is our whole affliction today!'
Dostoevsky learned a great deal from Russia's most literate revolutionary, Alexander
Herzen (1812–70), who died just a century and a half ago. Unlike Koestler, Herzen never
renounced his faith in revolution, but he came to see its glaring flaws and ever-present
dangers. His ironic dissections of revolutionary thinking and behavior cut to the heart of
delusions that, in spite of all his insight, he never surrendered. Clinging to radical faith,
he acutely probed his own mindset to show what made it so irresistible. 'There are few
diseases so intractable as idealism,' he wrote. For him, revolution was the God that
flickered.
Floyd died of cardio pulmonary arrest caused by his fentanyl overdose.
Floyd's legal team will argue death was caused by "mechanical asphyxiation". They base
that solely on the video. There is no physical evidence for it. The knee didn't leave any
bruising. He fainted while he was still standing which indicates he had a problem related to
blood flow to his brain. He also complained of breathing difficulties prior to application of
restraint (which is intended to keep the perp from hurting himself). They will be eviscerated
on cross.
Floyd's fentanyl level was 11 ng/mL. The average overdosage is 10 ng/mL (it varies based
on the tolerance built up by the individual).
Further, this was complicated by his serious heart disease. Several of his key arteries
were 75% blocked and one was 90% blocked. That alone was sufficient to cause death.
The officer's knee was not on Floyd's carotid. He was on the jaw bone and then backed off
to the back of the neck when Floyd said he couldn't breathe. The knee was on the head, ear,
and jaw but not throat. This is the technique taught at the FBI.
He died from cardio pulmonary arrest as the autopsy states. Murder 2 won't stick. The
Blacks will riot again, as usual.
"Systemic racism" is mostly an empty buzzword people on the left use to rationalize why
racial inequality in social and economic outcome persists despite the success of the civil
rights movement in establishing formal equality of rights under the law.
For example, black people are statistically more likely to be incarcerated or shot by the
police than white people. However, according to left-wing egalitarian, blank-slate ideology,
this could not possibly be due to the fact that black people have vastly higher crime rates
than whites--so instead a nefarious, vaguely defined concept of "systemic racism" serves as
an all-purpose rationalization for why different groups have different outcomes in society.
At most, a typical leftist will acknowledge that blacks have higher rates of crime, but then
proceed to blame it on poverty (which they naturally consider to be a legacy of racism). Of
course, even when you control for poverty, group differences in incarceration (as well as
other relevant social outcomes like education) still persist to a significant extent. As a
result, many on the left feel an even greater desire to collectively scapegoat white people
in order to rationalize this discrepancy between their egalitarian ideology and observable
reality.
Basically, if certain minority groups fail to fully succeed in society, it must always be
white people's fault. Among the identity politics left, this viewpoint is not considered a
statement of fact about objective reality that can be confirmed or falsified. It is, in fact,
a statement of dogmatic faith.
To me the way you form the issue is not the relevant one. Rather it is that the
comparisons be based on factors that discount skin color. As long as we compare crime
statistics to black versus white people, then there is an inherent racial bias.
One day we should be able to compare the drug problem in West Virginia with the drug
problem in Chicago. Just the factors that do not require race as one of them. Perhaps when
all factors are equal, then we can determine if the controlling one is poverty.
I think that is where black people would like to be. Determining their character, not
their skin color. At least it seems some black man said that a while back. We should have
listened to him.
The "cost" to whites (and really to blacks as well) comes in the form of higher crime
rates. After the civil rights movement helped put a dent in "racist" policing practices,
crime increased for decades, and some inner city urban areas became practically unlivable as
far as any kind of decent existence went. Furthermore, many black communities effectively
chose to shelter the criminals as part of a "no-snitching" ethic, rather than cooperate with
law enforcement. This got so bad that by the early 90s, there was enough political support
(including among many black organizations) for increased policing and incarceration to be
implemented.
Even in regards to the drug war, many forget that the crack epidemic saw horrible rates of
violent crime among urban gangs fighting over turf. The problem was never a bunch of people
peacefully smoking weed in their house. My theory is that the true purpose of the drug war
(especially the harsh penalties for crack) was to put violent gangsters in prison on drug
charges, since they couldn't be put away for murder due to lack of community cooperation with
the authorities.
All the leftist ideas being advocated now in regards to law enforcement (i.e. social
workers instead of cops, a naive belief that welfare programs could remove the need for
police by addressing the "root causes" of crime, a belief that police should basically just
back off, as opposed to proactively policing neighborhoods) were tried in the years
1961-1991. They had absolutely horrible results, especially for black communities.
Many are going to argue in response to this that mass incarceration and increased,
proactive policing had little to do with the decades-long decline in crime. I would encourage
you to look at the clear increase in urban crime after the Ferguson/Baltimore riots caused
police to back off in a number of urban areas with high black populations. At the very least,
any reform should be pursued carefully, or we risk reversing decades of progress in regards
to lower crime rates and the gentrification/revival of American cities. Far more black lives
would be ended as a result of an increase in crime and social dysfunction than are currently
ended at the hands of the police.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Violent crime nationwide has declined significantly for the
past 30 years. It's increasingly likely that the most important reason for that decline is
the decline in lead poisoning:
https://www.motherjones.com...
This is a very popular narrative, and it's easy to see why: it implies no trade-offs
between the amount of policing/incarceration in society and the crime rate. I am not saying
the decrease in lead levels did not contribute to the long term decrease in crime, but I
think the increase in urban crime after the Ferguson/Baltimore riots shows that it's not the
full story.
Thanks for your response. Any increase in crime after Ferguson and Baltimore has been,
compared with violent crime rates in the 1980s, minor. Even with those increases, the violent
crime rates nationwide remain significantly lower than they were a generation ago.
And increases in crime in the past few years have tended to be in cities (like Baltimore)
where trust between the police department (and the wider law enforcement system) and the
residents has broken down to a significant degree. (By contrast, for example, Camden, NJ is a
much safer community than it was 10 years ago; a large part of the credit for that goes to
the restructuring of the police department.)
I think the increase in violent crime that we saw after Ferguson/Baltimore is basically a
small taste of what we are going to get as a society if the police are undermined in a
significant way. Of course, we aren't going to return to the crime rates of the early 1990s
overnight, but the point is that proactive policing does have a meaningful impact on
crime rates. Now, that doesn't make every effort at reform illegitimate (and officers really
do need increased accountability), but what I would argue is that there is a need to be
careful in order to not break what has been painstakingly built. However, I am not seeing any
kind of real caution or nuance among the "defund/abolish police" activist crowd.
Also, Camden actually put more officers on the street than before as part of its
restructuring. How many BLM activists are on-board with that?
Do Clinton neoliberals ("soft neoliberal" wing of the US elite) try to present blacks as the
new proletariat who need to be liberated from their chains in order to get from Trump back
political power they lost?
...t was a growing sense among middle-class voters in heartland America that something was
seriously wrong with the country, that the nation's leaders were transforming America in bad
ways and unraveling their future in the process. But there was no street protest or fiery
rhetoric, no coalescence of civic activism or public demands. Certainly the mainstream media,
so aligned with the country's elites, didn't detect anything of consequence bubbling up from
within the polity. Why would they? Everything seemed fine to them.
Meanwhile, the disaffected merely bided their time, silently waiting for their opportunity
to express themselves in the quiet sanctity of the voting booth. After they did, Donald Trump
was the next president. Hardly anyone saw it coming.
Something similar is likely to happen in the wake of the widespread street
demonstrations–with attendant riots, looting, destruction, and violence–that
followed the awful death of George Floyd in Minneapolis at the hands of a brutal police officer
who pressed his knee against Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes.
Not surprisingly, public-opinion surveys showed widespread popular support for the peaceful
demonstrations that were organized to honor the life and condemn the senseless death of George
Floyd.
But the polls also demonstrated widespread indignation toward the rioting and looting. Thus,
the civic drama that followed Floyd's death, including the sprees of destruction and
increasingly aggressive rhetoric from the left, intensified some ongoing political tensions
that lie at the heart of the country's current distemper. It accentuated the extent to which
America is becoming two nations with two narratives about the times we live in and the problems
we face.
One narrative, call it the liberal one, has been projected with increasing force in recent
years and particularly since George Floyd's death. It is that America is an inherently racist
country, infected with something called "systemic racism." You can't always see it; often it is
hidden behind a facade of phony white benignity. But it lurks in the hearts of whites
nonetheless and is activated in subtle ways to keep down minorities, particularly blacks, and
make them feel inferior.
... ... ...
When the political reaction comes, as it inevitably will, it will come on little cat feet.
And the nation's elites, secure in the thought that the systemic racism charge has worked
brilliantly in intimidating any lingering dissenters into submission, won't see it coming.
It's an open question whether this can help Donald Trump in November. His is a failed
presidency, and the collective electorate seldom rewards failed presidencies with retention in
office. But down the road, as the issue intensifies and as white Americans feel increasingly
beleaguered by the left's identity politics and disdain for Middle America, as more
demonstrations and riots ensue with more destructive force, a counter-movement will emerge. It
likely will approach the body politic as quietly as Sandberg's fog. But, once it arrives, it
won't stay quiet for long.
Robert W. Merry, former W all Street Journal Washington correspondent and
Congressional Quarterly CEO, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect
of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).
Your numbers are skewed (the source is crap by the way). Love the $8 by the way. Your
callous disregard for the truth takes away from your argument. Look for the real numbers (by
the way they are bad but not $8 bad).
And much of that misses the entire point. You dont build wealth unless you have disposable
income. Your AA stat is similar for whites with similar incomes. Surprise poor people dont
have a lot of wealth (they live paycheck to paycheck). Surprise, on average black incomes are
way lower than white incomes. Could it be because of broken families, poor educational
achievement, and aspirations to being athletes and singers (rather than doctors) and the
accordant high failure rate of that? Possibly. Oh and one of the better paying aspirations of
some (gangster) are well paid but a cash business.
This is less about race and more about class. The numbers are not dissimilar for Hispanics
and are far better for Asians? Sense a trend? The real issue is that the AA community has
suffered from bad policies for 50+ years and that the victim culture does nothing to raise
them out of that. Give them reparations (to the tune of $350K/person if you believe the BET
dude's plan) and all it would do is result in a bunch of new MBs and BMWs floating around.
Once those were gone nothing would change. Dont kid yourself that it would. If you think that
is racist you need to look at what happens to pro athletes after they get out (bankruptcy).
And a lot of other races would do the same thing with the money. That is why a handout isnt
the answer.
Here are the facts, and I'm sure both sides can use the data to make whatever point they
like.
First, the numbers depend on whether you exclude armed suspects killed by police. If you
don't, then quite obviously, police kill many, many more people -- of all races -- than
suspects kill officers. It's hard to know how many of these weapons posed serious, imminent
danger to the office, but even so, if you brandish a weapon, especially a firearm, at a
police officer, all bets are off.
Thus, when people make these comparisons, they generally speak of (i) police killings of
unarmed suspects vs. (ii) suspects killing police officers. If you look at police killings of
unarmed African-Americans vs. police deaths at the hands of African-Americans, it appears
that for 2019, it's exactly even. According to the FBI database, African-American suspects
feloniously killed 15 police officers in 2019.
The relevant numbers are unarmed and those are FAR lower than 250. If you are armed and
dont drop it on the ground when asked you are asking to get shot. It would be like asking the
gangbanger at a drug buy to drop his gun when you were pointing one at him (not gonna
happen).
This presumption of innocent intent is all crap. Over half of ALL violent/property crime
in the US is commited by AA men. Fix that. Doing that would save thousands of black lives.
But nobody wants to talk about black men killing other black men. There is no money or power
in that.
there have been several police EXECUTED due to this democrat sponsored nightmare. These
un-associated cops were married, they had kids, they had friends, but no one mourns the cop
doing his duty.
DID the white cops go out and tear apart businesses, break into stores, loot the property
of minority store owners, beat people who got in their way or act exactly like a pack of
hyenas, calling in more hyenas to assist their criminal behavior, ( thank you twitter,
facebook ) ???
Exactly. Something helpful I've seen floating around is the premise that "Black Lives
Matter" has an implicit "Too" at the end. It's not that black lives are more important than
other lives, because of course, all lives do in fact matter. But there's a disproportionate
threat to black lives within the system we currently inhabit, and that demands more rigorous
attention. Saying "All Lives Matter" is the equivalent of demanding the fire fighters douse
every house on the block with water while your neighbor's house burns. Of course everyone's
house is important and should be protected, but they're not the ones on fire right now.
I liked your metaphor--but it's really not what is going on.
Saying "Black Lives Matter" *WHILE* rejecting (yes, rejecting!) "All Lives Matter"
suggests favorite or special treatment. Saying "All Lives Matter" means that when ANYONE's
house is burning, it gets the fire department--not that the fire department sprays water
equally when there is no fire.
What you describe is the concept of "equity," and why it's a failure. Metaphorically , the
left wants equal water attention from the fire department, even when nothing's burning.
That's "equity" to them. Everyone gets the same, regardless of need or demand, so everything
is equal. Equal outcomes--everyone's house is wet.
The opposite of Black Lives Matter is not all lives matter. It is so what he died, it
doesn't matter. George Floyd and many other black victims of police violence had lives that
mattered to someone. They were fathers, daughters, mothers, etc. Their lives mattered. Black
Lives Matter is a means by which to say, nigh yell, Black people are full human beings and
when they die there is no less pain and no less a loss then if a white person were to
die.
Blacks get killed by cops at a lower rate than whites by every meaningfull measure. Black
Lives Matter is a race baiting phrase used by Democrats to incite racism, and is a code
phrase for "hate white people." Screw them and screw you.
It's entirely NOT toxic to me. That it is "toxic" to SOME people is the sad and wrong
thing.
All lives matter. ALL. No joke, no irony, no nuance.
And shame on anyone trying to caution me or silence me from asserting it.
Bring the mob on, if they disagree with that. I want to see the idiots for myself--they
shouldn't hide in any shadows. If they don't think ALL lives matter, I want to know who that
Nazis or Antifa, or whatever look like.
Mr Merry points the liberals' unreasonable portrayal of blacks and other minorities as
these unfortunate victims that just can't seem to get a fair shake in America because of the
privilege of whites. Then he finds it more reasonable to assert that it is actually whites
who just can't seem to get a fair shake in America because of those other people.
The author is just another part of the problem. This fire doesn't need anymore fuel, sir.
@fnn
and file a complaint at a later time. Failing to comply is always problematic.
I'm always surprised at people's reactions when you ask if they let their kids do whatever
they want, and get away with not following "the rules". I have yet to hear one say yes. What
they do to enforce it, may or may not be legal, but they will enforce. Isn't enforcement of
the rules what we ask police to do? If they do it according to the law and their "rules",
there should be no consequences for them. If they don't follow the "rules" and/or do it
illegally, there should be.
Justice is a process, not a result.
@reiner
Tor the material conditions of disadvantaged ethno-racial groups, specifically blacks. By
now it should have become clear that, while material conditions did improve, these
improvements are not perceived as such. Basically, the corporate media/culture industry
propagandize blacks about their continuing oppressed victim status while the dysfunction
(whatever the reasons) of black communities foils whatever material improvements have been
achieved. Accordingly, given what they are shown and told, it is not irrational for blacks to
demand equality. Even if that means that all others must be as miserable as they are.
It does not matter whether Mr. Floyd was a model citizen or pimping your mom: he was
extralegally executed by four policemen. Funny how people who endlessly yammer on about law
and order actually have so little respect for the due process that is the heart of law.
It is counterproductive to assert that white people are obligated to dismantle a system
that allegedly endows them with special privilege. It is also absurd to think that someone
who perceives he or she has a competitive edge over another because the accident of skin
pigment will willingly give up that survival advantage. Humans are not programmed to be that
altruistic – or that foolish.
Even people of good will fumble defining and identifying structural racism, for
acknowledging what a huge task it will be to abolish it is daunting and frightens most of us
out of taking action. But being treated with respect is not a privilege. Being victimized by
discrimination is a human rights violation – but it is also a constant throughout human
history. Exploitation and degradation of one's fellows is the rule of human behavior, not the
exception.
I think contempt for human rights still flourishes in America because of our unique
cultural heritage, based in the ruthlessness of unregulated capitalism, with its denial of
the value of community and its vicious take-no-prisoners competitiveness. In most other
places the people seek to overthrow what Marx called "the parasite class". In America, we
dream of joining it. And shall we not forget that our country was colonized by the religious,
political, economic, and criminal rejects of every country in the world. We have been
carefully breeding half-mad fanatics here for over four hundred years – as witnessed by
this article and most of its comments.
Also, I can't believe anyone thinks this is actually about blacks and racial justice,
rather than general boredom and discontent, or unhappinness with life.
Countries have revolutions all the time, and there are always "reasons". Plus, I don't
think it's smart to take things at face value, expect people to be able to articulate –
or even have the self-insight to understand – why they are attracted to certain
positions. Sure, they'll say it's about blacks, but all they know is they vaguely
unhappy..
@S ry
and then doubtless because of Western influence, there are no words for fairness in languages
apart from English, Danish, Norwegian, and Frisian.
This is what partly led to the American Civil War when fairness-obsessed descendants of
Puritans (originally from East Anglia) opposed slavery which was mainly practised in the
south by progeny of aristocratic and elist Cavaliers (who come from Southeast England).
In a way I find the transplantation of American ethnic strife to England a bit odd,
considering native English people do not tend to actively think of themselves as "white" in
the way white Americans do.
Native English people just think of themselves as English and/or British, talking about
"colour" has traditionally been seen as vulgar in Britain, the media here doesn't talk about
race like the American media does. "White" as an identifier doesn't make much sense in
England because many foreigners are white, yet they certainly aren't seen as English.
The mainstream media in America often addresses white Americans collectively as "white
people", always in a negative, critical sense, but I think most English people would find
being addressed as "white people" quite alien and jarring.
The mainstream media in America often addresses white Americans collectively as "white
people", always in a negative, critical sense, but I think most English people would find
being addressed as "white people" quite alien and jarring.
The media may address whites collectively but most American whites find it equally
jarring
@Curmudgeon lack violence line
(blacks as a political tool to attack Anglos) but weren't at all expecting young whites to
ally with young blacks in a new quasi religious movement. How they handle that, they haven't
figured out.
Jews are in fact sidelined – and their MSM looks flat footed – with the action
moving out of their orbit and onto the street and social media.
The trouble for Trump and the ZioGlob is the lack of control. 1) It's much too fluid and
2) It involves unpredictable street mobs and violence + shooting protesters would only create
more martyrs to join the beatified St. Floyd.
WMD, russia-gate, ukraine-gate, floyd, it's all part of the same thing
capital and (((capital))) maintains its power by dividing and distracting and mass media
is a far more effective means of propaganda and control than anything stalin could've
imagined.
a little looting and burning is very cheap compared to higher taxes.
I would support generally protests against police brutality in America (as America really is
probably the world's leading "checkistan", or police-state, at least in relation to minor
crime). However, the ideology you discuss:
It is not new religion, or anything exciting – it is just an uninteresting mix of
bourgeois virtue signalling, and the secularized theater of Christian "slave revolt
morality"/millennialism, which is a common thing in America (and a lot of Europe since the 19th
century).
It's just as Nietzsche called "Chandala Apostolism".
American version – some simple New Testament teachings, mixed with the theory that
America has a "sin of slavery", and that might be redeemed from their past crimes by freeing
slaves, and progressing to ideals of "all men are created equal under god" – some
"Kingdom of Heaven" (where perhaps even lion will lie down with the lamb).
This concept of progressive redemption, is beginning self-consciously with Lincoln's
speeches, and today e.g. Obama's speeches in 2008 (and probably earlier politicians) are mainly
something to do this.
(page 58-60) Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; pessimism too. 'The world is perfect'
– this is how the instinct of the most spiritual people speaks, the yes-saying
instinct.
Who do I hate most among the rabble today? The socialist rabble, the
Chandala-apostles who undermine workers' instincts and pleasures, their feelings of
modesty about their existences, – who make them jealous, who teach them revenge
Injustice is never a matter of unequal rights, it is a matter of claiming 'equal' rights What
is bad? But I have already said it: everything that comes from weakness, from jealousy, from
revenge. – The anarchist and the Christian are descended from the same lineage.. (Page
208) Christian and anarchist. -Anarchists are mouth pieces of a declining stratum of society;
when they work themselves into a state of righteous indignation demanding 'rights',
'justice', 'equal rights', they are just acting under the pressure of their own lack of
culture, which has no way of grasping why they really suffer, – what they lack in life
A powerful causal impulse is at work in them: it has to be someone's fault that they are
not doing very well .. Complaining and grumbling can even give life a charm that makes it
bearable: there is a subtle dose of revenge in every complaint; people blame the fact that
they are doing badly (and sometimes even their badness) on those who are different, as if
that constituted a wrong, an unauthorized privilege. 'If I am just canaille then you should
be too': out of this logic come revolutions. –
And yet, Nietzsche certainly didn't act as if he thought the world was perfect, and wanted
to change politics and culture in massive ways. And his books are long extremely shrill
complaints, so if a desire for revenge is concealed in every complaint (and all of this applies
to people here who are opponents of the current Leftist regime).
If Nietzsche truly thought that the world was perfect, as the most spiritual men do
according to him, he would have not wanted to change the fact that large numbers of men are
chandalas motivated by weakness and revenge he would not have cares or taken it seriously..
If the world is perfect, what's wrong with weakness? Why is everything weak bad?
Nietzsche had great insights – my comments on the other thread about how SJWs are a
form of self-overcoming in the line of ascetic monks is straight out of Nietzsche – but
he seems never to have had the true courage of his insights.
He is one of the first European philosophers to recognize the importance of laughter and not
being serious, he writes much on this yet he failed to grasp that if the world is perfect, and
the most profound philosophical position is humor, then all his ferocious denunciations of
weakness are a joke he repeatedly recognizes the superficiality of seriousness, yet grows
increasingly humorless and serious..
In any event, Nietzsche certainly captures something true here. People who expect utopia
from politics fundamentally misunderstood why they are unhappy.
Nevertheless, as Nietzsche himself well understood, environments can be more or less
conducive to human happiness and flourishing, and can be more or less unbalanced in different
ways, so working for limited political or cultural change is not pointless.
There is no need to go to extremes
Still, I think his point that in order to be happy you have to have the correct attitude
toward the world – that that is as important if not more important than your environment
– is something that we moderns , who overemphasize political and cultural change, need to
hear.
"... This is ridiculous. White people aren't perfect, but neither are black people. The woke path isn't going to make American society better because it excludes ordinary Americans as agents of change ..."
A waste of a good issue but the issue is owned by those willing to invest the time to
protest.
I remember the 70's when people would just say, 'police brutality' without making it a
racial issue. There is something there. Police killed 1,093 people in 2016 of that number 176
were unarmed.
https://www.theguardian.com... Being armed doesn't mean they had guns and also doesn't
necessarily mean they were resisting. Ah but once you throw in race it dilutes the number,
call for police defunding, have looting at some demonstrations and the issue vanishes.
The cop who killed Floyd George was trained to kneel on his neck, Minn has now banned that
tmove, this is a good result. But not much else is being done that is productive in
nature.
Just a thought, I've heard different stories about whether the police manual allowed
kneeling on the neck, but even if true, it didn't say you should do it until the suspect was
dead. I presume it required more judgement than that, especially when the suspect was
handcuffed, on the ground, and there were 3 other officers there. Not saying you'd disagree
with what I said. In terms of whether there will be anything productive, it's early days. I
think the defunding movement sounds ridiculous, but I would want to see what's proposed
before I made a judgement.
In the '60s, it was assumed that ordinary people could easily identify racism and choose
to do something about it. In addition to the landmark civil rights legislation of that era,
the ensuing years brought a lot of individual soul searching and efforts to fix long standing
problems in American society. People took it upon themselves to integrate their churches,
sports teams, workplaces, etc. because they wanted to do the right thing and make their
country a better place. Now, ordinary people are being told that they are blind to their own
racism and lack the agency to actually do anything about it. Racism has been moved into the
realm of esoteric knowledge that requires a priesthood to interpret and provide direction to
everyone else. Even the word "woke" implies a surrendering of self, pledging allegiance to a
cause, and admitting to personal guilt in the form of "white privilege".
This is ridiculous. White people aren't perfect, but neither are black people. The
woke path isn't going to make American society better because it excludes ordinary Americans
as agents of change . It also fails to recognize that many Americans can't be classified
as black or white. Trump may well end up winning this fall, not because the people that vote
for him are bad, but because they're human and don't like being unfairly accused and
unappreciated.
There is a bit of racism in all of us from the day we are born. More often than not, we
belong or identify with a certain race or community. Being civil is the ability to rise above
our racial filters to do what we would have others (whose are different from us) do for us.
This can be especially challenging for any society when the politics of race and religion
kicks in.
Washington DC Police Brace For "One Of The Largest Demonstrations We've Ever
Seen"
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/06/2020 - 11:53 Update (1135ET): ~20,000 people attended racial justice protests in
Sydney on Saturday "in solidarity" with Black Lives Matter and protesters in the US, according
to police in New South Wales.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has ordered National Guard troops in the federal district not to
fire on protesters (an order that presumably includes rubber bullets and bean bags) while
ordering all active-duty troops that the administration had tried to amass on the outskirts of
the city to return to their posts.
According to the Washington
Post , police expect between 100k and 200k protesters on Saturday, far short of the million
people organizers had brought together.
There are now more than 43,300 National Guard members actively responding to demonstrations
across the US. The National Guard is typically deployed by the governor in a given state.
Today, more than 43,300 National Guard members in 34 states and D.C. are assisting law
enforcement authorities with ongoing civil unrest, while more than 37,000 Guard Soldiers and
Airmen continue to support the COVID-19 response. pic.twitter.com/Gtq4oxeUuw
Except in Washington DC where, because it's a federal city, the president has power to
command the National Guard, which Trump has chosen to delegate to the Pentagon.
* * *
Following more than a week of widespread peaceful protests pockmarked by occasional
homicidal violence, arson, assault and looting, activists are hoping to assemble a massive
demonstration in Washington DC, with some hoping to draw a million people to the capital just
one day after Mayor Muriel Bowser renamed the street leading up to Lafayette Square
after 'Black Lives Matter'.
The bright yellow letters spelling out the words 'Black Lives Matter' were put in place for
a reason: for what we imagine will be an extremely powerful photo op as police and national
guardsmen move to disperse the crowds, revealing the message below as tyrannical Trump gazes
out the window, twirls his mustache while cackling loudly.
Demonstrations against police brutality following George Floyd's death are expected to
continue for the 12th night on Saturday.
Uniformed military personnel walk in front of the White House ahead of a protest against
racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George
Floyd, in Washington. Photo by @Lucas_Jackson_
pic.twitter.com/Mc27JonTQH
--
corinne_perkins (@corinne_perkins) June 6,
2020
Though he didn't give a crowd size estimate, the chief of the Washington DC police says he
expects Saturday's gathering to be one of the biggest so far.
"We have a lot of public, open source information to suggest that the event on this
upcoming Saturday may be one of the largest we've ever had in the city," Washington DC Police
Chief Peter Newsham told local media, adding that much of the city center would be closed to
traffic from early in the day.
Newsham did not give a crowd estimate. Local media has predicted tens of thousands of
attendees.
Demonstrators in the Washington DC area are still sore over the national guard's decision to
use tear gas and rubber bullets to clear Lafayette Square for a presidential photo-op at St.
John's Church, angering the Episcopal Church in the process.
Further south, in North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper is ordering all flags at state
facilities to be lowered to half-staff from sunrise to sunset on Saturday to honor Floyd, who
was born in Fayetteville. A televised memorial service will also be held in the city on
Saturday,
per USAToday.
On Friday, marches and gatherings took place in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Miami,
New York and Denver, among other places, while protesters massed again, in the rain, in front
of the White House. The night-time protests were largely peaceful but tension remains high even
as authorities in several places take steps to reform police procedures. Politicians and judges
around the country also announced new restrictions on law enforcement powers and tactics,
including a federal judge in Denver, who ordered city police to stop using tear gas, plastic
bullets and other "less-than-lethal" devices such as flash grenades, claiming that too many
peaceful protesters and journalists have been injured by police.
"These are peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and medics who have been targeted with
extreme tactics meant to suppress riots, not to suppress demonstrations," U.S. District Judge
R. Brooke Jackson wrote in the ruling.
In Minneapolis, Democratic city leaders voted to end the use of knee restraints and
choke-holds, where pressure is applied to the neck.
In California, Gov Gavin Newsom ended state police training of carotid restraints, and
ordered officers not to use the tactic.
In New York, Gov Andrew Cuomo said his state should lead the way in passing "Say Their Name"
reforms, including making police disciplinary records publicly available, while also banning
the chokehold (which we thought had already been banned following the killing of Eric
Garner).
"Mr Floyd's murder was the breaking point," Cuomo said. "People are saying 'enough is
enough'."
Once again, the demonstrators in the US expect sympathizers from around the world to join
in, with more demonstrations at American embassies and consulates in Europe expected.
Already, thousands have gathered in London's Parliament Square "in solidarity" with their
American peers.
The protest, which has so far proven to be entirely peaceful, according to
CNN . At one point, everybody too a knee in unison.
Once again Portland, Ore., roughly 20 adults were arrested and one juvenile was detained
last night as peaceful demonstrations morphed into violent street battles into the night, as
agitators threw bricks and bottles at cops.
play_arrow Kan , 1 minute ago
Trump had more at his acceptance of the presidency. The difference is, this new ones is a
horde of "gimme freeshit" crowd that thinks violent drug dealers are worthy of rioting over.
The Sodium Fluoride, Vaccines, and Public school indoctrination has really played well to the
programming of the TV on the masses.
To dumb to think past what someone told them to think.
Son of Captain Nemo , 1 minute ago
Adding tear gas to the "fire" and lying about it certainly not helping...
When do the police in solidarity with their victims join the other side (losing the
paycheck in order to do so) to tell the Country after 9/11... Katrina... and the Boston
Marathon... that the police department(s) across the Nation need to return to the rule of law
and wear proudly "To Serve and Protect" again?...
Kan , 2 minutes ago
Trump had more at his acceptance of the presidency. The difference is, this new ones is a
horde of "gimme freeshit" crowd that thinks violent drug dealers are worthy of rioting over.
The Sodium Fluoride, Vaccines, and Public school indoctrination has really played well to the
programming of the TV on the masses.
To dumb to think past what someone told them to think.
pedoland , 5 minutes ago
i see controlled opposition turning a class battle into a race battle
is it about race, or is it about opportunity?
these protests are not organic
but they will be soon
kill the zionists
Angry Panda , 10 minutes ago
I won't be surprised if the WH got burned to the ground. If that happens and no one did
anything to stop the rioters then it's time for every to have a plan to leave the country
because you know it'll be the street thugs not the one in suits in charge.
TheBigCluB , 7 minutes ago
No.. it will be time to arm everyone you know, eveyone they know and everyone they know
etc and become the ruthless overlord of the golden horde
HenryJonesJr , 6 minutes ago
You won't be surprised. Don't confuse a gaggle of pimple-faced ANTIFA asswipes and low IQ
black separatists and white Millennials taking selfies as a threat to this nation's security.
If things really get out of hand, the President will initiate Martial Law, all communication
will be suspended, nation-wide curfew enforced, looters shot on sight / bodies disposed,
roads blocked, harbors, airports, secured etc. etc.
Sherlock Homeless , 5 minutes ago
Leave the country? How about stay and fight instead?
Geocen Trist , 12 minutes ago
These " demonstrations ' certainly seem to have been organized rather quickly, almost as
if it is all scripted. :-D
@Jim Bob Lassiter We're going to find out pretty soon if the Federal Government's
anti-domestic terrorism works any better than the rest of it.
After the recent attack in which over 50 Secret Service agents were injured (apparently
minor injuries) and Trump was shown a refuge bunker (super safe room, sort of), the security
forces reacted by removing SS personnel from riot police tasks back to point defense of the
President's body. Barr extended the White House defense perimeter and introduced new
personnel for the task. The new personnel were apparently from DoJ, as they had neither
insignia nor name tag.
Think about that. At some point, Secret Service either requested or were told that they
were unable to execute their _prime and only job_, Presidential protection. They were
relieved of perimeter guard duties that might involve contact with rioters (think of rioters
as very light infantry). While this obviously is no reflection on the Secret Service, which
is not manned, equipped, or trained at riot control, I'd imagine that the person running
Secret Service would rather have lost half the teeth in his mouth than to admit that Secret
Service could not protect the President and call in people from DoJ to do what Secret Service
could not.
Or (as I've no wish to slander the man) he was an exception to the usual security
commander and requested relief.
Either way, the DoJ now realizes that _they almost lost POTUS_, and that the culprits (not
enemy, we're talking DoJ here) achieved this with a surprise attack using capabilities and
assets not previously thought dangerous to POTUS.
Should Trump acquiesce to it, and maybe even if he doesn't, the same DoJ that extended the
White House security perimeter the day after the attack is going to find out how this
surprise attack happened, comb its ranks for people who let it happen, suppressed
intelligence reports, etc. They will also try to destroy the organization responsible. With
Trump as current POTUS and a Supreme Court that has not only been generally supportive of
Trump but has also been personally attacked by the side supporting the attack on POTUS, DoJ
must might succeed in getting control of its own bureaucracy and destroying the organization
that organized the attack.
Bar might even figure out that his decision to "avoid introducing politics into DoJ" by
not persecuting higher ups in the Russiagate affair is about 60 years too late.
Police have charged Stephan Cannon, a 24-year-old local man, with the killing of retired
police captain David Dorn during riots in St. Louis. The veteran cop was shot dead while
confronting looters.
...Dorn, a 77-year-old black man who served 38 years on the force, was shot and killed
outside the pawn shop on Tuesday morning, as he apparently tried to stop looters from
ransacking the establishment. Disturbing footage of the aftermath of the shooting has made the
rounds online, showing a bloodied Dorn dying on the pavement outside the shop.
...
Police say they believe that Cannon was the one who gunned down Dorn, leaving him to
die on the sidewalk outside the establishment, as he appeared to be "the only person
standing at the corner" at the time of the shooting and "multiple plumes of smoke"
could be seen billowing from where he stood. In addition to that, used shell casings were found
at the site of what police believe was the murder scene.
A chilling video has been circulating on social media showing a bloodied Dorn dying on the
pavement outside the shop.
Cannon was known to police, having been charged with misdemeanor theft back in February, St.
Louis Post Dispatch reported.
In a bid to cover his tracks, Cannon attempted to change his appearance after the image of
him looting the shop as part of a group of young men was distributed to the public. Cannon was
taken into custody and is being held without bond.
Numerous Secret Service agents were injured, fires set by rioters blazed near the White House and
authorities were searching for car bombs late Sunday as protests over the death of George Floyd continued to roil the capital
just two days after President Trump had to be taken to a bunker for his safety.
A senior official in the direct chain of command for defending Washington D.C. told Fox News of the
injuries to Secret Service agents, some of whom were hurt by rioters throwing bottles and Molotov cocktails in Lafayette Park,
just across from the presidential residence. The official initially put the number of agents injured at over 50, but that may
have referred to the weekend toll; the Secret Service has since said the number injured on Sunday was 14.
As
observed
in New York City and elsewhere, groups in D.C. are planting cars filled with incendiary materials for future use,
Fox News is told. U.S. Marshals and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents were deployed to the streets of D.C. in an
extraordinary move to beef up security alongside local police and Homeland Security agents, including the Secret Service, the
Justice Department confirmed late Sunday. Fox News has learned U.S. Attorney for D.C. Mike Sherwin is heavily involved in the
operation.
Lights that normally illuminate the exterior of the White House were
disabled
early Monday morning,
leading to some reports that the Secret Service wanted to use night-vision equipment to monitor protesters. White House Deputy
Press Secretary Judd Deere told Fox News on Monday, however, that the lights were turned off due to "standard protocol," not
for security reasons. The complex's external lights are normally disabled at 11 p.m. ET unless specific requests are made to
keep them online, including by media networks.
Additionally, the entire Washington, D.C. National Guard was being called in to help with the response to protests outside
the White House and elsewhere in the nation's capital, according to two Defense Department officials. Washington Mayor Muriel
Bowser said Sunday that she had requested 500 DC Guardsman to assist local law enforcement. Later on Sunday, as the protests
escalated, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy ordered the rest of the Guardsman -- roughly 1,200 soldiers -- to report.
As authorities clashed with demonstrators for the third straight night, the parish house connected to the historic St.
John's Episcopal Church across the street from the White House was
set on fire late Sunday
. The parish
house contains offices and parlors for gatherings. The basement, which was also torched, is used for childcare during church
services, and had recently undergone renovations.
Police stand near a overturned vehicle and a fire as demonstrators protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31,
2020, near the White House in Washington. Floyd died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers. (AP
Photo/Alex Brandon)
The church says every president beginning with James Madison, "until the present," has attended a service at the church,
giving it the nickname, "the church of presidents." The first services at the church were held in 1816, according to its
website.
Before the blaze, church officials had said they were thankful that the previous day of protests hadn't significantly
damaged the structure.
"We are fortunate that the damage to the buildings is limited," Rev. Rob Fisher, the rector of the church, said in a
statement earlier Sunday, several hours before the fire was set.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) building was also set ablaze near the
White House. The AFL-CIO is the nation's largest pro-union group.
An hour before the 11 p.m. ET curfew in D.C., police fired a major barrage of tear gas stun grenades into the crowd of more
than 1,000 people, largely clearing Lafayette Park across the street from the White House and scattering protesters into the
street.
Demonstrators protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near the White House in Washington. (AP
Photo/Evan Vucci)
Police stage in Lafayette Park as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near
the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Protesters piled up road signs and plastic barriers and lit a raging fire in the middle of H Street. Some pulled an
American flag from a nearby building and threw it into the blaze. Others added branches pulled from trees. A cinder block
structure, on the north side of the park, that had bathrooms and a maintenance office, was engulfed in flames.
Several miles north, a separate protest broke out in Northwest D.C., near the Maryland border. The Metropolitan Police
Department says there were break-ins at a Target and a shopping center that houses Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue Men's
Store, T.J. Maxx, a movie theater and specialty stores. Police say several individuals have been detained.
Police form a line on H Street as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near
the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Separately on Sunday, Twitter
suspended
a small account
claiming to represent Antifa, the left-wing group that Trump
branded a terrorist organization
earlier in the day. The suspension came after the account
urged
members
to go into "white hoods" and "take what's ours." The Twitter account, it
later
emerged
, was actually set up by a known white supremacist group, according to multiple reports. (Twitter and President
Trump
have sparred
in recent days over censorship.)
The developments came as it emerged that the Secret Service took
President Trump
to the White House's
underground bunker on Friday night, when protests outside the complex intensified.
A senior administration official confirmed the information to Fox News after The New York Times first
reported
the
story.
"Wasn't long. But he went," the official said Sunday.
The White House declined to comment.
"The White House does not comment on security protocols and decisions," White House spokesman Judd Deere said.
Trump's precise position Sunday night was not immediately clear. Trump traveled to Florida on Saturday to view the first
manned space launch from the U.S. in nearly a decade. He returned to a White House under virtual siege, with protesters -- some
violent -- gathered just a few hundred yards away through much of the night.
Demonstrators start a fire as they protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near the White House in
Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Demonstrators protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near the White House in Washington. (AP
Photo/Alex Brandon)
The D.C. demonstration Sunday was one of several around the country responding to the death of Floyd, a black man who died
in police custody.
Four officers have been fired in the Floyd case, and one has been arrested and charged. A
video
showed
the arrested officer kneeling on Floyd for several minutes as he screamed that he could not breathe, although an initial
medical examiner's report found "no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" -- and
cited Floyd's "underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease," as well as the
"potential intoxicants" in his system.
The scale of the coast-to-coast protests rivaled the historic demonstrations of the civil rights and Vietnam War eras.
In Birmingham, Alabama, footage appeared to show demonstrators violently attacking journalists on Sunday.
Iowa Law School professor Andy Grewal
tweeted
:
"Friend in Chicago called 911. Phone rang 10 times. He explained that the building across the street was being broken into and
looted and the dispatcher then hung up on him."
In Minnesota, a semitrailer sped toward a crowd of protesters, in a scene
caught on harrowing video
. Police announced the unidentified driver was arrested and taken to Hennepin Healthcare with
non-life threatening injuries after the protesters dragged him from his truck and apparently attacked him. Remarkably, DPS
officials said it appeared none of the protesters was seriously injured.
Protesters in Philadelphia hurled rocks and Molotov cocktails at police, officials said, while masked crowds broke into
upscale stores in a San Francisco suburb, fleeing with bags of merchandise.
In Austin, Texas, video showed protesters appearing to cheer as a homeless man's belongings were set on fire.
Looting was rampant in California, even in the well-to-do Bay Area suburb of Walnut Creek. In one bizarre episode
caught on tape
, looters there
appeared to loot other looters.
In Brooklyn, two attorneys, including a New York University School of Law graduate, were
charged
with throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD cruiser. Colinford Mattis, 32, worked at the Times Square law firm
Pryor Cashman, but his profile was removed from the firm's website after the news broke.
In Denver, police fired tear gas and projectiles at demonstrators defying a curfew following a day of peaceful marching and
chants of "Don't shoot" alongside boarded-up businesses that had been vandalized the night before.
Dozens of demonstrators, some throwing fireworks, taunted police and pushed dumpsters onto Colfax Avenue, a major artery,
in the sporadic confrontations that occurred east of downtown. 83 had been arrested in the area on Saturday night.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock called the behavior of unruly protesters "reckless, inexcusable and unacceptable."
Curfews were imposed in major cities around the U.S., including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and
Seattle. About 5,000 National Guard soldiers and airmen were activated in 15 states and Washington, D.C.
At least 4,100 people have been arrested over days of protests, according to a tally compiled by The Associated Press.
Arrests ranged from looting and blocking highways to breaking curfew.
The scene on Sunday was similar to the episode outside the White House two days earlier. Around the time Trump headed to
the safety Friday night,
multiple agents
were being "assaulted with bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items" -- injuring a number
of uniformed division officers and special agents, according to the Secret Service.
The extent of the injuries was unclear. No one reportedly made it over the White House fence, but the agency determined
that the situation warranted immediate action.
Trump has said he had "watched every move" from inside the executive mansion during Friday's protest and "couldn't have
felt more safe" as the Secret Service let the protesters carry on, "but whenever someone ... got too frisky or out of line,
they would quickly come down on then, hard -- didn't know what hit them."
On Saturday morning, Trump praised the Secret Service for its
protection
of the White House
the previous night, calling them "very cool & very professional" -- and warned that any protesters who
breached the fence would have met by "vicious dogs" and "ominous weapons."
Demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near the White House in Washington. (AP
Photo/Alex Brandon)
"The President doesn't make the call to move to the bunker," Dan Bongino, a former lead Secret Service agent in the
presidential protective detail and a Fox News contributor,
wrote on Sunday
. "The trained
professionals of the Secret Service do."
While unusual, it isn't unprecedented for protectees to be taken to the underground bunker when there are aerial intrusions
or other threats to the White House. Top White House officials, including then-Vice President Dick Cheney, were whisked to the
bunker after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The mob outside the White House had also turned its rage on a Fox News crew early Saturday, chasing and pummeling the
journalists in a
harrowing
scene
captured on video.
Police in riot gear stand in front of the White House as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd,
Saturday, May 30, 2020. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Veteran reporter
Leland Vittert
was covering protests in
Lafayette Park just before1 a.m. with three crewmembers when as many as a dozen masked protesters surrounded them, in footage
caught by
the
Daily Caller.
After a protester lunged at Vittert
while
he was reporting on-air
, the team made a beeline out of the park, with the hostile and growing crowd in pursuit.
Vittert and the crew were punched and hit with projectiles as they fled, and a Fox News camera was broken when a member of
the mob tried to grab it.
Police fired pepper spray at demonstrators near the White House and the D.C. National Guard was called in this weekend, as
the scene outside the White House seemed fraught again on Sunday night.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/IUUzA8zjE1M
The Secret Service tweeted late Sunday: "In an effort to ensure public safety, pedestrians and motorists are encouraged to
avoid streets and parks near the White House complex."
Hundreds of people converged on the White House and marched along the National Mall, chanting "Black Lives Matter," "I
can't breathe" and "No justice, no peace."
Protesters threw water bottles, traffic cones, scooters, even tear gas cans at police lines. They set fire to a car and a
trash bin and smashed windows, including at Bay Atlantic University. "What are you doing? That's a school," one man yelled.
An American flag hanging at the Export-Import Bank was taken down, burned and replaced with a Black Lives Matter banner.
Law enforcement officers from Calvert County Maryland Sheriff's Office standing on the Ellipse, area just south of the
White House in Washington, as they watch demonstrators protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020. (AP
Photo/Alex Brandon)
Trump appeared to cheer on the tougher tactics being used by law enforcement to disperse protesters Saturday night. He
commended National Guard troops deployed in Minneapolis, declaring "No games!" and he also said police in New York City "must
be allowed to do their job!"
"Let New York's Finest be New York's Finest," Trump said on Twitter after returning to the White House from Florida, where
he watched the launch of a SpaceX rocket. He did not talk to reporters upon his return and it was not clear if he could hear
the protest over the sound of his helicopter. But for at least part of the flight, televisions on Air Force One were turned to
Fox News and its coverage of the protests.
Earlier in the day, he had belittled the protesters and pledged to "stop mob violence."
"I stand before you as a friend and ally to every American seeking justice and peace, and I stand before you in firm
opposition to anyone exploiting this tragedy to loot, rob, attack and menace," the president said after watching the launch of
a SpaceX rocket. "Healing, not hatred, justice, not chaos, are the missions at hand."
Police were in tactical gear. The D.C. National Guard was activated at the direction of the secretary of the Army and at
the request of the Park Police to help maintain order near the White House, Commanding Gen. William J. Walker said in a post
on the Guard's Facebook page.
A firework explodes by a police line as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Saturday, May 30,
2020, near the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
While some protesters stayed near the White House, others marched through the streets chanting, "No justice and no peace."
and "Say his name: George Floyd." The mood was angry and several speakers implored marchers to remain peaceful.
The march paused between the Washington Monument and the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Demonstrators sat down in the street for a moment of silence lasting for the eight minutes or more that the Minneapolis police
officer reportedly knelt on Floyd's neck.
Police in riot gear stand in front of the White House as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd,
Saturday, May 30, 2020, outside the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
At the Lincoln Memorial, one organizer spoke over a megaphone. "Look to the left and to the right and thank that person. We
can't hug anybody because of COVID, but I love you anyway." Many of the protesters wore masks, but did not socially distance
themselves.
Another group circled through the Capitol Hill neighborhood for at least an hour in cars, honking. A helicopter hovered
overhead.
In a series of tweets earlier Saturday, Trump doubted protesters' allegiance to Floyd's memory, saying they were
"professionally managed."
Trump later rejected the suggestion that he was stoking a potential conflict between protesters and his supporters. "I was
just asking. But I have no idea if they are going to be here," he said. "MAGA is Make America Great Again. By the way, they
love African American people. They love black people."
At Saturday's demonstration, there was no evidence of a counter-move by Trump supporters.
Demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Saturday, May 30, 2020, near the White House in Washington.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
The president also criticized the mayors of Washington and Minneapolis.
Trump said Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey "is probably a very good person, but he's a radical, left mayor." He then described
how he watched as a police station in the city was overrun. "For that police station to be abandoned and taken over, I've
never seen anything so horrible and stupid in my life," Trump said when speaking briefly to reporters at the White House.
He said Minnesota officials have to get tougher with rioters, and that by doing so they would be honoring the memory of
Floyd.
Demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Saturday, May 30, 2020, near the White House in Washington.
(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The Secret Service said in a statement Saturday that six protesters were arrested in Washington and "multiple" officers
were injured. There were no details on the charges or nature of the injuries. A spokesman for U.S. Park Police said their
officers made no arrests, but several suffered minor injuries and one was taken to a hospital after being struck in the helmet
by a projectile.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf on Saturday called the protesters "criminals" who committed "acts of violence
while hiding behind their First Amendment right of lawful protest."
Late Saturday and early Sunday, protesters vented their rage by breaking into tony shops of Georgetown, on the western edge
of the District, and in downtown Washington, breaking windows and glass doors of many stores and looting some of them.
In his tweeting, Trump claimed that many Secret Service agents were "just waiting for action" and ready to unleash "the
most vicious dogs, and the most ominous weapons, I have ever seen." His reference to "vicious dogs" potentially being sicced
on protesters revisits images from the civil rights movement when marchers faced snarling police dogs and high-pressure fire
hoses.
Fox News' Leland Vittert describes the hostile scene of the George Floyd protests on 'CAVUTO Live.'
In a news conference Saturday afternoon, Muriel Bowser, mayor of the nation's capital, called Trump's remarks "gross" and
said the reference to attack dogs conjures up with the worst memories of the nation's fight against segregation.
"I call upon our city and our nation to exercise restraint, great restraint, even as the president tries to divide us," she
said. "I feel like these comments are an attack on humanity, an attack on black America, and they make my city less safe."
In contrast with the president's tweets, the Secret Service said it "respects the right to assemble and we ask that
individuals do so peacefully for the safety of all."
Fox News' Bret Baier, Matt Leach, Alex Pappas, Mark Meredith, Greg Wilson, John Roberts, and The Associated Press
contributed to this report.
Gregg Re is a lawyer and editor based in Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter
@gregg_re
or email him at [email protected].
"... "The media is the most powerful entity on earth. Because they control the minds of the masses, they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." – Malcolm X ..."
@Ad70titusrevenge Russia almost totally collapsed. Through the 90s Russia's governmental
institutions BARELY just scrapped through. It was by the skin of their teeth.
Russia could have gone the way of post-2011 Libya. Putin isn't exactly a Tsar, but he was
good enough to stitch things back together.
There is absolutely no guarantee America will fare the same. Things could get hellishly
ugly. This definitely has the feel of 1917 Russia.
The MSM is clearly engineering these hoaxes and disasters in order to demolish US social
culture. I believe the jews who own America wish to Bolshevize the continent in order to
raise up a new military juggernaut in order to conquer the world for them and fullfil their
insane religious prophecies concerning world government, gentiles exterminated, jerusalem
ruling the world, and their messiah on the throne.
It won't actually happen. And if it does, it will be short lived. But what will happen is
that many people will die in the process.
Racism or "White privilege"
Police violence
Social alienation and despair
Poverty
Trump
The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
The infighting of the US elites/deep state
They are not about one of these because they encompass all of these issues, and
more.
That is probably the best part of the article I added the word one!
"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. Because they control the minds of the
masses, they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and
that's power If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are
being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." – Malcolm
X
The glorification the ghetto culture, the refusal of offers of education,leading to gainful
employment, are real problems for all living in the United States. The cultural thinking that
we should have a promise at birth, that life is fair and I WANT WHAT I WANT,AND I WANT IT
NOW!, forgets the old saying -- If you don't work, you don't eat. If society would quit
babysitting and supporting every single knucklehead that is able to get on the internet or
television, and whine about how bad they have it,we'd all be better off!
Wake up people -- There is no money left to buy or satisfy all your dreams of equality,
it's all been stolen! Perhaps the golden age you dream of could have been reached if the past
governments would have focused on education for all, Mandatory education for all. They did
not and gave you mammon to continue your childish ways.
Thorogood -had it right–"Get a Haircut and Get a Real Job!
Eagles– I might feel better if they gave me some cash
I am old enough to remember the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Some important laws were
passed at the time (e.g. the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act), but implementation
has been uneven, and systemic racism is alive and well. Above all, it is impossible to
legislate away the underlying racism that lurks in the hearts of most humans. For this
reason, I am encouraged to see so many white people participating in the largely peaceful
demonstrations in the United States. It raises hope that anti-black and anti-brown racism can
diminish in the human heart.
I agree with you: those protests (from 2020) are clearly not for racial motives. They are
clearly class-related. Only Americans are fooling themselves with this racial war narrative:
the rest of the world is not being fooled (never was).
I recommend reading the book White Trash , where historian Nancy Isenberg
demonstrates that racial discourse in the USA has always (since the colonial times) been all
about class. This happened because the British used as propaganda to attract poor people from
the UK at the time that the North American colonies (future USA) was a land of absolute
liberty and opportunity, where one could start anew.
However, I disagree 2020 has anything to do with 1968.
In 1968, the USA was at the apex of its strength and beauty. It was booming and
flourishing. The protests of the time were tumultuous, but the atmosphere was always
optimistic: there was no doubt, by any of the sides, that the USA wouldn't emerge stronger
and better from those conflicts. Using the terminology of the liberals, we could say the USA
was "vibrant".
2020 is more like a decadent Empire, a "Late Empire", as the economic indicators are not
good and there's no perspective they will get better. The mood is much more somber, the
atmosphere much denser and darker.
Is the plan to generate martyrs for an intense propaganda campaign?
Trump showed weakness against the putschists. Are the NeverTrumpers gonna ratchet up the
pressure with images of violence and bloodshed and anger towards Trump?
This will not end well. The Deep State actors in the Pentagram are in support of removing
President Trump. The crowds are being massed for this purpose. Disarming the Guard will be a
huge mistake.
All of this is in service of the big lie that blacks "are being killed every day" by
police while nothing is said by the black leadership of the orders of magnitude more black
people that are killed every day by black people.
It is offensive that when the roll is called of those who were killed by bad police
officers the names of whites and hispanics are excluded because, apparently only black lives
matter. It is offensive to listen to the ignorant and the race baiters call white American's
racists. This is the country that led to the near abolition of slavery which exists today
almost exclusively in black africa and the arab middle east. This is the country whose white
people spent trillions to educate black people and which has for more than two generations
discriminated against white people giving preference to blacks in business and education.
This is the country that bussed black children to better schools in predominately white
neighborhoods and bussed white children to shitty schools in predominately black
neighborhoods. All of this with no rioting or looting from white people.
The real insidious evil in this is that all the progress of the past 2 generations has
been wiped out in service to this lie that there is systematic racism in this country and
that it is to be blamed on white people even when it is black people who control the cities
and states where most of these killings of black people occur.
We sell out the country when we kneel in fealty to this lie. Black businesses were
destroyed and black people were killed in this insurrection. Fortunately many black people
see through this ********. I hope they will gain the courage of the black woman calling out
the BLM hypocrisy in DC. We all need to summon the fortitude not to legitimize the lie and
give cover to the coup that will consume us all.
Cloud9.5 , 22 minutes ago
Understand people, the goal is to let the house of representatives pick the next
president.
Black Lives Matter is an Oxymoron: Does anybody read reality? Blacks Murder Blacks in the
HUNDREDS every week, not to mention the 3 million black kids they abort every year. Blacks
commit the most crime in the USA by FAR.... Black on White Violence is 6 to 1! I can go on
and on about this tribe of people. Social Injustice?!?!?!? If you are White or Asian and have
a 4.0 GPA and Spear Chucker Kawaan has a 2.5 GPA guess whos getting into that college? How
many laws have to be written a passed for this tribe of lazy *** murder ingrates? MSM and its
talking heads all the way up and down the line should be hunted down and dropped into a human
woodchipper. Its the biggest injustice the world has ever seen.
bobroonie , 36 minutes ago
Dims: Only black lives matter because cops kill blacks..
Fact: Cops kill more whites than blacks
Dims: Their lives don't matter because blacks are killed disproportionately...
Fact: Blacks kill on avg. twice as many whites as whites kill blacks.
Dims: **** you, you racist....
CosmoJoe , 41 minutes ago
Still waiting for an explanation of why George Floyd's death was racism or oppression of
black people. Did the cop shout racist slurs at him as he knelt on him? Were there racist
comments on the cop's Twit feed? Or are we a nation of ******* idiots that don't even
understand what the term racism even means anymore?
Quatermain , 39 minutes ago
it actually means nothing now. Rather like the boy calling "wolf".
SMSpiff , 47 minutes ago
Roland Fryer is a black economist, and the youngest person ever to get tenure at Harvard.
He was angry after the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, so he did his own research
on the use of deadly force by police in 10 big-city police departments police killing. His
detailed study of 1,332 police shootings -- in which he carefully compared the circumstances
of each killing -- found no evidence of police bias. If anything, police were more likely to
shoot at non-threatening whites than at non-threatening blacks. He said, this was "the most
surprising research result of my career."
Why was Professor Fryer surprised? Because he believed what the media say about race and
crime, and the media are often biased. Here is a particularly relevant example. On June 3, in
the midst of the rioting over the death of George Floyd, the New York Times published a long,
detailed article with this headline: "Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7
Times the Rate of Whites." This sounds like a clear case of horrific police bias, and this is
the impression the Times clearly wanted to convey. However, the article included nothing
about race differences in crime rates or arrest rates. This is like reporting that the police
were seven times more likely to use force against men living in Minneapolis than against
women, and getting outraged over ani-male bias. Needless to say, men in Minneapolis are much
more likely to be subjected to police use of force because they commit far more crime and are
arrested far more frequently. No one would conclude that disproportionate use of force
against men was a result of anti-male bias.
D.Kelama , 1 hour ago
Antifa snipers or IED's seem more than likely.
But really it could be anything to set it off.
...
SRV , 50 minutes ago
Maidan Square was funded by CIA/Soros... and they always return to a successful
operation...
A few National Guard and some innocent looking protesters would be my guess.
The NASDAQ stock market is surging to within one percentage point of an all-time high.
Record stock prices should indicate robust economic prosperity and healthy, growing companies
providing employment for all, but the markets have been dangerously rigged – they're a total fraud.
More than 40 million Americans are jobless, and businesses are failing across the US at the fastest
rate in the history of the nation. Corporate debt and leverage have never been higher, and the economy
is collapsing and contracting at a rate faster than during the Great Depression in the 1930s – yet
asset prices are bubbling to record highs.
Is it any wonder people believe everything is rigged and don't trust the media or government? How
can this happen?
The Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) – which is neither a bank nor part of the federal government and is
owned by Wall Street's member banks – has recklessly instituted policies that have artificially
manipulated stock, property and bond prices by printing trillions of dollars out of thin air.
NASDAQ companies continue to borrow cheap money to repurchase their shares, pushing stock prices
ever higher and giving the illusion of a prosperous economy – but it's all smoke and mirrors. So far
this year, NASDAQ companies have spent $75 billion on share buybacks, helping the billionaire class
and media-propagandist millionaires at the expense of the middle class. Their savings rates are zero
and the Fed will soon resort to negative interest rates (NIRP) – even though NIRP has already failed
in every country it's been launched in. Stock buybacks were illegal in the 1980s and should still be
illegal now.
The government and servile media are allowing financial plunder and the destruction of the middle
class out of a sense of self-preservation. They shriek about race, incite tribalism and regularly
practice 'race-baiting' in order to distract the gullible.
In the past week, at least 10 people have been reported dead and nearly 5,000 people have been
arrested as these growing riots impact 200 American cities. Last weekend alone, 82 people were shot in
Chicago, 19 of them fatally, but the media didn't shout about it – in fact, it acted even more
dishonestly as the riots grew steadily worse. Yet the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC,
CNN and ABC all refuse to say the word
"riot"
. These ministries of truth refer to people
being killed and businesses being destroyed by lawless thugs as mere
"protests"
, and make an
effort to emphasize the
"mostly peaceful"
ones.
This has been encouraged by the Democratic Party's politicians and operatives. Democratic Party
member and Seattle City Council member Tammy Morales stated,
"I hope we're all saying we
understand why that destruction (looting) happened and we understand why people are upset, but what I
don't want to hear is for our constituents to be told to be civil, not to be reactionary, to be told
looting doesn't solve anything. It does make me wonder why looting bothers people so much more than
knowing that, across the country, black men and women are dying every day, and far too often at the
hands of those who are sworn to protect and serve."
Maura Healey, Massachusetts' Attorney General, a Harvard-trained lawyer and a Democratic Party
operative, told the Chamber of Commerce that the riots were
"a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Yes, America is burning, but that's how forests grow."
Last week, the New York Times declared that, because of Covid-19, it would be unpatriotic to
protest. Now that we have violent riots that are destroying the US, the New York Times' editorial
board has done a complete about-face, publishing a piece titled
"America's George Floyd Protests
Won't Stop Until Police Brutality Does".
Why is the New York Times now seemingly approving of the
looting and burning down of police stations? Is it to appease their masters and distract the public?
The riots are the latest propaganda tool in this great diversion – a diversion that claims the
unrest is all about race, rather than economics and plunder by the elites. The economic oppression is
a political power grab by Washington, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and their media partners, who have
been sowing seeds of discord and hate.
Not one politician is showing any sense of leadership around the riots. Instead, they are fanning
the flames of destruction and hate so that the rioting, arson, looting and senseless destruction of
property continues. Just look at how New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's inaction is giving the OK to
rampant lawlessness committed by thugs.
There are massive, well-funded and organized protests across the US during an election year.
Coincidence? Nope. The Democratic Party and their mainstream-media partners would rather incite riots
and burn America to the ground than lose control and power.
We need to defend the rule of law as it applies to everyone. Mob rule and chaos are where we are
now, and politicians have done nothing to prevent this from happening. The law-abiding citizens of the
nation are being terrorized, while their rights are stripped away as the economy is pillaged.
This tribalism will destroy civil society, signalling the end of democracy and the world as we know
it. Leaders need to lead, and the second a peaceful protest becomes violent, that protest must be
deemed over and everyone sent home.It's as simple as that.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
I'm sorry but you again miss the mark when you discuss American politics.
Any kind of popular revolt against economic terrorism and plundering instituted by the
elite and protected by a dimwitted police force was snatched right before our eyes even
before we could react to the George Floyd, highly-publicized snuff film.
The second the well-funded and local controlled-opposition groups BLM and Antifa seized on
the opportunity to declare this a racial matter, it purposefully alienated over 50% of the
U.S. population, what we call the middlebrow, the middle class, or the independent citizen.
The independent generally votes dem or repub but is not a partisan and detests domestic
violence and is completely ignorant to the depth of neoliberal indoctrination which is taking
place in our college system and increasingly, in our primary schools. It is generally
conservative in nature.
You can see what I am getting at, here. For those broadcasting their anger from the
streets and decrying this situation as racist in nature, they are either ignorant to the need
to appeal to this citizen listed above or are purposefully sabotaging any effort to bring
them on board.
This is why I have made the comment in prior discussions that blacks need to get their
house in order.
1) They need to distance themselves from BLM and Antifa and decry unequivocally the
violence on the street
2) They need to distance themselves from neoliberal infiltrators and other guilt-ridden white
liberals
3) They need to realize that police brutality is a problem which affects all colors in
America and is the result of a culture of death being exported in our FP and being brought
home from years of policing hostile forces and incurring grave psychological damage and
alienation to our troops; there are several videos online available of whites being murdered
by police in similar fashion as George Floyd; Why these videos were unable to crack the
national spotlight is very telling
4) By doing the above, they need to also appeal to each other to end inner-city violence
being perpetrated against themselves; this will require a depth of focus and intensity that
can not be achieved by constantly pointing to external forces as sole contributors to their
current plight; do not trust the white but do not lay at their feet every ill that beguiles
you
5) They need to realize that any appeal to our institutions for reparations or handouts will
result in further entrenchment of resentment from us whites to blacks and will continually
result in further alienation
6) Black elites in this country need to abandon popular cultural outlets such as music,
acting, and sports; These pillars of entertainment and culture are chief proponents of
neoliberalism and will never lift a finger to truly help America rid itself of our anational
elite which is the only thing that can bring back local control
Under the multicultural and neoliberal reality all of us Americans find ourselves in, it
becomes necessary to trace back the origins or where it went wrong and, by doing so, attempt
to limit to the best of our ability institutionalized evils that can not help but exist under
our shared history.
Many in here are arguing for greater central control to somehow correct these evils, but I
will continue to argue that no such solution can be brought which is reasonable to Americans
who will fight and spill blood for their liberty. You may scoff at such a notion, but I am
warning you, you do so at your own peril and will be judged harshly for inciting blacks and
minorities further down self-defeating and destructive avenues.
Where are the black leaders, the poets, and the thinkers to help them during these
destitute times?
What's happening in the US is, without irony, a color revolution.
While Trump is a narcissistic, megalomaniac, the Democrats and the rest of the DC
establishment (including the military) are using the weakest sections of society to mobilize
opinion against Trump for the election. Obama, in a medium article and in a video, reiterated
that the federal government cannot hope to solve the crisis at the ground level and that the
crucial changes have to come at the local level. In the video he says: (from https://youtu.be/PmpeRG8Gkow
8:40 The report Obama commissioned while in office to recommend reforms to prevent police
violence] demonstrated something that is critical for us today. Most of the reforms we need
to see to prevent the type of violence and injustice system we've seen need to take place
at the local level. The reform has to take place in more than 19,000 American
municipalities, more than 18,000 local enforcement jurisdictions....we need to be clear
where change is going to happen. It is mayors, country executives that appoint most police
chiefs and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with police unions and that
determines police practices in local communities. It's DAs and State's Attorney's that
typically decide whether or not to investigate police misconduct. And those are all elected
officials.
Many of these jurisdictions are Democrat controlled, including Minneapolis where the Floyd
incident happened. But of course Obama's measured advice falls on the wayside by all parties
who are not on a battle for federal power.
Meanwhile news that's getting buried is the investigation into the Russiagate hoax by the
Senate Judiciary where essentially the man who appointed Mueller, the DOJ's Rosenstein has
all but admitted there was nothing to investigate even back in January 2017.
The tactics being used then by the neoliberal Dems are very similar to the ones
successfully used in Europe to overthrow governments through mob action. One can argue that
perhaps Trump deserves it, but on the other hand it's not clear whether the Democrats and
Biden deserve power either.
Except more dirty fighting as the election draws nearer.
I would love to see an end to global private finance centered empire but I am only going to
hold my breath for the good stuff.
I continue to posit that much of the financial crisis/class war was pre-existent and is
being enhanced/sold as pandemic response rather than another tithe to the elite and increased
social control.
It is not good enough for Trump to have his ass handed to him because it is the, behind
the scenes, elite owners/leaders that need to be geo-politically neutered.
Will global private finance rise through the ashes of what is considered to be a purely
American empire? Too soon to tell but interesting to watch.
One thing has changed, the US has stepped closer toward an authoritarian oligarchy wet
dream. It is an incremental process and the goalposts have again been moved forward. The
richest and most powerful have made huge gains while the masses bleat and bleed and
meaningless headlines throw empty words into the air; "Defund the Police!" indeed. Our
leaders have gotten away with even more illegalities without consequence, as you noted.
Civil asset forfeitures, beatings/brutality, surveillance, militarization, injustice, etc.
will only be enhanced going forward.
Biden? A decrepit, mendacious, weak, incoherent and corrupt campaign. An utterly vacuous
and irrelevant effort displayed for show only as the Democrats move in lockstep with the
Republicans on major issues such as military spending, bailing out the rich, covering up
corruption, etc.
The US economy, LOL. The stock market is again exploding with vigorous bloat belying
reality (DOW 35K EOY2020). The illusions of prosperity and peace are well painted
domestically if not internationally. The idiot-in-chief is certainly gloating about today's
economic news. And the old bugaboo inflation is still being held at bay with newly relieved
pressure on payrolls/benefits, energy, etc. Where else is the newly available
government-printed money to go but into the stock market?
After all we're gold rush rich and ready to spend, enjoy the "tinkle down" economy while
you can:
The case for 'This Was A Civil War', or could have been, or will be is half the story, a
partial analysis.
Like the Syrian War was a civil war, except it was paid for and equipped by the regions
major powers and the US and Israel.
If Syria had been a civil war, it would have lasted 3 months, not 9 years.
The US won't have a civil war. The issue in the streets is Liberalism's effort to use
anarchy (like the West uses Islamic Sunni Terrorism). It's a technique of
destabilization.
There won't be a race war or a civil war. There may be a war to retake the Republic from
the Deep State, from the Liberal Cult, from the Shadow Government and corrupt Congress.
The war to come would be a revolution to re-establish the Rule of Law, the Bill of Rights
and the Constitution, a war to stop separatist states from breaking from the Federal Union,
maybe a war to reestablish the borders of the nation.
Understand what was going on in the streets. Who was doing what, not what you think was
happening and why.
... Foreign Policy: this would not be a good time for the United States to go to war. No
doubt there are plenty of fools in Washington who think otherwise and are urging Trump to get
up a war to rally the country around. But that is unlikely to work..
The possibilities are endless and they all spell Trouble for Uncle Sam.
"... But now, the situation has turned into something far beyond the killing of George Floyd. It has become a vehicle for agendas and not surprisingly the establishment benefits most; the very establishment the protesters think they are fighting against. ..."
"... The riots have been co-opted. Where whites and blacks, conservatives and liberals alike were mostly in agreement, now there are attempts at racial division. Why is the death of Floyd being presented as a race issue in the first place? Why is it not being presented as a psychopath issue? There are psychopaths in every race in equal numbers, and this should be people's focus. In other words, psychopaths must be removed from society, whether they be police, politicians, business leaders, "caretakers", etc. How about some examples... ..."
"... The point is, psychopathic cops kill people regardless of their skin color. White people are at risk as much as black people. But at least when a black person is wrongly killed, the public and the media might take serious notice. There were no nationwide protests or riots for Daniel Shaver. The establishment works in favor of psychopaths, not white people. In fact, Phillip Brailsford was fired and then REHIRED for a short time by the Mesa Police so that he could still apply for his pension. ..."
"... There are evil people of every race and ethnicity in this world that do terrible things, however, the worst people are those that exploit the tensions that these evil people create in order to turn crisis into opportunity. The reason there are riots happening globally now in the wake of the death of George Floyd is because people are angry, but also, people are malleable and easy to manipulate when they are angry. ..."
"... The country has just partially "reopened" from the pandemic lockdowns, and more lockdowns are likely before the year is out. Over 40 million people lost their jobs during the economic shutdown and the government checks are not going to sustain the public much longer. Only 13% to 18% of small businesses that requested aid actually received money from the small business bailout, and most of those that did not get money are facing closure. Government restrictions have been accelerating, and people are already on edge. Riots are now an inevitable part of daily life in America. ..."
"... Provocateurs have infiltrated the protests and are attempting to trigger indiscriminate violence. Pre-staged weapons such as piles of bricks , bottles and other items have been appearing magically in protest zones. Property is being destroyed by people not connected to the main protest groups. Odd occurrences are popping up everywhere. ..."
"... As I predicted in 2016 just after the election of Donald Trump, it appears the goal of the establishment is to produce extreme division among the American public and then exploit the hard-left as a weapon to frighten conservatives into supporting martial law. In my article 'Order Out Of Chaos: Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost' ..."
"... If the infiltrators are extremist communist organizations like Antifa or Black Lives Matter that receive funding from elites like George Soros and his Open Society Foundation , then we should consider the possibility that the intention is not just to influence the protests, but to also influence conservatives to react by supporting violent government power. If they can trick conservatives into suddenly supporting the lockdowns, curfews, and a national guard/military presence to stop the protests, then they will have defeated us without firing a shot. We will have defeated ourselves and our own constitutional principles. ..."
Mass civil unrest is a cumbersome weapon for societal change; like an oversized caveman club
made of oak. You can barely swing it, and when you do you might destroy an enemy with it but
you could also unwittingly destroy innocent people at the same time. Once the weapon is in
motion adjusting its direction or momentum becomes difficult.
I prefer the scalpel approach - Find the cancer and cut it out directly, rather than bashing
at the whole body just to get at one tumor.
Another problem with protests and riots is that they often have no discernible goals, or
they lose track of their goals almost immediately. When the initial protests started, they
targeted the police precinct in Minneapolis which was home to the officers that killed George
Floyd. In my view this was perfectly acceptable. At this stage a majority of Americans were on
their side. Many conservatives and law enforcement officers even came out in support of these
measures and admonished the actions that violated common police procedure and led to
unnecessary death.
But now, the situation has turned into something far beyond the killing of George Floyd. It
has become a vehicle for agendas and not surprisingly the establishment benefits most; the very
establishment the protesters think they are fighting against.
The riots have been co-opted. Where whites and blacks, conservatives and liberals alike were
mostly in agreement, now there are attempts at racial division. Why is the death of Floyd being
presented as a race issue in the first place? Why is it not being presented as a psychopath
issue? There are psychopaths in every race in equal numbers, and this should be people's focus.
In other words, psychopaths must be removed from society, whether they be police, politicians,
business leaders, "caretakers", etc. How about some examples...
In Mesa, Arizona in 2017, a white man named Daniel Shaver was murdered by officer
Phillip Brailsford after an anonymous tip told police he had a rifle in his hotel room.
Though it is not illegal to own a rifle in Arizona and certainly not illegal to bring one into
a hotel, a team of officers was sent armed with AR-15s to approach and arrest Shaver.
Brailsford ordered the frightened Shaver to crawl across the floor instead of asking him to lay
on the ground with his hands and feet spread as is normal police procedure. The man, sobbing in
terror, reached to pull up his shorts which were falling off, and was riddled with bullets by
Brailsford.
Watching the video , it
is clear that Brailsford created a situation in which Shaver could easily "make a mistake" and
thereby create an excuse for the officer to kill him in cold blood. As it turned out, the rifle
Shaver had in his room was a BB gun. A jury later acquitted Brailsford of any wrongdoing on the
grounds that they could not determine "his thoughts and feelings" at the time of the shooting.
This sounds strange to me and I don't think most people on trial for murder get anywhere near
the same latitude with so much evidence on hand.
On the same day in North Carolina an officer was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the
murder of an unarmed motorist. The difference? The motorist in South Carolina was black.
The point is, psychopathic cops kill people regardless of their skin color. White people are
at risk as much as black people. But at least when a black person is wrongly killed, the public
and the media might take serious notice. There were no nationwide protests or riots for Daniel
Shaver. The establishment works in favor of psychopaths, not white people. In fact, Phillip
Brailsford was fired and
then REHIRED for a short time by the Mesa Police so that he could still apply for his
pension.
What about psychopaths that aren't white cops? Oh, there are plenty of them, too. How about
Mohamed Noor, a BLACK
Minneapolis police officer that killed an unarmed white woman, Justine Ruszczyk, in 2017
while responding to her 911 call? Leftist activists including those at the NAACP at the time
claimed that Noor was being "unfairly targeted" because he was black. There were no protests or
riots for Justine Ruszczyk. Though, luckily, Mohamed Noor did go to jail for his crime.
And if we are going to continue following the thread of violence and psychopathy vs. race, I
can't leave out the black nurse in Detroit that filmed himself torturing elderly patients by beating them
repeatedly in their beds, completely unable to defend themselves. The man has been arrested,
but again, no riots yet over this horror show.
There are evil people of every race and ethnicity in this world that do terrible things,
however, the worst people are those that exploit the tensions that these evil people create in
order to turn crisis into opportunity. The reason there are riots happening globally now in the
wake of the death of George Floyd is because people are angry, but also, people are malleable
and easy to manipulate when they are angry.
The country has just partially "reopened" from the pandemic lockdowns, and more lockdowns
are likely before the year is out. Over 40 million people lost their jobs during the economic
shutdown and the government checks are not going to sustain the public much longer.
Only 13% to 18% of small businesses that requested aid actually received money from the
small business bailout, and most of those that did not get money are facing closure. Government
restrictions have been accelerating, and people are already on edge. Riots are now an
inevitable part of daily life in America.
But with events like the death of George Floyd, the riots can be manipulated.
The rage of the masses can be directed on false issues of race and shallow left/right
politics instead of being directed at corrupt government and the elites that created the
economic mess we now see before us. The protests over George Floyd started out by raising
questions on abuse of power by police, a legitimate cause. Now they have been poisoned by race
politics and outsiders seeking to create useful chaos.
Provocateurs have
infiltrated the protests and are attempting to trigger indiscriminate violence. Pre-staged
weapons
such as piles of bricks , bottles and other items have been appearing magically in protest
zones. Property is being destroyed by people not connected to the main protest
groups. Odd occurrences are popping up everywhere.
Here is where this is all headed...
As I predicted in 2016 just after the election of Donald Trump, it appears the goal of the
establishment is to produce extreme division among the American public and then exploit the
hard-left as a weapon to frighten conservatives into supporting martial law. In my article
'Order Out Of Chaos: Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost', I stated:
" With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they
would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the
normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists.
Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling
down.
When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger
scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting
fascism. Ironically, it will be this behavior by leftists that may actually push
conservatives towards a fascist model. Conservatives might decide to fight crazy with more
crazy."
Donald Trump has consistently discussed the use of the National Guard in response to the
pandemic and the protests. And now, he is apparently considering
using the Insurrection Act to deploy heavily armed military forces to US soil.
Is it just a coincidence that conservatives were the most opposed to medical martial law
only a week ago in the face of the pandemic, and now they are considering the merits of martial
law in the face of the leftist influenced riots? And who actually benefits from this? Perhaps
the elitist establishment that's been calling for martial law measures from the very
beginning?
I have been hearing the narrative everywhere in liberty movement circles that "civil war is
here" and "we have to support Trump and martial law to stop it". Firstly, I have been
warning for years that Trump is controlled opposition . His cabinet is overflowing with the
same banking elites and globalists that the liberty movement stands against. Giving Trump
martial law powers is no different than giving the elites around him martial law powers. If you
support martial law and overarching government, then you are NOT a conservative you are a
statist, and statists must be opposed by all who value freedom.
These people also don't understand what "civil war" actually is. Groups of people protesting
is not a war. What I see primarily is a bunch of ignorant children posing for Instagram photos
and pretending they are activists. And if as the evidence suggests there is a provocateur
element infiltrating these protests to stir up violence, then isn't it possible that their goal
is to get us to back martial law policies?
If the infiltrators are extremist communist organizations like Antifa or Black Lives Matter
that receive
funding from elites like George Soros and his Open Society Foundation , then we should
consider the possibility that the intention is not just to influence the protests, but to also
influence conservatives to react by supporting violent government power. If they can trick
conservatives into suddenly supporting the lockdowns, curfews, and a national guard/military
presence to stop the protests, then they will have defeated us without firing a shot. We will
have defeated ourselves and our own constitutional principles.
The bottom line? More government power is NEVER the solution to any problem. Totalitarianism
is never the answer. There will now be endless excuses to declare martial law. When the George
Floyd riots fizzle out, there will be some other trigger event. In fact, these riots are
probably just a precursor to the riots that will rage when the public realizes the US economy
is not coming back from the pandemic, and that more lockdowns are coming. I would not be
surprised if the Floyd riots are even blamed for a resurgence of Covid infections, which would
give the government a rationale for more lockdowns. Beware anyone that uses martial law as the
go to answer to these crisis events.
The solution in this case is to prosecute the police involved in the murder of George Floyd
to the fullest extent of the law, point out that this is a problem of abuse of power and
psychopathy, not a problem of race, and to stop outside interests from busing in provocateurs
to trigger riots.
This is being done in some cases by the protestors themselves, who are exposing provocateurs
within their ranks and filming them in the act.
The next best step is for businesses to secure and defend their own properties. We have seen
it time and time again; the buildings that have armed personnel on hand to guard them do not
get torched. Of course, right now a number of companies that have property damage due to
rioters and looters are
actually SUPPORTING the rioters and looters! Corporations are falling all over themselves
to praise the protests and even the riots based on race politics. They are also
pouring millions in cash into "social justice" groups. We're supposed to declare martial
law and bring in the military to defend the property of companies that are vocal in their
solidarity with the looters? What kind of idiocy is that? Just let them be looted if they are
going to double-down on this hard-left madness.
If this current trend continues it would not surprise me at all if George Floyd becomes a
forgotten footnote in the riots that were started in his name. If certain elites get their way,
Americans will continue to riot without even knowing why, and those riots will never be aimed
at the people that actually deserve it. In the meantime, the establishment wants at least one
side of the political spectrum, at least one half of the population, to support totalitarian
measures, and they are clearly targeting conservatives with fear tactics in order to get us on
board.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on
advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The
Wild Bunch Dispatch . Learn more about it
HERE .
Some Democrats have openly embraced
what is happening. Really they don't have much of a choice. These are their voters cleaning out
the Rolex store. These riots effectively are the largest Joe Biden for President rally on
record.
No Democratic leader can directly criticize what is happening right now. And in fact, some
have joined in. Over the weekend, the Democratic Party of Fairfax, Virginia, which is an
important Democratic organization, released the following statement on Twitter: "Riots are an
integral part of this country's march towards progress."
Progress. Burning buildings, teargas, dead bodies, the screaming injured, criminal anarchy
-- to the Democratic Party of Fairfax, that is called progress.
Celebrity after celebrity has weighed in to agree on social media. From his fortified
compound, basketball star LeBron James has used his accounts
to encourage more rioting. Bernie Sanders surrogate Shaun
King has done the same. So has Black Lives Matter leader, DeRay Mckesson.
Colin
Kaepernick openly calls for violence. Here's a quote: "The cries for peace will rain down
and when they do, they will land on deaf ears," he says
approvingly .
Imagine shouting fire in a crowded theater, a theater with 325 million people in it called
our country. That's what they've been doing and have been doing for days.
When the violence began, what we needed more than anything was clarity in the middle of
this. It's hard to see when the tear gas starts. Someone in America needed to tell the truth to
the country. Instead, almost all of our so-called conservative leaders joined the left's
chorus, as if on cue.
On Friday, as American cities were being destroyed by mobs, the vice president United States
refused to say anything specific about the riots we were watching on television. Instead,
Mike Pence
scolded America for its racism.
Carly Fiorina, once a leading Republican presidential candidate tweeted that -- and we're
quoting, "It's white America that now must see the truth, speak the truth and act on the
truth."
Meanwhile, Kay
Coles James , who is the president of the Heritage Foundation -- that's the largest
conservative think tank in the country. You may have sent them money, hopefully for the last
time. Kay Coles James wrote a long scream denouncing America as an irredeemably racist nation:
"How many times will protests have to occur?"
Got that? "Have to occur." Like the rest of us caused this by our sinfulness.
The message from our leaders on the right, as on the left, was unambiguous: Don't complain.
You deserve what's happening to you.
No one jumped in more forcefully or seemed angrier in America than former South Carolina
Governor Nikki
Haley . "Tonight I turned on the news and I am heartbroken," Haley wrote. "It's important
to understand that the death of George Ford was personal and painful for many. In order to
heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone."
Imagine shouting fire in a crowded theater, a theater with 325 million people in it called
our country. That's what they've been doing and have been doing for days.
But wait a second, you may be wondering, how am I "personally responsible" for the behavior
of a Minneapolis police officer? I've never even been to Minneapolis, you may think to
yourself. And why is some politician telling me I'm required to be upset about it?
Those are all good questions. Nikki Haley did not answer those questions explaining. It is
not her strong suit -- that would require thinking.
What Nikki Haley does best is moral blackmail. During the 2016 campaign, she compared Donald
Trump to the racist mass murderer, Dylann
Roof . How is Donald Trump similar to a serial
killer? Nikki Haley never explained that. She wasn't trying to educate anyone.
Her only goal was political advantage. Nikki Haley is exceptionally good at getting what she
wants. She is happy to denounce you as a racist in order to get it. She just did.
In this case, Nikki Haley's wish came true. The riots were indeed "personal and painful" for
everyone. And then the pain kept increasing. Two days after she wrote that, dozens of American
cities had been thoroughly trashed, some destroyed.
A country already on the brink of recession suddenly faced economic collapse. An already
fearful population locked down for months because of the coronavirus had
been thoroughly and completely terrorized.
Mission accomplished. Let's hope Nikki Haley is pleased. We've now atoned.
How did the Trump administration respond to the horrors going on around us? Well, Sunday
morning, the country's national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, did a live interview from the
White House lawn. Here's how it began:
Robert O'Brien, U.S. National
Security Adviser: First thing I want to say, on behalf of the president --he said this to the
family -- but our hearts and prayers are going out to the Floyd family. We mourn with them and
we grieve with them and what happened there was horrific and I can't even imagine what that
poor family is going through as his videos are played over and over again. That should have
never happened in America and it's a tragic thing.
The president said that from the start, and we're with the family and as the President
said, we're with the peaceful protesters.
"We're with the peaceful protesters," O'Brien announced.
Really? Can you be more specific about that? Who are you talking about exactly? Is it the
people spitting foam as they scream, "F the police"? Is it the one standing next to the
arsonist doing nothing as they set fire to buildings? Is it the kids laughing as they film the
looting and the beatings on their iPhones?
The first requirement of leadership is that you watch over the people in your care. That's
what soldiers want from their officers. It's what families need from their fathers. It's what
voters demand from their presidents.
"... Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the looters. And it is just people who are frustrated. ..."
"... Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to react to this. ..."
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it is not the overwhelming picture in New York. ..."
"... Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence. ..."
"... Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. ..."
"... Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: I want you to know we will not be increasing our police budget. How can we at this moment? ..."
"... Our city through our city administrative officer identified $250 million in cuts, so we could invest in jobs, in health, in education, and in healing And that those dollars need to be focused on our black community here in Los Angeles, as well as communities of color and women and people who have been left behind for too long. ..."
"... And will this involve cuts? Yes. Of course. To every department, including the police department. ..."
"... Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 4, 2020. ..."
For the past week, all of us have seen chaos engulf our beloved country. The violence and
the destruction have been so overwhelming, so shocking, and awful and vivid on the screen, that
it's been hard to think clearly about what's going on.
Most of us haven't been able to step back far enough to ask even the obvious questions. The
most obvious, of course, is what is this really about? What do the mobs want?
Well, thugs looting the Apple Store can't answer that question. They have no idea. They just
want free iPads. But what about Apple itself and the rest of corporate America, which is
enthusiastically supporting the rioters? What about members of Congress , the media figures, the
celebrities, the tech titans, all of whom are cheering this on. What do they want out of
it?
Well, they haven't said. That's the central mystery.
Now suddenly, it is obvious. It should have been obvious on the first day. This is about
Donald Trump
. Of course, it is. We just couldn't see it.
For normal people, Donald Trump is the president. You may like him, you may not like him,
but either way, there will be another president at some point, and we will move on as we always
have.
But for Donald Trump's enemies, there is nothing else. Everything is about Trump.
Everything.
Donald Trump defines their friendships, their careers, their marriages. Donald Trump affects
how they raise their children. Trump occupies the very center of their lives. As long as Donald
Trump remains in the White House. They feel powerless and diminished and panicked. So they
cannot be happy.
In everything they do, their overriding goal is to remove Donald Trump from office. And
that's exactly what they're trying to do now. That's what these riots are about. The most
privileged in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from
everyone else.
Got that? That's the nub of it. The most privileged are using the most desperate to seize
power from the rest of us. They are not seeking racial justice. If they were seeking racial
justice, they wouldn't be denouncing their fellow Americans for their race, which they are. It
has nothing to do with it.
What they are seeking is total control of the country. And it goes without saying that none
of this has anything to do with George Floyd . Shame on those who
pretended that it did -- those who fell for the lie and those who knew better but played along
because they are cowards. There are many of those. You know who they are, and someday we will
look back on all of them with contempt.
Meanwhile, the many people promoting this chaos remain clear-eyed. They are not lying to
themselves. They never do. They know exactly what's going on, and they know what they hope to
achieve by it. With every night of rioting, they grow bolder. Now, they are openly defending
violence on television.
Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the
looters. And it is just people who are frustrated.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out
there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to
react to this.
Sen.
Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the
tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it
is not the overwhelming picture in New York.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is
not violence.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me
where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
You're crushed by this. You can't believe what's happening to your country. But for the
people you just saw, the real problem is that the rioting in some rare places is being stopped
by police, and their aim is to fix that. They would like to eliminate all law enforcement
for good.
In everything they do, their overriding goal is to remove Donald Trump from office. And
that's exactly what they're trying to do now. That's what these riots are about. The most
privileged in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from
everyone else.
On Thursday, Democrats in Dallas took down the statue of a Texas Ranger from the terminal at
Love Field that has stood in the airport for more than 50 years. The Texas Rangers are cops,
and cops must be removed, even when they're made of bronze.
Meanwhile, the Lego toy company has ceased marketing sets that contain plastic police
officers. Apparently, they're too dangerous for our children. And so on -- so much of this is
going on right now.
If it all seems like yet another episode of the silly and fleeting hysteria that sometimes
grips our culture out of nowhere, usually in lulls in the news cycle, you should know that it's
not that. This is entirely real. It is being pushed by serious people, and they are deadly
serious about it.
On Wednesday night, for example, Brian Fallon, who was the press secretary of the Hillary
Clinton for President campaign in the last election cycle tweeted, "Defund the police."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib agrees. Expect more
members of Congress to agree soon.
In some places, they're not talking, they're acting. Steve Fletcher represents the Third
Ward in Minneapolis . He's on the City
Council there. By this week, his city had been completely scorched by riots. At least 66
businesses were utterly destroyed by fire, 300 more had been vandalized or looted.
Fletcher didn't even mention that. Instead, he attacked the city's police department for
trying to contain the violence: "Several of us on the Council are working on finding out what
it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department.".
How would Americans feel if they actually defunded the police? Well, terrified mostly.
That's how we would feel. Things would fall apart instantly.
You'd think people in the city would be shocked by that. But at least on the City Council,
everyone else nodded their approval. In the Ninth Ward, Councilwoman Alondra Cano tweeted this
on Wednesday: "The Minneapolis Police Department is not reformable. Change is coming."
According to City Councilman Fletcher, all nine members of the City Council are now considered
getting rid of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Hard to believe, but it's not just there. In the city of Los Angeles , Mayor Eric Garcetti looks
out across the worst rioting in the nation's second-largest city in a generation, in almost 30
years. His conclusion? We need far fewer police. It could have been better if they hadn't been
there.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: I want you to know we will not be increasing our
police budget. How can we at this moment?
Our city through our city administrative officer identified $250 million in cuts, so
we could invest in jobs, in health, in education, and in healing And that those dollars need
to be focused on our black community here in Los Angeles, as well as communities of color and
women and people who have been left behind for too long.
And will this involve cuts? Yes. Of course. To every department, including the police
department.
When Democrats across the country start saying the same thing at the same time, you can be
certain there's a reason for it. And in this case, they clearly mean it.
According to the president of the L.A. Police Commission, city officials may cut $150
million from the LAPD. That would be more than 10 percent of the entire police budget, in the
wake of rioting.
In New York, 48 separate Democratic candidates -- and they were including in that the
Manhattan district attorney -- signed a letter demanding a $1 billion cut to the budget of the
NYPD. Why are they doing this? There are reasons, not the ones they tell you. They tell you
it's about racism. They tell you that cops are racist and must be reined in.
Most Americans don't agree with that. That's not the experience they have. In fact, police
departments are one of the most trusted institutions in the country.
According to Gallup polling last year, 53 percent of Americans said they had a great deal or
quite a lot of confidence in the police. That was far more confidence than they had in almost
any other institution -- banks, religious leaders, the health care system, television, news,
public schools, corporate America, newspapers -- name one. All of those were stuck below 40
percent. How many Americans trusted Congress? Eleven percent.
And in fact, most African Americans still support the police. A 2016 Pew poll found that 55
percent of African-Americans had confidence in the police within their own communities. In
other words, cops they actually knew and dealt with. They have confidence.
A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2011 found that among those who called the
police for help, more than 90 percent of African-Americans felt the police behaved
properly.
So, what would happen if we got rid of the police? Of all law enforcement? How would
Americans feel if they actually defunded the police?
Well, terrified mostly. That's how we would feel. Things would fall apart instantly. It
would take hours. Don't believe it? Spend an afternoon in a place with no law enforcement and
see what you think. Talk to anyone who was in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq War. Ask anyone
who stayed in New Orleans for Katrina. Their memories will be fresh. They'll never forget what
they saw.
Here's the key. Eliminating the police does not mean eliminating authority. There is always
authority. There are no vacuums in nature. The only question is whether or not the authority is
legitimate -- whether or not the authority is accountable. Whether or not you can do anything
if the authority abuses its power.
In the absence of law enforcement, the answer is no. It means thugs are in charge. The most
violent people have the most power. They can do whatever they want to you. That's the reality.
Everyone obeys the violent people, or they get hurt. The mob literally rules.
That probably sounds like a nightmare to you, because it is. But the people pushing this
idea don't see it as scary because they don't fear the mob, because they control the mob.
That's the key. And they see violence as an instrument of their political power.
With mobs in the streets that they control, they will finally get what they want -- Donald
Trump out of office and a hammerlock on the country. That's what's happening.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 4,
2020.
The incident was clearly manipulated for political purposes. And manipulators do not care how
many stores will be looted and how many people will be killed. They want their political power
back.
"Is our nation being ripped apart by a total and complete lie, a provable lie? A lie used by
cynical media manipulators and unscrupulous politicians who understand that racial strife -- race
hatred -- is their path to power, even if it destroys the country."
Notable quotes:
"... So many of our leaders, by contrast, are not grieving. They seem exhilarated. They feel nothing as our nation descends into anarchy. They see chaos, instead, as an opportunity, a chance to solidify their control, to increase their market share to win elections. ..."
"... The people cheering them on from their TV studios have no patience for real protests or real protesters. Just in April, Democrats in New Jersey arrested a woman for trying to plan a rally, a protest at the state capitol. The New York Times said nothing when they did that because they approve. That's how they really feel about any political expression they can't control -- they crush it. ..."
"... Unidentified male: I am now calling on all and our city council members and all of our elected officials to defund the police. ..."
"... Crowd: Defund the police. ..."
"... Unidentified male: Defund the police. ..."
"... Crowd: Defund the police. ..."
"... Jake Tapper, CNN anchor: LA Mayor Eric Garcetti joined protesters moments ago, what did he have to say? ..."
"... Stephanie Elam, CNN correspondent: Yes, he came out this morning, Jake, and he took the time to come out and come out among the protesters. He knelt while he was out there, saying -- and showing -- his solidarity for the movement, for the protesters here today. ..."
"... And I can tell you that today, this daytime protest has been very peaceful, very calm. Lots of chanting, singing. ..."
"... Unidentified male: I work for Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry that I scared you. But since I work for that company, my CEO has told me to come out today and to bring you on your knees because you have white privilege. ..."
"... So if they see that a white person is getting on their knees that show solidarity for the situation. The situation and could you just please apologize for -- you know for your white privilege. Just apologize. ..."
"... Unidentified female: I have -- I am trying to think of the right words to say. What's a good thing to say? ..."
"... Unidentified male: It's big.Unidentified female: That comes from -- ..."
"... Unidentified male: It's so -- it's large in this country. ..."
"... Unidentified female: I am terribly sorry. ..."
"... Of the 802 shootings in which the race of the police officer and the suspect was noted, 371 of those killed were white, 236 were black. The vast majority of those killed were not, in fact, unarmed; the vast majority were armed. And African-American suspects were significantly more likely to have a deadly weapon than white suspects, yet more white suspects were killed. ..."
"... In fact, the number of police killings is dropping. In 2015, during Barack Obama's presidency , 38 unarmed black Americans and 32 whites were slain by police. Overall totals have fallen since then, and they have fallen far more dramatically for African-American men. ..."
"... Last year was the safest year for unarmed suspects since The Washington Post begin tracking police shootings. It was the safest year for both white and black suspects. ..."
"... One final number for you, because it matters: In 2018, 7,407 African-Americans were murdered in the United States. If 2019 continues on a similar trajectory, -- and we hope it doesn't, but if it does -- that would mean that for every unarmed African-American shot to death in the United States by police, more than 700 were murdered by someone else, usually by someone they know. ..."
"... Again, those are the facts. They are not in dispute. Are African-Americans being "hunted" as Joy Reid recklessly claimed on MSNBC recently? Or something else happening? ..."
For many of us, this has been one of the saddest, most painful weeks in memory. Depressing
doesn't even begin to describe it.
We have watched as mobs of violent cretins have burned our cities, defaced our monuments,
beaten old women in the street, shot police officers and stolen everything in sight -- stealing
everything .
How many innocent Americans have these people hurt? How many have they murdered? We don't
know that number. But it's the country itself that so many of us worry about at this point.
After we've watched what's happened over the last week, how do we put the society back
together? Can we? We don't know that, either.
If you're grieving for America right now, you are not alone. Millions feel the same way you
do.
So many of our leaders, by contrast, are not grieving. They seem exhilarated. They feel
nothing as our nation descends into anarchy. They see chaos, instead, as an opportunity, a
chance to solidify their control, to increase their market share to win elections.
They have no interest in talking about the details of what is actually happening out there
on our streets. In fact, they're hiding those details. They're demanding that you forget what
you saw. Don't forget it. Remember all of it -- every bit -- because it's proof of who they
are.
What they're defending and encouraging has nothing to do with civil rights. It is violence,
and the criminals you see on the screen are not protesters.
The people cheering them on from their TV studios have no patience for real protests or
real protesters. Just in April, Democrats in New Jersey arrested a woman for trying to plan a
rally, a protest at the state capitol. The New York Times said nothing when they did that
because they approve. That's how they really feel about any political expression they can't
control -- they crush it.
What they support is more power for themselves and they're willing to use gangs of thugs to
get it. Here is one of their protesters chanting "no justice, no peace" as a man tortures a
dog. NBC News wouldn't show you that video ever. Neither would CNN under any circumstances.
These are the worst people in America, and our leaders have let them do whatever they want. So,
of course, they want more.
Their latest demand is that we eliminate the police entirely. No more law enforcement
in this country. That would mean more power for the mob. They could do anything. It would mean
never-ending terror for you and for your family. That's why they want it.
Unidentified male: I am now calling on all and our city council members and all of our
elected officials to defund the police.
Crowd: Defund the police.
Unidentified male: Defund the police.
Crowd: Defund the police.
"Defund the police." No sane person would dare to have said something like that in public
just a week and a half ago. Now, a member of Congress has endorsed the idea -- Rashida Tlaib .
So, what would happen to our country if we eliminated law enforcement? Eric Garcetti is the
mayor of Los
Angeles , the second biggest city in America. His city would devolve into a murderous
hellscape within hours if the police left.
But Garcetti, who is in charge of the city, won't push back against this idea. Instead, h
e kneeled in
subservience before the people demanding it.
Jake Tapper, CNN anchor: LA Mayor Eric Garcetti joined protesters moments ago, what
did he have to say?
Stephanie Elam, CNN correspondent: Yes, he came out this morning, Jake, and he took
the time to come out and come out among the protesters. He knelt while he was out there,
saying -- and showing -- his solidarity for the movement, for the protesters here
today.
And I can tell you that today, this daytime protest has been very peaceful, very calm.
Lots of chanting, singing.
He kneeled. Our leaders are kneeling before the mob, the atavistic ritual of self-abasement
of defeat. Suddenly, many are performing this ritual, including police around the country.
The mob wants victory. But more than that, it wants the total humiliation of its
enemies.
Unidentified male: I work for Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry that I scared you. But
since I work for that company, my CEO has told me to come out today and to bring you on your
knees because you have white privilege.
So if they see that a white person is getting on their knees that show solidarity for
the situation. The situation and could you just please apologize for -- you know for your
white privilege. Just apologize.
Unidentified female: I have -- I am trying to think of the right words to say. What's
a good thing to say?
Unidentified male: It's big.Unidentified female: That comes from --
Unidentified male: It's so -- it's large in this country.
Unidentified female: I am terribly sorry.
Why do we kneel? We kneel because we've lost. We kneel before our victors because they have
won. We put down our resistance. We beg for their mercy.
But mobs rarely forgive. "We're on your side!" we shout. We're in solidarity, spare us. But
they never do.
"We're on your side" as the rock comes through the window. You think the mob cares? No.
What's happening to this country? Why are Americans surrendering to violent mobs? Well,
because they've been told they have to.
Everything we're now watching -- the looting, the arson, the killing -- has a purpose. The
purpose we're told again and again is to end racist police violence against African-Americans.
We are told that that is the single greatest scourge in this country.
Demonstrators say repeatedly, "Stop killing us." Stop killing us -- it's chilling. And if
you believe it, and you're a decent person, you will be moved by it -- because it's awful.
No American should ever be mistreated by those in authority, much less killed. The abuse of
power is always and everywhere a sin, and it's increasingly common here. We should always work
to end it.
So many of our leaders, by contrast, are not grieving. They seem exhilarated. They feel
nothing as our nation descends into anarchy. They see chaos, instead, as an opportunity
In this case, the death of a man at the hands of police in
Minneapolis turned out to be a metaphor for abuse of power. That death has led to demands
that we fire the nearly 700,000 police officers who work in the United States and that we free
the million and a half criminals who are now behind bars.
In America, Joe
Biden told us recently: "Just the color of your skin puts your life at risk." Sen. Cory Booker of New
Jersey strongly agreed with that.
"We have so many people in our country," Booker said Tuesday, "African-American men mostly
unarmed, being murdered by police officers and no way of holding them accountable."
So many people murdered by police officers, unarmed, says Cory Booker.
You're hearing a lot of people in authority tell you that, every day, every hour. One group
of pro athletes just announced that, "It seems like every week, a new tragedy unfolds before
our very eyes where people are being killed by police violence. Each time we tweet, we pray, we
mourn, only to repeat the cycle a few days later."
In the words of Ben Crump, who is the lawyer representing George Floyd's family in
Minneapolis, what we're witnessing here in America is "genocide." Genocide?
If you believe we were seeing genocide, then you might understand the riots now in progress.
There's nothing worse than genocide. But is it happening? Is any of this true? We should find
out. Facts matter. What exactly are the numbers?
We found the numbers and we're going to go through them with you in some detail because it's
worth it.
Since 2015, The Washington Post has maintained a comprehensive database of fatal police
shootings in this country. Last year, The Post logged a total of 1,004 killings.
Of the 802 shootings in which the race of the police officer and the suspect was noted,
371 of those killed were white, 236 were black. The vast majority of those killed were not, in
fact, unarmed; the vast majority were armed. And African-American suspects were significantly
more likely to have a deadly weapon than white suspects, yet more white suspects were
killed.
This is not genocide. It's not even close to genocide. It is laughable to suggest it
is.
Overall, there were a total of precisely 10 cases in the United States last year, according
to The Washington Post, in which unarmed African- Americans were fatally shot by the police.
There were nine men and one woman.
Now, as we said, a lot is at stake. The country is at stake. So we want to take the time now
to go through these case by case, into the specifics.
The first was a man called Channara Pheap. He was killed by a Knoxville police officer
called Dylan Williams. According to Williams, Pheap attacked him, choked him and then used a
taser on him -- the suspect on the police officer before the officer shot him. Five
eyewitnesses corroborated the officer's claim, and the officer was not charged.
The second case concerns a man called Marcus McVeigh. He was by any description a career
criminal from San Angelo, Texas. He had been convicted of aggravated assault, assault on a
public servant and organized criminal activity.
At the time he was killed, he was wanted on drug dealing charges. The Texas State trooper
pulled him over. McVeigh fled in his car, then he fled on foot into the woods. There he fought
with the trooper and was shot and killed. The officer was not charged in that case.
Marzua Scott assaulted a shop employee. When a female police officer arrived and ordered the
suspect toward her car, he instead charged her and knocked her to the ground. At that point,
she shot and killed him. The entire incident was caught on body camera. The officer was not
charged.
Ryan Twyman was being approached by two LA County deputies when he backed into one of them
with his vehicle. The deputy was caught in the car door. He and his partner opened fire. The
deputies were not charged in that case.
Melvin Watkins of East Baton Rouge, La. shot by a deputy after he allegedly drove his car
toward the deputy at high speed. The deputy was not charged.
Isaiah Lewis, meanwhile, wasn't just unarmed, he was completely naked. Williams broke into a
house and then attacked a police officer. The police tased Williams, but he kept coming at them
and attacking. The officer shot him. They were not charged.
Atatiana Jefferson was shot by a Fort Worth deputy called Aaron Dean. A neighbor had called
a non-emergency number after seeing Jefferson's door open, thinking something might be wrong.
Police arrived. Jefferson saw them approach from a window and was holding a gun at the
time.
According to body camera footage, the officer shot Jefferson within seconds. That officer
has been charged with homicide.
Is our nation being ripped apart by a total and complete lie, a provable lie? A lie used
by cynical media manipulators and unscrupulous politicians who understand that racial strife
-- race hatred -- is their path to power, even if it destroys the country.
Christopher Whitfield was shot and killed in a place called Ethel, La. He had robbed a gas
station. Deputy Glenn Sims said his gun discharged accidentally while grappling with Whitfield.
Sims, who is black himself, was not charged in that killing.
Kevin Mason was shot by police during a multi-hour standoff. Well, Mason turned out not to
have a gun. Mason claimed to have a gun, claimed to be armed and vowed to kill police with it.
They believed him. Mason had been in a shootout with police years before.
And finally, the tenth case concerns Gregory Griffin. He was shot during a car chase. An
officer called Giovanni Crespo claimed he saw someone pointing a gun at him. Later, a gun was
in fact found inside the vehicle, and yet Officer Crespo was charged anyway with aggravated
manslaughter.
Those are the facts. That is the entire list from 2019, last year -- 10 deaths. In five
deaths, an officer was attacked just before the shooting occurred. That is not disputed.
One allegedly was an accident. That leaves a total of four deaths during a pursuit or in a
standoff. So out of four, in two of those cases -- and fully half -- the officer was criminally
charged. Is it possible that more of these officers should have been charged? Of course, it's
possible. Justice is not always served, that's for sure.
But either way, this is a very small number in a country of 325 million people. This is not
genocide. It's not even close to genocide. It is laughable to suggest it is.
In fact, the number of police killings is dropping. In 2015, during Barack Obama's presidency , 38
unarmed black Americans and 32 whites were slain by police. Overall totals have fallen since
then, and they have fallen far more dramatically for African-American men.
Last year was the safest year for unarmed suspects since The Washington Post begin
tracking police shootings. It was the safest year for both white and black suspects.
At the same time, this country remains a dangerous place for police officers. Forty-eight of
them were murdered in 2019 according to FBI data. That's more than the number of unarmed
suspects killed of all races.
One final number for you, because it matters: In 2018, 7,407 African-Americans were
murdered in the United States. If 2019 continues on a similar trajectory, -- and we hope it
doesn't, but if it does -- that would mean that for every unarmed African-American shot to
death in the United States by police, more than 700 were murdered by someone else, usually by
someone they know.
Again, those are the facts. They are not in dispute. Are African-Americans being
"hunted" as Joy Reid recklessly claimed on MSNBC recently? Or something else
happening?
Carlson has said corporations support for the protests is "paying for" riots.
"But corporations aren't
simply tweeting their support for the riots, they're paying for them to," he said.
Carlson listed companies including Cisco, Intel, Ubisoft, Airbnb and Dropbox, who have all made funds
available to groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP). He also criticized Pepsi, stating it had supported similar causes.
Newsweek
has contacted the corporations mentioned and Fox News for comment.
Carlson referred to a quote that "a riot is the voice of the unheard," a phrase which has origins from
civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King Jr, who said "a riot is the language of the unheard."
Fox News host Tucker Carlson discusses 'Populism and the Right' during the National
Review Institute's Ideas Summit at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel March 29, 2019 in Washington, DC. He has
criticized businesses supporting groups such as Black Lives Matter.
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images
Criticizing this, Carlson said: "The rioters burning down your city with the support of virtually
everyone richer than you, are 'unheard', you, by contrast, are the oppressor and if you disagree in any way,
we are going to fire you and wreck your life."
Continuing to critique the corporations, Carlson suggested they should support small businesses.
"All this money, flowing out of the country's most profitable corporations, it might be a nice gesture for
those corporations to donate some money to, I dunno, rebuild some of the small businesses that have been
destroyed over the past week," he said.
Police keep watch as firefighters work to extinguish a fire at a section of shops
looted amid demonstrations in Santa Monica, California.
Mario Tama/Getty
Images
"Oh but they're not going to do that, because for a lot of big corporations the total annihilation of
small businesses is one of the best parts of this new revolution, there's always an angle, someone's always
getting more powerful."
In regards to the groups being supported, Carlson took issue with BLM for calling for police to be
defunded, while criticizing support for bail funds from the NAACP.
The National Endowment for Democracy, a soft-power group mostly known for splashing
government dollars on pro-US influence campaigns overseas to enforce regime change, has
endorsed protests against police brutality at home.
...
The NED, founded in 1983, has courted controversy for using its US government
allocated resources for encouraging regime change in countries that refuse to toe Washington's
line, like Russia and China. The group, along with other US-based "NGOs" supported the 2004
Orange Revolution in Ukraine and later funneled millions of freedom dollars to the country
ahead of the 2014 anti-Russian coup that brought down Ukraine's former President Viktor
Yanukovych.
In 2015, Moscow designated the
NED's activities as "undesirable" after it was found to have sponsored political
campaigns aimed at influencing the Russian government's decisions, including discrediting the
nation's military forces and the results of elections.
The outlet has also been caught red-handed stirring
anti-Beijing sentiment in Hong Kong, drawing fire from the Chinese government. In December
2019, Beijing sanctioned the NED along with several other US-affiliated organizations, accusing
them of "horrible activities in the months-long turmoil in the city."
"[There is] a great amount of evidence proving that these NGOs have supported anti-China
forces to create chaos in Hong Kong, and made utmost efforts to encourage these forces to
engage in extreme violent criminal acts," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said at the time.
This is identity wedge game played again and very successfully...
Notable quotes:
"... Are you telling me that the FBI/NSA/etc. don’t know about Antifa? I just don’t believe it. They might pretend they don’t know. I read about pallets of bricks. BRICKS. Deposited all over the country ..."
"... And the feds don’t know who put them there? Bullshit. The DNC is the political arm of the Deep State and Antifa etc. are the paramilitary. ..."
... Trumps blustering is at least acknowledgement publicly that Antifa is an organized and
funded terrorist organization.
But what power does he have to do anything about it, since as pointed out in your own
article, the various federal three letter groups covering up for the organizers, are the very
groups he would need to breakup and prosecute these Antifa organizers?
They are going to execute his orders really?
Where were you the past three years Striker when the CIA, FBI, DOJ etc were trying to
bring down the very president you expect to go after Antifa? C'mon man!
Are you telling me that the FBI/NSA/etc. don’t know about Antifa? I just
don’t believe it. They might pretend they don’t know. I read about pallets of
bricks. BRICKS. Deposited all over the country .
And the feds don’t know who put them there? Bullshit. The DNC is the political
arm of the Deep State and Antifa etc. are the paramilitary.
The media do it’s propaganda and academia it’s indoctrination. Or did you
think the Deep State was working on behalf of the American People? That they really believe
white supremacists are a threat? The enemy employs legions of useful idiots. But the enemy is
not stupid.
How do jobless anarchists rent out space in Brooklyn for meetings, paramilitary training and
concerts? Who owns practically all the real estate in Brooklyn? Are we even allowed to ask?
I was surprised Esper gave a press conference without first coordinating his message with the White House. We need a unified
message coming from our federal government. He should have voiced his concerns privately with Trump, but Trump makes the
decision and announces the message...Trump was elected, not Esper. I would fire Esper for not following the chain of command.
The career politicians cant stand Trump because he is a Washington outsider who is doing things different and making much
needed changes that benefit businesses and individuals.
All
you have to do is look at who is involved with all this craziness and when it all started. All this cause they want their
power back so they can continue to do what they want and answer to no one. All of this cause they hate Trump for opening the
eyes of Americans to see the light through the darkness they created. Because all I've seen that Trump has done to hurt this
country so far was to get elected and show all Americans how we where getting taken advantage of by government, the elites and
other countries. They will stop at nothing to regain power. Game players in this craziness: 1. Corrupt politicians 2. Some
rich Hollywood stars 3. Some rich sports players 4. Some rich business owners 5. Leftist media being paid 6. Some true racist
people being paid 7. Some bad law enforcement individuals being paid 8. Some black individuals being paid and making money
from it by pushing the narrative 9. And last but not least, someone or group that's financially flipping the bill so all of it
can happen. Notice any pattern here? $$$$$$$$$$$$ money the root of all evil.
All Bureaucrats and the Military take an oath to defend the constitution. When a lowlife like Donald Trump comes along and
tries to subvert the constitution it is right of the military and the bureaucrats to disobey his orders. Trump can fire them
if he likes but cannot force them to fall in line with his unconstitutional order. A stupid man like you would have known that
already and are selectively feeding information to a bunch of guys who do not even know what the constitution is. The military
is clearly lined up against the idea of trump using them against American citizens. After Trump loses the election as it
clearly seems now, he will have to demit office without a whimper, that is very clear from the statements of various active
generals. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has to this time win the Presidency by playing fair and not screaming like a dog whose
backside has been bitten off "The Democrats are practicing election corruption" It is Ok to feed that to his dumb followers
but the rest of the country will not take it lying down. This dog knew 2 tricks, you have now seen them all. He is done.
Washington DC Police Brace For "One Of The Largest Demonstrations We've Ever Seen" by
Tyler Durden Sat,
06/06/2020 - 11:53 Update (1135ET): ~20,000 people attended racial justice protests in Sydney
on Saturday "in solidarity" with Black Lives Matter and protesters in the US, according to
police in New South Wales.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has ordered National Guard troops in the federal district not to
fire on protesters (an order that presumably includes rubber bullets and bean bags) while
ordering all active-duty troops that the administration had tried to amass on the outskirts of
the city to return to their posts.
According to the Washington
Post , police expect between 100k and 200k protesters on Saturday, far short of the million
people organizers had brought together.
There are now more than 43,300 National Guard members actively responding to demonstrations
across the US. The National Guard is typically deployed by the governor in a given state.
Today, more than 43,300 National Guard members in 34 states and D.C. are assisting law
enforcement authorities with ongoing civil unrest, while more than 37,000 Guard Soldiers and
Airmen continue to support the COVID-19 response. pic.twitter.com/Gtq4oxeUuw
Except in Washington DC where, because it's a federal city, the president has power to
command the National Guard, which Trump has chosen to delegate to the Pentagon.
* * *
Following more than a week of widespread peaceful protests pockmarked by occasional
homicidal violence, arson, assault and looting, activists are hoping to assemble a massive
demonstration in Washington DC, with some hoping to draw a million people to the capital just
one day after Mayor Muriel Bowser renamed the street leading up to Lafayette Square
after 'Black Lives Matter'.
The bright yellow letters spelling out the words 'Black Lives Matter' were put in place for
a reason: for what we imagine will be an extremely powerful photo op as police and national
guardsmen move to disperse the crowds, revealing the message below as tyrannical Trump gazes
out the window, twirls his mustache while cackling loudly.
Demonstrations against police brutality following George Floyd's death are expected to
continue for the 12th night on Saturday.
Uniformed military personnel walk in front of the White House ahead of a protest against
racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George
Floyd, in Washington. Photo by @Lucas_Jackson_
pic.twitter.com/Mc27JonTQH
--
corinne_perkins (@corinne_perkins) June 6,
2020
Though he didn't give a crowd size estimate, the chief of the Washington DC police says he
expects Saturday's gathering to be one of the biggest so far.
"We have a lot of public, open source information to suggest that the event on this
upcoming Saturday may be one of the largest we've ever had in the city," Washington DC Police
Chief Peter Newsham told local media, adding that much of the city center would be closed to
traffic from early in the day.
Newsham did not give a crowd estimate. Local media has predicted tens of thousands of
attendees.
Demonstrators in the Washington DC area are still sore over the national guard's decision to
use tear gas and rubber bullets to clear Lafayette Square for a presidential photo-op at St.
John's Church, angering the Episcopal Church in the process.
Further south, in North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper is ordering all flags at state
facilities to be lowered to half-staff from sunrise to sunset on Saturday to honor Floyd, who
was born in Fayetteville. A televised memorial service will also be held in the city on
Saturday,
per USAToday.
On Friday, marches and gatherings took place in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Miami,
New York and Denver, among other places, while protesters massed again, in the rain, in front
of the White House. The night-time protests were largely peaceful but tension remains high even
as authorities in several places take steps to reform police procedures. Politicians and judges
around the country also announced new restrictions on law enforcement powers and tactics,
including a federal judge in Denver, who ordered city police to stop using tear gas, plastic
bullets and other "less-than-lethal" devices such as flash grenades, claiming that too many
peaceful protesters and journalists have been injured by police.
"These are peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and medics who have been targeted with
extreme tactics meant to suppress riots, not to suppress demonstrations," U.S. District Judge
R. Brooke Jackson wrote in the ruling.
In Minneapolis, Democratic city leaders voted to end the use of knee restraints and
choke-holds, where pressure is applied to the neck.
In California, Gov Gavin Newsom ended state police training of carotid restraints, and
ordered officers not to use the tactic.
In New York, Gov Andrew Cuomo said his state should lead the way in passing "Say Their Name"
reforms, including making police disciplinary records publicly available, while also banning
the chokehold (which we thought had already been banned following the killing of Eric
Garner).
"Mr Floyd's murder was the breaking point," Cuomo said. "People are saying 'enough is
enough'."
Once again, the demonstrators in the US expect sympathizers from around the world to join
in, with more demonstrations at American embassies and consulates in Europe expected.
Already, thousands have gathered in London's Parliament Square "in solidarity" with their
American peers.
The protest, which has so far proven to be entirely peaceful, according to
CNN . At one point, everybody too a knee in unison.
Once again Portland, Ore., roughly 20 adults were arrested and one juvenile was detained
last night as peaceful demonstrations morphed into violent street battles into the night, as
agitators threw bricks and bottles at cops.
Esper should be fired for insubordination. There must be someone in the Pentagon who will
obey orders. If McCarthy ordered NG troops to be disarmed he too should be fired. To place
unarmed soldiers whether Regular (active duty) or reserve (ARNG) in a situation in which
armed, violent people are present is equivalent to complicity in their fate.
The surrender cultist wimp TonyL wrote to whine that any use of force against the rioter
element in these demonstrations would make the situation worse. Well, there is worse and then
there is MUCH worse. The latter for me would be for the mob to overrun the WH. TonyL also
misquoted me. I said that a regular infantry company of the 3rd Infantry Regiment should be
positioned on THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN. For those of you who are unable to visualize terrain,
that would be INSIDE THE FENCE. Get it? A last ditch defense of the building.
The examples of Serbia, Ukraine, and Tunisia show how even the subservient unexpectedly
break from a leader once that leader is doomed to illegitimacy. And to an extent, the cycle
of abandonment has already begun. Jim Mattis's excoriation of his old boss prodded Trump's
former chief of staff Jim Kelly and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to echo his
condemnation of the president. As each defector wins praise for moral courage, it
incentivizes the next batch of defectors.
As others have observed, the aim of the DC Maidan appears to be either victory
or a creation of martyrs for the cause. And it will all be reported on and correctly
contextualized by MSNBC's Resistance TV News' brand new National Security
& Legal Analyst; Ms Lisa Page.
Anne Norton's book on antebellum political culture has chosen an interesting time to
arrive in the mail.
Move the executive office function [of the WH] to Camp David.
The traitors/Generals "in charge" of US Military can then decide "for themselves" -- if
they want to be known as those that allowed WH to be stormed and burned to a crisp.
And then Trump can totally begin to clean house in military.
And bring the boys home from Syria, Iraq, Libya, from NATO etc, as he claimed he wanted to
do in 2016.
This action of bring the boys home would be very popular among all segments of
society.
And demonstrating to us and the world that the traitors/Generals "in charge" of US
military that could be court martial and perhaps hung by their necks in the former [and by
then possibly destroyed] Rose Garden would be an example to indicate NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW.
It is absurd to think that the insurrection we are witnessing is any more than incidentally
connected with George Floyd. What we are witnessing has been four years in the making. The
entrenched class interests of Big Government, including alas the components of the National
Security State, Big Government Dependencies, including the educational establishments and the
spawn of the Great Society, and Big Media could not abide the election of a person who is not
one of their own. It set out to resist him from the beginning "by any means necessary", and
accumulating frustration has brought their revolt to the streets. There was a time when I
thought that the Democracy that undergirds our Republic was a more durable foundation that it
evidently is.
I get your point, Colonel, placing them in defense of the White House. I still have to ask...
Will the Pentagon defend the President? After the extraordinary and irrational act of
disarming the National Guard, there is increasing evidence, to me, that they will not.
Trump should step back and let Mayor Blowser have her way.
It' a win-win for him.
If nothing happens, well then nothing happens.
If all hell breaks loose (as I suspect it would), then it's all on Blowser.
As for Esper (an empty suit), Kelly, Mattis and Allen (Generals who never won anything),
they're all diehard swamp creatures (how do you think they got their stars?).
Trump shows up - an alien presence in the swamp - and doesn't automatically follow the
instructions of the bureaucracy (the deep state) as his predecessors did - which got us into
neverending half-assed "wars", money for the bureaucrats and promotions for the generals.
Defending the WH.
Position the 3rd Infantry just inside the WH fence - fully armed.
Broadcast to the world, any breach will be met with "shoot to kill."
Supposedly a million protesters are converging on DC today. What could go wrong? If they rush
the WH I say don't shoot, let them have it, declare martial law and after things settle down
disperse the whole federal government to different parts of the country. As an example, put
the Dept. of Labor in Iowa, CIA to New Orleans, etc.. Now, that would be "draining the
swamp". Let the lobbyists and defense contractors sell their mansions to the DC mayor's
subjects.
Nobody seems to be talking about this aspect of the events (certainly not the MSM), so I'm
curious if anyone there in the outside world is aware of this... conspiracy theory, I guess.
Damn near the entire law enforcement 'community' in Minneapolis was angered at the
perceived outrage directed at one of their own - and cops in general - by the public at
large. How angry did this make Minneapolis law enforcement? Angry enough to toss the 'guilty'
neighborhoods to the dogs. If you don't valorize cops 24x7, then we'll just disappear for a
while. See how much you like that, ungrateful citizen/potential terrorist!
During the initial protests, the Minneapolis Police Department 'abandoned' the 3rd
Precinct Police Station to what was apparently a handful of skateboard punk protesters
throwing rocks. Protesters across the street were changing, but not being violent in any way
and couldn't have 'overrun' the station house. There were many police coming or going from
the fenced-in garage and parking lot out back. Nothing much to burn in the brick building,
and it had a sprinkler system even if something inside did catch fire. The cops had plenty in
their usual bag of non-lethal tricks: tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets. Yet they
seemed to have no desire to engage and push the crowd back. At least nothing like the
enthusiasm they showed for sweeping residential neighborhoods for curfew violators outside of
their front doors.
It seemed obvious to some of us here in the city that they abandoned the station
intentionally to punish the ungrateful locals. Don't like our use of force? Question our
judgement in public? OK, then we'll just throw a little temper tantrum and leave. Good luck!
Embargo on. Who runs Bartertown? We'll be at the main station downtown or somewhere else, but
we sure won't be anywhere in the 3rd Precinct. Don't bother calling Emergency 911 because
even if someone eventually answers, they'll tell you nobody can respond. Sorry! And since
we're going on an unofficial, secret police strike, the fire department isn't going to
respond either. Too dangerous with all the rioting and looting (that we're letting happen on
purpose).
You may have seen video of the actual peaceful protests, themselve. There were walls of
cops with riot batons, tear gas and rubber bullets standing around - it's not like there was
a shortage of cops or vehicles. But almost as if on cue, they all disappeared at the tail end
of the marches when it was getting dark and the various criminals and agitators were sure to
come out. Target was looted and later burnt in the middle of the day. Minneapolis will never
release all the 911 calls they 1) didn't answer at all, or 2) told the callers that response
times would be longer than usual because of the riots. In truth, they just never showed up AT
ALL. Same for all the other places that were torched. Funny how they were all businesses in
areas the police would want to 'punish' for failure to worship cops. Not sure if that was
just by chance or planned, but it couldn't have been more obvious.
It's Yemen and Syria all over again, but instead of destroying basic infrastructure, you
destroy all basic commercial services the residents use. They have water and electricity, but
they're not getting groceries, prescriptions or a haircut without taking a bus half-way
across town. Are these nutjobs trying to regime-change Minneapolis? Lock the peons down with
curfew, starve them a few weeks and deny them emergency services. That way they'll get mad
and demnad the overthrow of the Democrats that run the place! Maybe political party regime
change is a bit over the top, but the message is still clear: Worship and obey, tax slaves,
or mass punishment. We're the only ones that can protect you!
Civil war? That sounds awful! American leaders prefer to think of this as domestic
full-spectrum dominance and controlling the jackboot narrative. Don't like a jackboot on your
neck? Then we'll soften you up by disappearing, letting 'someone' destroy your neighborhood,
then arresting you when you violate the curfew. Stop resisting citizen - we're trying to save
you. You'll beg to have cops and soldiers show back up so save your ass!
The 3rd Precinct Station was built using funds that were initially appropriated to fund
the building of several schools in that district; the community protested but to no affect.
That it was burnt down isn't at all surprising.
Would you agree that Trump and many in his administration committed Treason in their
conscious decision to follow a Do Nothing Policy in the face of COVID-19 as several damning
timelines prove beyond reasonable doubt? That such a policy was being carried out and was
entirely overt to the public might just enrage said public to react in the manner we've seen
as any spark would do. And what of the ten million thrown out of their homes when Obama
refused to arrest and indict the fraudulent banksters and the further millions battered by
the never ending recession that fraud caused; how many of those millions were awaiting an
opportunity to vent? My contention is the elite through the government they control have
broken the social contract such that it's now beyond repair and only a reordering bringing
about a new social contract will solve the issue.
...I am quite aware that one of the consistent patterns of states is to deliberately
stimulate and then co-opt resistance to its policies and stage-manage that resistance by
infiltration and other means.
That was done to an incredible degree in the anarchist uprisings in Europe in the late
nineteenth century. I have some months back read a considerable amount about that. In
particular there were several police officials in France, England and elsewhere who managed
incredible counter-espionage operations against the anarchist movement, which in concert with
police and military oppression in those countries, pretty much neutered the anarchist
movement to the point where it ultimately fell apart.
But that doesn't mean that *every* expression of resistance and *every* incident of police
violence or protest event is necessarily *staged* for the benefit of the public.
The state *does* want to continually, either overtly or covertly, impress upon the public
that it has a monopoly on violence and that the public had better bow down before its
authority. This is akin to that statement by a Bush official that occasionally the US has to
pick up some small country and throw it against a wall just to show the world who's boss.
So I can understand how events such as the pandemic response or the protests are used by
the state to re-emphasize its authority and advance its control and limitation of the
so-called "rights" of the population.
But again, that doesn't mean that such oppression prevents *legitimate* resistance
outbreaks from time to time, or that *everything* that happens in such outbreaks is somehow a
"conspiracy."
As I've said before, there are "legitimate conspiracies" and "bogus conspiracies." There
are "levels" of conspiracy. I like a good conspiracy theory as much or more than the next guy
(probably way more). But while I'm prepared to entertain the notion that 9/11 was a
conspiracy to either initiate or allow those attacks to occur to justify foreign military
interventions, I am not prepared to entertain the notion that Trump is a lizard alien, as
David Icke might suggest. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", as they
say.
That is my take too. Police contrived violence, then after dark - police controlled
absence to allow opportunists and revenge takers, Then police controlled violence on the new
days peace demonstration, further withdrawal from target business districts that evening.
Rich Higgins – who formerly worked in the strategic planning office of the US National
Security Council – noted that some of those pictured were administrators at the bureau's
DC field office, rather than agents, citing a friend in the know after some netizens questioned
the photos' veracity.
I asked a buddy of mine and they're admin staff (some of em).
Dubbing the images "surreal," detractors have piled onto the FBI employees for what
they saw as a politicized gesture, one even suggesting the move violated
the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from some forms of political activity.
"Shouldn't these Deep Staters be plotting a coup against the [government]?" another
critic joked .
The condemnations were also joined by calls to discipline the employees for their nod to the
protesters, who took to the streets last week after the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black
man, in the custody of the Minneapolis police.
Despite Higgins' confirmation that the images do indeed depict FBI personnel, some netizens
held out skepticism, asking whether the employees were kneeling for some other reason,
unrelated to the ongoing protests.
All in all, the great Wall Street Heist of 2020 came off with only a few scratches. Yea, so
some consumables were stolen. Let the peasants burn their own communities. Private finance
rules the waves, while people can't avert their gaze from skin colour and violence. The worst
part of it is all those people who profess to care about actual lives, when in their own
private lives they are supremely selfish and violent, and live a life based on the continued
exploitation of innumerable lives across the planet. Every tweet employing the use of Coltan
butchered from the heart of the Congo. Hypocrisy from top to bottom, from the Looter in Chief
to the Looter on the street. Pirate nation. The Wild West. Clothed in underpants stitched by
little brown fingers in Bangladesh.
@16 anne - I live in Venice CA, about three blocks from the border with Santa Monica. On
Sunday a police officer was shot in the parking lot of the Whole Food and 99 cent store. I
don't shop at Whole Foods. I go to the 99 cent store. (99 cent store is a discount market -
with quite good produce, too!) out of both economics and principle. okay. Helicopters,
sirens, et all. Later on that day the CVS pharmacy down the street at Rose and Main was
looted. Then the usual weekend mayhem out here in Venice. worse than usual, but whatever.
The shops are all boarded up with plywood and "BLM" slogans on them along gentrified Abbot
Kinney. I saw some thuggish guys with a baseball bat strolling along the street Sunday
afternoon as I ventured out on a bike ride. A car had its rear window smashed in half a block
before. everything is still boarded up. all along Rose too.
to add to the absurdity, the medical marijuana place on Lincoln Blvd was looted.
Yippee.
This is all so stupid. Where did corona virus go? Impeachment, what? Epstien? huh... Las
Vegas mass shooting? what do you mean? Syria? uh... Hunter Biden? who?
Total joke. It is all a bunch of lies. Fortunately, it has all sickened me so much that I
no longer obsessively visit this site. I don't like this stuff anymore. I am trying to avoid
ZeroHedge as well. And the other blogroll places. It doesn't matter. I don't care. I don't
vote. I don't protest. I honestly could care less.
It is a color revolution. I forget who... the new poster, blue dotterel, who got all up
in my grill for saying that a while back. whatever. I like snowy plovers and I hope you
are safe in your New Zealand home. FO. pretty sick of it all.
Yawn.
The real sinking has been going on for decades with sending industrial production and tech
know-how overseas.
Most of the "violence" is due to police covert operations encouraging violence which will
alienate mainstream Americans from joining protests.
BTW, you should be aware that the NSA has all these antifa etc. networks mapped out and
could round up these people in about 3 days, if and when they want to - apparently they don't
want to, which is interesting.
Every cult has the same goal: the utter
submission of its members. Cult members surrender everything. They give up their physical
freedom – where they can go, who they can see, how they can dress. But more than that,
they give up control of their minds.
Cult leaders determine what their followers are allowed to believe, even in their most
private thoughts. In order to do this, cults separate people from all they have known before.
They force members to renounce their former lives, their countries and their customs.
They allow no loyalty except to the cult. The first thing they attack – always –
is the family. Families are always the main impediment to brainwashing and extremism. If you're
going to control individuals – if you're going to transform free people into compliant
robots – the first thing you must do is separate them from the ones who love them
most.
In 1932, Soviet authorities began promoting the story of a 13-year-old peasant boy called
Pavlik Morozov. Morozov, they claimed, had taken the supremely virtuous step of denouncing his
own father to the secret police for committing counter-revolutionary acts.
Once exposed as a traitor, the boy's father was executed by firing squad, supposedly for the
safety of the state. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin elevated the boy to the status of a national
hero for what he did. People wept in the streets when they heard his name. They worshipped him
like a saint.
Why are we telling you this? Because it's happening here. In the last 10 days, some of our
most prominent citizens have sworn allegiance to a cult. Converts go by the term "allies."
Like all cult members, they demand total conformity. They ritually condemn their own nation
– its history, its institutions and symbols. It's flag. They denounce their own
parents.
If you've been on social media recently, you've likely seen videos that illustrate this
– such as one showing a girl attacking her mother and father for the crime of
insufficient loyalty to Black Lives Matter. Reporter Hanna Lustig of Insider.com wrote about
that video, and strongly approved of it.
What you just saw, Lustig wrote, is a young person "modeling the most important tenet of
ally-ship." Modeling. Meaning, something done to encourage others to do the same. It's
working.
In a video of a 15-year-old from Louisville called Isabella – and there are many like
her – the girl is shown crying and saying: "I literally hate my family so much." She goes
on to say her parents defended the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. And
then she calls her parents racists, followed by an obscenity.
"I hate my family so much." Just a week ago, it would have been hard to imagine that. Now,
Isabella is a social media star. Celebrities tweet their approval. She may have her own cult
before long. But the revolution is young. Children attacking their parents is just the
beginning.
On CNN Friday, a man called Tim Wise told viewers that, going forward, parents must hurt
their own children:
Wise said: "I think that the important thing for white parents to keep in the front of their
mind is that if black children in this country are not allowed innocence and childhood without
fear of being killed by police or marginalized in some other way, then our children don't
deserve innocence. If Tamir Rice can be shot dead in a public park playing with a toy gun,
something white children do all over this country every day without the same fear of being
shot, if Tamir Rice can be killed then white children need to be told at least at the same age.
If they can't be innocent, we don't get to be innocent."
Your children are no longer allowed to be innocent, says Tim Wise. Happy childhoods are a
sign of racism. The man saying this – and being affirmed by CNN anchors as he does
– is a self-described "anti-racism activist." He has been saying things like this for a
long time. More than once, Wise has suggested that he approves of violence against those who
disagree.
How does Tim Wise make a living? In part, by lecturing students. Your kids may have seen him
speak. They've almost certainly heard a lot from people like him. In America's schools, the
revolution has been in progress for quite some time.
Last February, to name one among countless examples, officials at schools in Rochester,
N.Y., created a Black Lives Matter-themed lesson plan. The teaching materials dismiss America's
bedrock institutions – indeed, America itself – as inherently racist. Suggested
questions for students include: "How does mass incarceration function as a mechanism of
racialized social control?"
One specific racial group was singled out for exclusive blame. The curriculum promoted a
book titled, "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of our Racial Divide." In other words, children,
there's a reason hatred and inequality exist: these people did it! That's what your kids are
learning right now.
Thursday, at Darien High School in Connecticut, Principal Ellen Dunn sent an email to
parents promising to increase "the race-conscious education of our students." To do that, Dunn
distributed materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ironically, the SPLC is itself a
hate group. That has been documented extensively. Now their agenda is the school's agenda. It's
what your kids are learning.
In Washington, D.C., an elementary school principal in the affluent northwest section of the
city recently wrote a letter announcing: "We need more White parents to talk to their kids
about race. Especially now."
The letter singled out "White Staff and White community members," whom the principal alleged
had committed "both macro- and micro-aggressions" against "Staff of Color." The principal did
not specify what those crimes were. She didn't need to. Their skin color was their crime.
This is a national theme. It's incredibly destructive and dangerous. Countless public
schools are now using the 1619 Project from The New York Times as a curriculum. That project is
the work of an out-of-the-closet racial extremist called Nikole Hannah Jones. Jones recently
argued it's not violence to loot and burn stores – its justified. Her propaganda is now
mandatory in public schools in Buffalo, Chicago, Newark and Washington.
Many parents understandably deeply resent this. It's deranged, its racist. Others don't.
They're "allies." They've joined in. One mother in London, where the cult is also spreading,
posted a photo on Twitter of her daughter on blended knee, holding a sign declaring her
"privilege."
The Cultural Revolution has come to the West.
What will the effects of this be? Years from now, how will that little girl with the sign
remember her childhood? Her mother took Tim Wise's advice. She no longer has innocence. Will
she be grateful for that?
It's hard to imagine she will be. She'll more likely feel bitter and used. Because she has
been used. Many will feel that way. Is there a single person who believes this moment we're
living through will end in racial harmony? Is that even a goal anymore? It doesn't seem like
it.
It seems clear that many in power are pushing hard for racial division. For hatred. For
violence. Let's pray they don't get what they want. Tribal conflict destroys countries faster
than any plague.
But keep in mind as this insanity continues that it's not happening in a vacuum. Every
action provokes a reaction – that's physics. We don't know where this is going. We don't
want to know. The cult members should stop now – immediately, before more innocents get
hurt – and they will, if they don't.
"... Elections are coming up, race-baiting is part of the agenda once more ..."
"... The appalling thing is violence is completely normalized this time around. With the white wokies unapologetically supporting the destruction and looting of especially the black neighborhoods ..."
I want the US to fracture into smaller units – specifically the states to become new countries.
The reason should be obvious – the Fed Gov is a cancer on the society and the entire world. What I'd like to know is why someone
would want a continuation of the Fed Gov given it's track record of wars around the world, and support for the oligarchy / corporatocracy
that is looting the country.
So who is financing the useful idiots? who is meming it?
When the "poor innocent jogger" story got pushed 2 weeks ago it was clear the BLM story narrative was being moved out of the
freezer back into the mainstream again. Elections are coming up, race-baiting is part of the agenda once more. But this
time around the internet has been taken over by the borg. Bots are everywhere and 4chan is botted heavily. I don't get the feeling
it's the shareblue office that message the boards this time around, it feels quite botted and very planned.
The appalling thing is violence is completely normalized this time around. With the white wokies unapologetically supporting
the destruction and looting of especially the black neighborhoods. up until the moment, it comes too close. Has the situation
escalated more then they expected or is more to come? It seems Trump's threat to involve the military was what they were after
afterwards strongly pushing the "trump is a violent authoritarian" narrative, rather ineffectively since trump waited until a
large majority wanted this to happen. He does manoeuvre it decently, threatening the mostly local democratic government to intervene
so that his hands aren't dirty but theirs. But will they let is escalate further so that they can push the trump is violent narrative
again I wonder.
My bet is they will escalate further. There are too many liberals buying guns, or perhaps not enough..
It's amazing how effective American propaganda is. With protests happening in Europe of all places..
If given an informed choice, the Silent Majority of Americans would side with young conservatives over young anarchists.
The problem is that the other side is ahead in a culture war, and the right is only just getting on its feet to fight it.
You're fifty years late for the Silent Majority. We're South Africa now, plus depopulated rural areas and a smattering of high-tech
city-states (Seattle, Austin, etc.).
The 'right' is flat on its back, and will stay there indefinitely. Every conservative or Republican you see on TV, save one
or two, is a neoliberal. They aren't even on the right.
"... Police intelligence units have uncovered encrypted and walkie-talkie communications as well as social media postings that coordinate the delivery and hiding of weapons and projectiles and the direction of anarchists to specific locations at specific times. ..."
"... In essence, these professional rioters have created command-and-control apparatus as well as supply chains unseen in prior riots that followed the deaths of Michael Brown (Ferguson, Mo.) and Freddie Grey (Baltimore) and the verdict in the case of those officers who beat Rodney King (Los Angeles). ..."
"... U.S. Park Police Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan said Tuesday one of the most troubling tactics seen near the White House is anarchists trying to grab police weapons during clashes. Other weaponry, he said, was being hidden in areas for perpetrators to pick up to use against officers. ..."
Police intelligence units have uncovered encrypted and walkie-talkie communications as well
as social media postings that coordinate the delivery and hiding of weapons and projectiles and
the direction of anarchists to specific locations at specific times.
In essence, these professional rioters have created command-and-control apparatus as well as
supply chains unseen in prior riots that followed the deaths of Michael Brown (Ferguson, Mo.)
and Freddie Grey (Baltimore) and the verdict in the case of those officers who beat Rodney King
(Los Angeles).
One federal law enforcement official told Just the News, "The anarchists have upped their
game."
U.S. Park Police Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan said Tuesday one of the most troubling
tactics seen near the White House is anarchists trying to grab police weapons during clashes.
Other weaponry, he said, was being hidden in areas for perpetrators to pick up to use against
officers.
"Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found
caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street," he said.
In other cities, stacks of bricks have been discovered in staging areas that end up being
slammed against store windows by looters.
The anarchists have "developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of
demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not for
purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit
acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they
thought officers would not be," John Miller, the
NYPD's deputy commissioner for terrorism, disclosed this week.
Miller added that pre-planning by the anarchists included the preparation of supply lines
for such items as gasoline, bottles and rocks as well as medics who could care for injured
rioters.
"Before the protests began, organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise bail
money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit
medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with
police," he said.
The most intense instigators share similar language, blaming capitalism, globalism,
chauvinism, oppression, and America overall, police officials said.
Spray painted graffiti messages, signs and chants commonly seen by the cops range from "F**k
Capitalism" to "Death to America."
"This time they are more organized, more strategic, even angrier," said one Midwest law
enforcement official, "and this is beyond criminal justice."
"Now, we have older local citizens who have protested peacefully for decades calling us
and telling us, 'I am not going out there because there is going to be violence.' That is
where this has gone."
In local meetings where demonstrators strategize their objectives, which is a normal
demonstration plan, the outsiders are hijacking the peaceful demonstrators' objectives with
little to no regard for the local communities, emphasizing a call for a violent revolution,
officials said.
The goal of the anarchists appears to be to instigate large numbers of locals to create
chaos and additional violence and looting. About one out of every seven people arrested by the
NYPD were outsiders aligned to such anarchist groups, officials have said.
Law enforcement officials told Just the News that anarchists are dispersing among the crowds
in two or threes, draped with backpacks, hoodies, walkie-talkies with telltale signs of
instigating violence or panic.
Former Ferguson, Mo., police chief Tom Jackson, who lost his job after the 2014 police
shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent rioting, said the anarchists' tactics in 2020 appear
more organized and more widespread than what he experienced in Ferguson. Brown's death was
ultimately ruled justified.
"What it seems like is organized anarchy," Jackson told the John Solomon Reports podcast
on Tuesday.
"These folks seem to be well-coordinated and well-funded. I think there is some sort of
logistics support. This has really evolved into a sort of an insurgency that is hiding behind
protesters and people exercising their rights."
Jackson said police will need to adapt their tactics to mirror those used by the military
during wartime insurgencies overseas, particularly psychological and communications operations
on social media.
"We had no idea the power of social media. We do now. It is how these folks are
communicating in these riots," he said
The challenge is most police departments, especially smaller ones, don't have the resources
to staff a full-time social media operations team, he said.
So instead, Jackson is recommending a special reserve unit be created -- from paid to
volunteer -- to parachute in or be activated when rioting crises occur.
"What I was kind of recommending is having a major case squad of social media people, who
could be called up as volunteers or otherwise who can attack the social media attacks on the
police so for everything the streamers are putting out the police department is putting out the
truth and its own story line so you can at least fight back," he said.
Yes, America is racist in many ways. But there is more than one racism. There is white
anti-Black racism, white anti-Latino racism, and white anti-Asian racism. There is also black
anti-white racism, black anti-Latino racism, and black anti-Asian racism. And so on. The
elites via wholly owned media spread enough identity propaganda, and are now using this
pretext to direct anger against Trump. Standard divide and conquer tactics. Fools never fail
to fall for it.
I am no fan of Trump, but if elites want him down, I am on his side: our elites are a lot
worse than all the strawmen they create put together. Not to mention that whatever the police
did, police in the US is strictly local, so the people responsible are all Dems: the police
commissioner of Minneapolis, Minneapolis mayor, the governor of Minnesota, etc. Feds have no
power over local police, that's the law of the land.
As far as coming elections are concerned, there is a good chance that the Dems are going
to lose more than they win. Lots of people who disapprove of police brutality disapprove even
more of the brutality of frenzied mobs of looters, of the general lawlessness (and, frankly,
senselessness) of these riots. The Dems firmly sided with looters and bandits. It might very
well cost them in November. Would serve them right.
Likewise, as people have become aware of the false left/right dichotomy, I think people
are becoming aware of the false ‘antifa-commie’ vs ‘fascist’
dichotomy which artificially divides anti-system groups that objectively carry a lot of
common goals. This is something which will take time. People don’t understand the range
of phenomena carried under these tokens. Intellectual failings of a brainwashed populace are
forgivable; it will take time in the best case.
I’m not a blanket Afro-phile, any more than I’m always super-excited to be
around my own folks, reality is like-dislike and love-hate. Typically we appreciate
people’s virtues, and resent their flaws; sometimes it’s not even clear which is
which. Sometimes I’m really excited to be around, I don’t know, Italians, and
sometimes, they are annoying. Nothing to freak out about In my experience living in the USA,
pretty much everyone is racist/not-racist, like they have their innate responses, and they
have conscious kind of morally responsible responses, they have some genuine love for the
Africans, and they have some genuine hate for them too sometimes, and many in between.
The police in this country are brutal, to everyone, proportional to distance politically
from the inner-circle. It’s a brutal country, atomized, devastated people under massive
attack over many domains, including psych by media/education, through the food and
water…
Anyways, kind of a rambling comment, my only on the whole brouha, hence the squeeze it all
in kind of format.
Conjecture: Looks like a mob-hit cutout had Chauvin killing Floyd. Chauvin thought he
would have institutional immunity, and I don’t think people understand how many pro hitmen mob killers are moonlighting cops of all stripes. So Chauvin is definitely a
1st-degree murderer, but he’s a cutout patsy, had no idea of the Gladio op underway.
He’ll be sacrificed like a little lamb, no doubt.
1. If America is so racist, why do so may people (mostly of color) keep trying to move
here?
2. Can you name another country that is less racist than the US?
I keep hearing the MSM telling me that we are such a horrible racist country. If that were
true and the rest of the world truly believed that, then we would expect the immigrants to
try to move to some other better country. But that isn’t happening so either we
aren’t really that bad, or the rest of the world really sucks.
US
President Donald Trump's son Donald Jr is pushing Attorney General William Barr to release
communications between Antifa rioters that allegedly reveal the group's connections with
politicians and other elite figures. The younger Donald urged Barr to " just do it!!! "
in a tweet on Wednesday, referring to rumors that the attorney general is poised to expose
links between the " violent radical elements " that Barr denounced in an earlier
statement and the politicians and elites believed to be backing them.
-- Donald Trump Jr.
(@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 3,
2020
Barr blamed the violence that has overshadowed " peaceful and legitimate protests "
over the police killing of George Floyd last week on " groups of outside radicals and
agitators " exploiting the unrest to " pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist
agenda " in a
statement released on Sunday.
The AG echoed the words of President Trump, who has repeatedly declared the rioters domestic
terrorists, and urged state governors to make use of the National Guard in cracking down on the
unruly mobs.
" The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in
connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly ," the
attorney general warned in the statement.
Many of Trump's political nemeses have expressed support for the demonstrations, glossing
over the violent elements. Trump supporters, meanwhile, have blamed much of the violence on
paid provocateurs backed by currency speculator George Soros and other left-wing bogeymen.
Looks like the third stage of the Purple revolution against Trump, with Russiagate and
Ukrainegate and two initial stages.
Notable quotes:
"... Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves. Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a racist dictatorship. ..."
"... According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical, Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part of his plot to "destroy democracy." ..."
"... The protesting and rioting that typically follows the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into " an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office. ..."
"... America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it. ..."
underground
bunker ." Opportunist social media pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are
whipping people up into white-eyed frenzies. Americans are at each other's throats, divided by
identity politics, consumed by rage, hatred, and fear.
Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves.
Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of
course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist
police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last
four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white
supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a
racist dictatorship.
According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the
corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical,
Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never
hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into
refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part
of his plot to "destroy democracy." The plan was always for President Hitler to embolden
his white-supremacist followers into launching the "RaHoWa," or the "Boogaloo," after which
Trump would declare martial law, dissolve the legislature, and pronounce himself Führer.
Then they would start rounding up and murdering the Jews, and the Blacks, and Mexicans, and
other minorities, according to this twisted liberal fantasy.
I've been covering the roll-out and dissemination of this official narrative since 2016, and
have documented much of it in my essays
, so I won't reiterate all that here. Let's just say, I'm not exaggerating, much. After four
years of more or less constant conditioning, millions of Americans believe this fairy tale,
despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support it. Which is not
exactly a mystery or anything. It would be rather surprising if they didn't believe it. We're
talking about the most formidable official propaganda machine in the history of official
propaganda machines.
And now the propaganda is paying off. The protesting and rioting that typically follows
the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into "
an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the
liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a
sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious
property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring
about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist
paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office.
In any event, the Resistance media have now dropped their breathless coverage of the
non-existent Corona-Holocaust to breathlessly cover the "revolution." The American police, who
just last week were national heroes for risking their lives to beat up, arrest, and generally
intimidate mask-less "lockdown violators" are now the fascist foot soldiers of the Trumpian
Reich. The Nike corporation produced
a commercial urging people to smash the windows of their Nike stores and steal their
sneakers. Liberal journalists took to Twitter, calling on rioters to "
burn that shit down! " until the rioters reached their gated community and started burning
down their local Starbucks. Hollywood celebrities are masking up and going full-black bloc, and
doing legal support . Chelsea Clinton is teaching children about David and the Racist
Goliath . John Cusack's bicycle was
attacked by the pigs . I haven't checked on Rob Reiner yet, but I assume he is assembling
Molotov cocktails in the basement of a Resistance safe house somewhere in Hollywood Hills.
Look, I'm not saying the neoliberal Resistance orchestrated or staged these riots, or
"denying the agency" of the folks in the streets. Whatever else is happening out there, a lot
of very angry Black people are taking their frustration out on the cops, and on anyone and
anything else that represents racism and injustice to them.
This happens in America from time to time. America is still a racist society. Most
African-Americans are descended from slaves. Legal racial discrimination was not abolished
until the 1960s, which isn't that long ago in historical terms. I was born in the segregated
American South, with the segregated schools, and all the rest of it. I don't remember it -- I
was born in 1961 -- but I do remember the years right after it. The South didn't magically
change overnight in July of 1964. Nor did the North's variety of racism, which, yes, is
subtler, but no less racist.
So I have no illusions about racism in America. But I'm not really talking about racism in
America. I'm talking about how racism in America has been cynically instrumentalized, not by
the Russians, but by the so-called Resistance, in order to delegitimize Trump and, more
importantly, everyone who voted for him, as a bunch of white supremacists and racists.
Fomenting racial division has been the Resistance's strategy from the beginning. A quote
attributed to Joseph Goebbels, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty," is
particularly apropos in this case. From the moment Trump won the Republican nomination, the
corporate media and the rest of the Resistance have been telling us the man is literally
Hitler, and that his plan is to foment racial hatred among his "white supremacist base," and
eventually stage some "Reichstag" event, declare martial law and pronounce himself dictator.
They've been telling us this story over and over, on television, in the liberal press, on
social media, in books, movies, and everywhere else they could possibly tell it.
So, before you go out and join the "uprising," take a look at the headlines today, turn on
CNN or MSNBC, and think about that for just a minute. I don't mean to spoil the party, but
they've preparing you for this for the last four years.
Not you Black folks. I'm not talking to you. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do. I'm
talking to white folks like myself, who are cheering on the rioting and looting, and are coming
out to "help" you with it, but who will be back home in their gated communities when the ashes
have cooled, and the corporate media are gone, and the cops return to "police" your
neighborhoods.
OK, and this is where I have to restate (for the benefit of my partisan readers) that I'm
not a fan of Donald Trump, and that I think he's a narcissistic ass clown, and a glorified con
man, and blah blah blah, because so many people have been so polarized by insane propaganda and
mass hysteria that they can't even read or think anymore, and so just scan whatever articles
they encounter to see whose "side" the author is on and then mindlessly celebrate or excoriate
it.
If you're doing that, let me help you out whichever side you're on, I'm not on it.
I realize that's extremely difficult for a lot of folks to comprehend these days, which is
part of the point I've been trying to make. I'll try again, as plainly as I can.
America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when
Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when
Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into
office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as
Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it.
And that will be the end of the War on Populism , and we will
switch back to the War on Terror, or maybe the Brave New Pathologized Normal or
whatever Orwellian official narrative the folks at GloboCap have in store for us.
#
CJ Hopkins
June 1, 2020
Photo: Nike (George Floyd commercial)
Mayor de Blasio and several high-ranking NYPD officials have already spoken out about the
organized gangs of criminals who appear to be responsible for most of the looting in NYC. Now,
a group of cops investigating the highly-coordinated crimes are telling local TV stations that
they have evidence many of the looters were chauffeured to the "jobs" and brought large
arsenals of power tools to help them break in. Witnesses who spoke to these officers claimed
they saw looters who showed up in separate vehicles work together in large groups to facilitate
the looting that broke out in retail areas in Soho, Fifth Ave. and elsewhere.
According to
ABC 6, one of the numerous eyewitness reports received by police came from Carla Murphy,
who lives in Chelsea.
Murphy, in an interview Tuesday, said she started hearing commotion from mobs of people
along her street and neighboring streets about 10:30 p.m. Monday night. She first watched
from her building and then went down to the street and saw organized groups of people working
together to break in to store after store in the West Side neighborhood.
"Cars would drive up, let off the looters, unload power tools and suitcases and then the
cars would drive away," she said . "Then the cars would come back pick them up and then drive
off to the next spot. They seemed to know exactly where they were going. Some of the people
were local, but there were a lot of out-of-towners."
Murphy said she saw license plates from New Jersey and Pennsylvania and drivers had not
even tried to hide their tags.
After calling 911 and not getting through, Murphy visited the 10th Precinct in Manhattan,
where she says dispatchers mostly brushed her off. Police didn't arrive on scene until hours
later.
But then again, as Murphy said, many of the looters didn't even bother to hide their tags.
Unless they used exclusively stolen tags and managed to make it all the way into the city
without being stopped, detectives will likely be rounding up many of those responsible for the
looting and the mass property theft, using evidence captured by the hundreds of thousands of
cameras recording movements in the city. NYPD detectives are trying to collect evidence from as
many looted stores "as possible".
Police suspect many of the lootings involved a combination of anarchist agitators as well as
gang members and other career criminals.
Officers who spoke with ABC 6 said the crews who "worked" the lootings clearly had a
sophisticated communications system relying on text messages, messaging apps and lookouts.
"... That ought to be baffling. The four officers involved in George Floyd's death were fired almost immediately, rather than suspended with pay pending investigation. One of them was charged with murder just days later. Conservatives and liberals alike agreed that Floyd was murdered and that the men responsible should face justice. Yet the riots started, and spread, anyway. ..."
"... The brief moment of unity in outrage could have resulted in healing the racial fault lines in the US. Instead, the already polarized political climate became divided more sharply than ever, with Republicans criticizing President Donald Trump for not cracking down on the riots fast and hard enough, while Democrats denounced him for responding at all, claiming that there were no riots really and Trump was just "declaring war on the American people." ..."
"... Could the clues to why this is happening lie beyond America's borders? In December 2010, a Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire and died after tax police confiscated his unlicensed stall. Within days, there were demonstrations. Within a month, the country's president of 23 years was overthrown and exiled. Similar rebellions broke out in Libya, Egypt, Syria It was dubbed the "Arab Spring." ..."
"... Interestingly, the Hong Kong protests were embraced by the progressive firebrands such as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her 'Squad,' calling for something similar at home, against Trump. ..."
"... It's hardly surprising that Trump is now getting blamed for Floyd, even though Minneapolis and Minnesota are both run by Democrats. He was also blamed for the coronavirus, by the very Democrat governors that insisted on harsh lockdowns, and congressional Democrats who held aid hostage. The people doing the blaming insisted for years that 'Russiagate' was real, too. Now they blame Trump for responding to the riots – sorry, "peaceful protests" – by sending in the military. Hence the shock when rioters in Atlanta went after the CNN headquarters. ..."
"... The thing about color revolutions is that they follow a script. Find a legitimate grievance and piggyback onto it. Ask the police and the military to join the protests. If they don't, escalate into riots to provoke a forceful response to create martyrs. Optics are key; everything useful to the cause has to be captured on camera, and anything inconvenient memory-holed. Media are the most important ally. The endgame is not reform, or fairness, or justice, but regime change – physical removal of the "tyrannical dictator violating human rights" from office. ..."
That ought to be baffling. The four officers involved in George Floyd's death were fired
almost immediately, rather than suspended with pay pending investigation. One of them was
charged with murder just days later. Conservatives and liberals alike agreed that Floyd was
murdered and that the men responsible should face justice. Yet the riots started, and spread,
anyway.
The brief moment of unity in outrage could have resulted in healing the racial fault lines
in the US. Instead, the already polarized political climate became divided more sharply than
ever, with Republicans criticizing President Donald Trump for not cracking down on the riots
fast and hard enough, while Democrats denounced him for responding at all, claiming that there
were no riots really and Trump was just "declaring war on the American people."
"This was a made for television moment," CNN's Don Lemon said after tear gas was fired at
protesters as President Trump addressed the nation from the Rose Garden. "Open your eyes,
America. Open your eyes. We are teetering on a dictatorship. This is chaos." https://t.co/fhrg49HZFJ
Could the clues to why this is happening lie beyond America's borders? In December 2010, a
Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire and died after tax police confiscated his unlicensed
stall. Within days, there were demonstrations. Within a month, the country's president of 23
years was overthrown and exiled. Similar rebellions broke out in Libya, Egypt, Syria It was
dubbed the "Arab Spring."
In November 2013, thousands of demonstrators gathered on Independence Square ( Maidan
Nezalezhnosti ) in Kiev, Ukraine, protesting the government's decision to reject a trade
deal with the European Union. Attempts by police to clear them out resulted in clashes with
armed protesters, and eventually a firefight – where snipers allegedly loyal to the
government opened fire on the crowd. Finally, in January 2014, violent protesters stormed the
government offices and declared themselves in charge.
The 2014 "Euromaidan" – fully endorsed by the US – was a far more violent
iteration of the "Orange Revolution" from ten years earlier, when sympathizers of an
opposition coalition refused to accept the results of an election and forced the government to
hold another one.
"US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev," proclaimed a Guardian headline from November
26, 2004. "The operation – engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil
disobedience – is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning
other people's elections," the article beneath it said, adding it was "first used in
Europe in Belgrade in 2000."
While the Western media painted the events in Serbia as a spontaneous revolt against a hated
dictator, they also revealed that the protesters were funded by "suitcases of cash"
smuggled across the border by US diplomats and NGOs, and that the entire thing was led by a
handful of activists, trained by the National Endowment for Democracy in neighboring Hungary,
using a manual written by Gene Sharp, a US scholar.
Claiming the government had stolen an election, the "revolutionaries" first seized
the national TV station, then set the parliament on fire – conveniently destroying any
evidence that could disprove their claim they had won – and appealed to police and the
military to join them. With security forces unwilling to engage in bloodshed, President
Slobodan Milosevic stepped down.
The whole operation was accompanied by a slick marketing campaign, featuring graffiti,
t-shirts, posters and banners, all emblazoned with a stenciled fist. The fist would become an
all-too familiar sight over the next two decades, and the formula packaged as "color
revolution" and taken on the road by US-trained activists.
Most recently, the scenario played itself out in Bolivia
(successfully), Venezuela (not)
and Hong
Kong , where "pro-democracy" protests against an extradition bill lasted long after
it was withdrawn.
Interestingly, the Hong Kong protests were embraced by the progressive firebrands such as
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her 'Squad,' calling for something similar at home,
against Trump.
"Marginalized" communities have "no choice but to riot," Ocasio-Cortez
said on a radio program in July 2019, adding that she meant "communities of poverty"
in the US, as well as around the world. That was long before Covid-19 killed more than 100,000
Americans and lockdowns imposed to stop it cost 40 million Americans their jobs. Long before
George Floyd.
It's hardly surprising that Trump is now getting blamed for Floyd, even though Minneapolis
and Minnesota are both run by Democrats. He was also blamed for the coronavirus, by the very
Democrat governors that insisted on harsh lockdowns, and congressional Democrats who held aid
hostage. The people doing the blaming insisted for years that 'Russiagate' was real, too. Now
they blame Trump for responding to the riots – sorry, "peaceful protests" –
by sending in the military. Hence the shock when rioters in Atlanta went after the CNN
headquarters.
Meanwhile, as cities across America burn, it's a fundraising windfall for Democrats –
says the New York Times, of all outlets.
NEW: As Protesters Flood Streets, A Surge of Money Flows to Democrats, Bail Funds and
Progressive CharitiesSunday was the *single biggest day* on ActBlue in all of 2020 -- topping
Super Tuesday, debate nights, Biden's revival in S.C. https://t.co/NJiLyvCSlP
-- Shane Goldmacher
(@ShaneGoldmacher) June 1,
2020
The thing about color revolutions is that they follow a script. Find a legitimate grievance
and piggyback onto it. Ask the police and the military to join the protests. If they don't,
escalate into riots to provoke a forceful response to create martyrs. Optics are key;
everything useful to the cause has to be captured on camera, and anything inconvenient
memory-holed. Media are the most important ally. The endgame is not reform, or fairness, or
justice, but regime change – physical removal of the "tyrannical dictator violating
human rights" from office.
"A color revolution can't happen in America, because there's no US embassy there,"
went the grim joke in Serbia after disappointment with the astroturf revolt of October 5, 2000
set in. Well, guess that settles it, then. Any similarities between the current situation in
the US and dozens of other countries over the past 20 years must be purely coincidental and not
at all relevant or significant in any way.
Nothing to see here, move along – and make sure you don't step on the broken glass on
your way home for the curfew. Remember to wear your mask to protect from the coronavirus as
well as smoke and tear gas. Everything's fine. It really can't happen here...
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American
journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to
2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
"... Just look at all the productive work now being done by the rioters. They have a vision for America. It is easier to rebuild when whole areas are turned to rubble than it is to clear them with heavy equipment. ..."
@Katrinka Katrinka, you dont understand. Diversity and multiculturalism is our strength !
I mean in which other country in the entire world can you go into a coffee shop at 10 am on a
workday and hear 40 different languages being bawled into $1500 cell phones.
Also, Just look at all the productive work now being done by the rioters. They have a
vision for America. It is easier to rebuild when whole areas are turned to rubble than it is
to clear them with heavy equipment.
Look on the bright side. A new slum area, oops I meant a new high end area will arise from
the ashes, a shining example of a brand new Utopia for all the world to see !
...Another "researcher " has even claimed to have uncovered a connection between the
bricks sprouting from sidewalks in Frisco, Texas and Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates. The
bricks were said to be delivered by a corporation called AcmeBrick, owned by Berkshire
Hathaway, a massive holding company on whose board Gates sat until recently.
Brick Pallets in Frisco, TX for rioters/AntifaDelivered by AcmeBrick, Ft Worth, TX.
Company owned by Berkshire Hathaway, (Gates recently left the board) and Marmon Group,
Chicago. Owned by? Jay and Robert Pritzger and Berkshire HathawayVery deep, YUGE rabbit
hole...
But the Frisco Police Department declared the offending bricks were part of a "planned
HOA construction project," explaining they'd been removed "with permission" to be
"returned at a later time."
Update: City is picking up bricks and are property of the city.
And the Kansas City Police Department alerted citizens on Sunday to be on the lookout for
rogue brick stashes, warning they were lurking all over the city to be "used during a
riot."
We have learned of & discovered stashes of bricks and rocks in & around the Plaza
and Westport to be used during a riot. If you see anything like this, you can text 911 and
let us know so we can remove them. This keeps everyone safe and allows your voice to continue
to be heard.
New York City had its own mysterious brick eruptions in the East Village neighborhood on
Saturday night, a vanishingly rare event in a city under constant construction in which
unattended building materials tend to vanish in seconds.
"Yo, we got bricks. We got bricks!" -- #Rioters in
Manhattan chanced upon a cache in the street equipped with bricks and a shovel at 10:01 p.m.
on Second Ave between St. Marks Pl. and Seventh St. pic.twitter.com/dYB7vHdYqL
Other images appeared to show police vehicles maneuvering the bricks into place.
Uh-oh...Those random ass bricks showing up, guess who's bringing them in to a place where
there's no construction? pic.twitter.com/QAITwOLQOF
-- A Black Socialist
🌹🏴☠️ (@SonOfAssata) June 1,
2020
The building this guy is standing next to is the Earl Cabell Federal Building in downtown
Dallas. There are surveillance cameras all over the place and there is zero chance they can't
see who dropped of the bricks and when. pic.twitter.com/38jjbgDLym
Certainly, the sudden appearance of heavy piles of masonry takes logistics most protesters
are incapable of organizing on the fly. It would seem to be a simple matter for cities –
especially in places like New York where every inch of space is watched over by surveillance
cameras – to catch the brick bandits in the act. Of course, leaving piles of bricks
around in case a riot happens to occur is hardly a crime yet.
"... The media would sensationalize any act of violence involving white on black and brown. They ignored all the violence of black and brown on white. This uneven media reporting was based on their desire to reinforce the mantra of "white people are evil racists, black and brown people are victims and good." ..."
"... Because it would paint themselves as supporters of "social justice" they created a false version of reality where everything bad in society was because of white people being racist. Never mind the actual causes of societal discontent being the exploitation by the elite. Because the media is the elite they don't want you to hate them. So they created a false victimizer they could blame for all the problems of society. ..."
The media and politicians have repeated a mantra for years n order to gain power by
exploiting social and racial faultlines. They didn't want to deal with the actual cause of
societal discontent which is their own support of an exploitative economic system which
disempowers and pushed down everyone but the 1%. So they invented a false cause of discontent
in order to appear as saviors who are bringing a message of Hope and Change
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist greedy
evil white people.
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE
PROBLEM. Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist
greedy evil white people.
After enough time has gone by, we have a generation of young people of all colors who
believe the above mantra with all their heart because of hearing that mantra every day in the
media, in schools, in movies, from leaders. The media knowing that, would then look for ways
to exploit their hatred of "white racism against black and brown people."
The media would sensationalize any act of violence involving white on black and brown.
They ignored all the violence of black and brown on white. This uneven media reporting was
based on their desire to reinforce the mantra of "white people are evil racists, black and
brown people are victims and good."
Because it would paint themselves as supporters of "social justice" they created a
false version of reality where everything bad in society was because of white people being
racist. Never mind the actual causes of societal discontent being the exploitation by the
elite. Because the media is the elite they don't want you to hate them. So they created a
false victimizer they could blame for all the problems of society.
Because violence from black and brown on white was never reported by the media except in
local news, people only heard from the national narrative of white violence of black and
brown because people don't pay attention to local news. They grew up believing the police
only abused black and brown people, they grew up believing that random street violence was
only from white people against black and brown. None of which is true.
This was bound to end up with a generation of people who believed the false narrative
where America is a nation where black and brown people are always the victims, and white
people are always the victimizers. And as you can see in the riots, the rioters are almost
all under 30. A generation has grown up being brainwashed by the mantra:
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist greedy
evil white people.
That is why so many people are perfectly fine with the violence and looting based on a few
recent incidents of white on black violence. During the same time period there was plenty of
black on black violence, plenty of brown on brown violence, and plenty of black and brown on
white violence. But the national media never highlights any violence but white on black and
brown. That is what has led to the new normal where any violence involving white on black or
brown will be blown up WAY out of proportion to the reality of violence in America. Which is
an equal opportunity game. A generation of people has grown up to believe that white racism
is the cause of all the problems.
Meanwhile the elites sit in their yachts and laugh. The rabble are busy fighting over race
when the real issue is ignored. The media has done their job admirably. Their job is to
deflect rage from the elite to racism. From wealthy exploitation of the commons, to racism.
As long as the underclasses are busy blaming racism then the politicians, business leaders,
and media are satisfied because they are the actual ones to blame. They are the enemy.
They blame racism for all the problems as a way to hide that truth of their own culpability
for the problems in society. THEIR OWN GREED AND CONTEMPT FOR THE UNDERCLASS.
American blacks are doing poorly because their jobs have been outsourced to communist
China, the remaining jobs are increasingly going to foreign nationals imported as a source of
indentured cheap labor, rents are unaffordable, medical care is unaffordable, education is
unaffordable, people are drowning in debt and thanks to utter scumbags like Joe Biden they
can no longer get out from under by declaring bankruptcy (as the 'socialist' founding fathers
of this nation intended!), the government spends trillions on pointless foreign wars that
serve only to enrich a few politically connected defense contractors, and over all, the
government is giving literally tens of trillions of dollars in bailouts and subsidies to Wall
Street and the super rich.
Thing is, this has nothing to do with 'racism.' It's class war, and my class is losing.
But the rich don't like that narrative, so they stir up the proles and have them fight each
other.
If blacks are doing badly only because they are stupid and dysfunctional, then why are
working class whites starting to lose ground as well? Oh they aren't rioting much, they're
just killing themselves with opiates and alcohol. Still, they are being ground down all the
same. When the working class of all colors is losing ground, that is inconsistent with either
'racism' or blacks being inherently dysfunctional. It is consistent with the working class in
general being stepped on, yes?
In a country of 340 million plus, there will always be the occasional bad thing happening.
If indeed one white cop shot one black man without justification that's a bad thing - but
it's just one incident, it has nothing to do with what's really keeping American blacks down
- which is exactly the same as what's keeping American whites down! By taking one incident,
and publicizing the hell out of it and screaming that it's all about 'racism,' the rich have
deliberately created this situation.
Of course the media ignore all those incidents of blacks shooting whites. It's not part of
the narrative.
Now with the coronavirus having gutted the economy, we have like 30+ million more people
out of work than just recently, and most of the rest are going to be taking pay cuts, and
after the stimulus crumbs run out, it's going to be very painful. The response of the elites,
added onto the 'stimulus' bill, was to engage in an orgy of looting and profiteering not seen
since Russia under Yeltsin. People are going to be evicted, lose their cars etc., and there
is no safety net... This isn't going to be pretty. As a cynical person, I think the elites
see this coming, and the intensity of the current manufactured conflagration is being put in
place to focus the anger of the masses away from the elites, because they can feel what's
headed our way.
I am not some stupid guilty liberal social justice warrior. As a skinny white guy, if I
see that I am the only white face on the street I will be somewhere else real fast. If blacks
are looting and pillaging, I want the police to stomp on that and maintain order and I won't
take any excuses. But we shouldn't lose track of the big picture. It's the monolithic
corporate media enterprises that have stoked this chaos, and it's for a reason.
Former Georgia state congresswoman and gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who is on the
Joe Biden running mate short list and
making no secret of her desire for the job,
said on CNN Tuesday night that she did not believe rape allegations against Biden to be
credible.
"The New York Times did a deep investigation and they found that the accusation was not
credible. I believe Joe Biden," Abrams said when pressed on
further corroborating evidence that Biden's accuser Tara Reade had been talking about a sexual
assault by the then-senator way back in the nineties.
CNN's Don Lemon pressed Abrams on the contradiction between her earlier "believe women"
rhetoric about conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, to which Abrams
responded that Kavanaugh's accuser was not given a fair hearing but Tara Reade was. Past tense.
Over and done with now.
Lemon did not ask why Abrams considers The New York Times the official arbiter of who was
and was not raped. He did not challenge her false assertion that The New York Times concluded
Reade's accusation was "not credible". He did not point out that the investigation by the The
New York Times took place prior to the emergence of the corroborating evidence in question.
Abrams was allowed to coolly insert a false, baseless narrative into public consciousness and
move on.
In reality, The New York Times is not the authority on who has and has not been sexually
assaulted. That's not a thing.
In reality, The New York Times did not conclude that Reade's accusation is not credible,
only that they
"found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that
women previously said made them uncomfortable" (which they later quietly
edited down to "found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" at the instruction of
the Biden campaign , a very blatant act of journalistic malpractice).
In reality, The New York Times has smeared Reade
with a scandalous hit piece dismissing her allegations because she has written approvingly of
Russian president Vladimir Putin, implying that either:
(A) Reade is a Russian agent fabricating the allegations to help Trump, or
(B) that it's okay to rape women if they disagree with beltway consensus foreign
policy.
In reality, two new corroborating pieces of evidence have been added to the growing pile since The New York Times published its
"investigation" into Reade's allegations: footage of Reade's
mother anonymously calling in to Larry King Live in 1993 during Reade's last month of
employment with Biden saying that her daughter was considering going to the press with a very
serious allegation against a very prominent senator, and a former neighbor saying that Reade had
told her about the sexual assault in the mid-nineties.
I have never been in the "always believe all women" camp; it's a narrative that's too easy
to manipulate once you get enough people believing it. But at this point there are basically
only two possibilities: either:
(A) Tara Reade was going around lying to her closest confidants in the 1990s with the very
long-term goal of one day thwarting Biden's third presidential bid decades later, or
(B) a powerful man sexually assaulted a woman. One of these, in my opinion, is a lot more
probable than the other.
Reach out to me directly and ask ?
I am not an " imperfect victim". I was lifelong Democratic supporter single mom that put
myself through law school and I was raped by Joe Biden, my former boss, a Democrat.
There are no excuses for institutionalized rape culture. Thank you. https://t.co/hOQTxAzfa5
-- taratweets ( Alexandra Tara
Reade) (@ReadeAlexandra) April 28,
2020
I've been avoiding writing much about Tara Reade, for a lot of reasons. Firstly I'm a
survivor of multiple rapes and it brings up a lot of ouch for me, especially since whenever I
write about rape as a problem I always get a deluge of highly triggered men (and sometimes one
or two highly traumatized women) calling me a man-hater and saying all kinds of nasty things to
me. Secondly I've been trying not to spend too much time on the details of an election we all
know is fake anyway between two establishment candidates we already know are deeply
depraved.
But mostly I avoid the subject because it's just so goddamn gross. It's gross to watch
liberals going around pretending they believe that Handsy Uncle Hair Sniffer would never dream
of shoving his fingers into a woman without her consent. It's gross watching the language of
leftism being borrowed to defend pure, relentless victim smearing. It's gross watching people
who've built their political identities around pretending to care about women try to spin these
allegations as Reade being dishonest for partisan reasons, when in reality that's exactly what
they themselves are doing.
Due to my experiences with and sensitivity to the subject matter, going through this stuff
feels kind of like getting punched in the privates over and over again. There are smears
everywhere, from the establishment narrative managers to their brainwashed rank-and-file
herd.
This is exactly the nightmare scenario that sexual assault survivors imagine when they
contemplate coming forward. It's why so many of them don't. Especially when their attacker is
powerful.
Nobody wants to have their name dragged through the mud by widely esteemed mainstream news
media outlets. Nobody wants to have their entire past and entire social media history dug
through to find anything that can be spun in the most negative light possible. Nobody wants to
be told over and over again that they're a liar, that they're crazy, that they're confused, all
because they know they were sexually assaulted and said so. Nobody wants what can easily be the
most traumatic experience of their life turned into a weapon to bludgeon them with before
jeering crowds of millions all around the country.
And that sucks.
It sucks because if we're to build a healthy world we're going to have to get rid of all the
people who shouldn't be in power, and the very first lot we should eliminate are the ones who
abuse their power to assault the sexuality of other human beings. If you use your power to rape
people, you will with absolute certainty use it to do other unconscionable things as well, so
eliminating those who do so is the first step toward health. That's step one , and we can't
even get there, because blind partisan hackery turns pussyhat-wearing liberals into a bunch of
snarling male supremacists.
I was 19 the first time I was raped. The last time I was 39. I never reported my attackers,
for reasons the specifics of which I'm not interested in explaining or defending, but let's
just say that there are many messages you get sent by society telling you that if you report
your rapist you are ruining a man's life, destroying his family, career and future over one
"mistake". That it's better just to suck it up because you're strong and you can handle it.
You are taught that if you report your rape, you will be treated like the criminal, and the
"investigation" that will take place will not put its spotlight on the accused, but on you, the
accuser. You will have to defend your life choices and your character when you're in the
process of attempting to recover from a deeply harmful assault. You are taught that if you
report these things that it's you that will be shunned and shamed by members of your own tribe.
And if the person is powerful, then you also know that this will likely end your career.
All these things are happening to Tara Reade right now. None of that has changed. Millions
of young girls are being sent that message, once again, all across America, on screens large
and small. They are being shown that if you accuse someone who has power over you of rape, you
will be demonized and attacked, even by people who say they care about you, about a profoundly
sensitive matter involving the most traumatic thing you've ever experienced.
And the thing is, that message is not a false message. You absolutely can be made the
subject of vicious attacks if you accuse the wrong person of raping you. Attacks which press
all your most painful buttons. Attacks which will try to convince you that you are insane.
Attacks which will try to drive you insane.
"Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California
Evidence Code sec 140
Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted
there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long
history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of
the Biden campaign staff?
Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,
beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond
" is just "Good journalism."
He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I
can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first
in line at the MMT watering hole
i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my
brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.
They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at
this point.
Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable
lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was
once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let
my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it.
Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history
of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't
feel bad letting my subscription go.
I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit
to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy
editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the
main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm
quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like
she'd fit in quite well here!
I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post
9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line
it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
RIP
The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something
happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later,
but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has
been in the unbearable category for many years now.
Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden
had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against
Trump.
I wrote this in reply:
So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying,
even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack
the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he
wrote:
"It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously
America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove
to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends
confirmation."
Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."
Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny
and sexual misconduct)?
But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that
got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in
a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear
football?
Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three
eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or
more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).
We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus
on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.
(Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please
Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).
For anyone running for office in modern
America, accusations of sexual assault are par for the course. But when it comes to weighing up these accusations, the US’
mainstream paper of record applies some very uneven standards.
Take Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee. If doubts weren’t already raised by his fondness for
sniffing women,
the emergence last month of a sexual assault allegation against the former vice president could have caused a major headache for
his campaign.
Yet amid the coronavirus pandemic, and given the political leanings of most media outlets, the scandal barely registered.
The
Intercept ran a story in March on how Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, claimed that in 1993 Biden pushed her against a
wall, groped her, and penetrated her with his fingers. Reade had spoken up about the alleged incident a year earlier, but was
met with accusations that she was doing Russia’s bidding. The US media was still doing ‘Russiagate’ back then, remember?
Female sociopath are excel in false accusations, including rape accusations. They are born actresses and have no empathy, so
framing their victim is just an easy game for them
In a fiery speech announcing her decision, Collins ripped unsupported claims by Avenatti's
client, Julie Swetnick, that Kavanaugh facilitated a Cosby-esque "gang rape" operation while in
high school.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of
innocence is so important . I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by
Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged
multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape .
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and
simply parroted public statements of others . That such an allegation can find its way into
the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of
innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness. -Sen. Susan Collins
I didn't really care much about the stuff alleged to have been done by Kavanaugh
thirty-five years ago. Arguing with a close family friend I stated that there was nothing
I found more tiresome than the old lawyers tactic of springing something on you at the last
possible minute, leaving a steaming pile of turds in the middle of your desk, and then
expecting to be taken seriously. Decorum? Rules of debate? How about the laws of
discovery, sharing info amongst colleagues?
Just because this was not a criminal trial is no reason to throw out the rules for policy
making, the nomination process, which both sides have adhered to in the past. People were
comparing this to the Anita Hill fiasco during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.
Delay, interrupt, stall, maximum media exposure. Never any evidence or criminal charges to
point to.
In criminal trials there is the process of discovery by which the admission of
evidence at the last minute is strongly ill advised, and can result in it being tossed out.
Sen. Feinstein would be aware of all the rules and procedures, but she feels above it
all.
Hey Avenatti! If you and your client had any idea of what the truth is no one would every
have heard of her or of you. Don't give us this ******** that you were just representing your
client. If you had a brain you would have known she was FOS from the get go, and if you were
honest you never would have represented her. So what is it? Are you just stupid or are you
dishonest, or both?
People who make salacious claims unconfirmed or outright denied by their own named
"witnesses" tend to get sued for defamation. And the lawyers they rode in on.
Michael Avenatti is not a nice man at all. He was a factor in making the accusations seem
like a circus. No one takes him seriously as he slinks around the gutters.
Avenatti is the scapegoat. The Ford story was already fast breaking down, and the secret
polygraph and the secret therapist notes and her ex-boyfriend should have made more noise in
the Senate.
They embraced this puke and revelled in his garbage accusations. Now they need a
scapegoat, and he's it. God forbid Feinstein get raked over the coals for screwing this thing
up. The was a political hit, and everyone knew it. But the GOP are so spineless that a
high-school-drunken-grope-fest brought them to their knees. Fortunately, the Dems stayed true
to form and blew themselves up.
What I do not understand is how could they be so stupid as to endorse the Avenatti slime
factory in the first place? TONE DEAF.
Avenatti needs to be disbarred. To file a complaint for his breach of professional
responsibility, suborning perjury, and engaging in acts of moral turpitude:
If enough complaints are filed with the CA state bar, he may get disbarred.
Attorneys ALREADY have a really bad rep. Part of professional responsibility is to uphold
the integrity of the legal profession. The ONLY thing Avenatti did was to make every attorney
look like a complete shyster sleazeball, which given I just took the bar exam and will
probably become an attorney soon, I find immensely offensive.
The Demonrats used false sexual allegations against Roy Moore coupled with ballot box
cheating (their typical mode) to win a senate seat in conservative Alabama. So, since their
main national platform of open borders is so repugnant to any normal taxpaying voter, this is
their only strategy. They simply got caught. All the allegations against both Kavanaugh and
Moore were fabricated and the proof is the Soros' paid lawyers who represented them all. And
Feinstein and Schumer conspired in this farce. And independent voters know it!
They're just pissed they got caught in their fraud and this energized the R. base which
will lead to a red wave in a few weeks. And just think of the political commercial
possibilities for any Demonrat senator hoping to prevail if they vote against Kavanaugh. I
expect the final confirmation vote won't as close as the vote for cloture for this
reason.
Be careful, Roy Moore was a different story. There was evidence including him saying he
liked to date high school age girls as a 30 year old along with multiple other people who
remembered what was alleged. Not just Democrat operatives. Morals were not that different
then than now. Was he guilty of a crime no, could reasonable people still dislike his morals
sure. I grew up close to that era and thought the college age kids hanging around HS girls
was nasty. Moore verified as a 30 year old he liked them young.
Ford 0 corroborating evidence. By lumping in Moore with Kavanaugh you are giving credence
to believe the victim because all you are following the "patriarchy" of believing the accused
regardless of evidence.
The Democrats have a long history of making last minute sexual misconduct allegations
against their political opponents, always without any evidence or corroboration. And sexual
misconduct allegations that pale in comparison to what a lot of Democrats have been alleged
to do (rape allegations against Clinton, Kennedy having an affair that left a woman dead,
John Conyers for settling sexual harassment allegations with taxpayer money, Hillary for
trashing victims, or consider Weinstein and other famous/rich Democrat donors or newsmen).
I'd bet most of these allegations against Republicans were simply made up for political
purposes because they were plausible, couldn't be disproven, and couldn't be proven. Ford's
allegations fit the pattern.
The charges are always last minute, to deny the accused an opportunity to defend
themselves. Kavanaugh provided an excellent defense that would be good court room drama in a
movie, when no one in the GOP was willing to defend him, and too afraid of being accused of
not believing a victim and attacking them.
What's really going on are the Democrats in charge, are looking to deflect the attention
from what they did, to Avanetti because Avanetti did the same, except the charges of his
client, weren't believable, even though they couln't be proven or disproven. They don't want
to take the blame, for what voters might do in the midterms.
One thing's for sure, you don't see Democrats calling for indicting and prosecuting false
accusers. They're teaching people to bear false witness for their personal purposes.
avenatti gave the diversion, the clutter, the political sideshow so that all charges could
be swept away and completely fake and uncorroborated. there was no provable basis for the
ford charges, but the crazy swetnick stories simplified brooming the whole thing.
we can only hope that avenatti will be back in 2020, to run for president, and to come
marching with his parade of **** stars and "wronged" women who spend all their time
performing in strip clubs.
If you are accused of harassment in the workplace, it is important to carefully consider
your next moves. Your initial reaction might be to vehemently defend yourself against the
claims; however, try to keep a cool and calm head and approach the situation professionally.
The more hotly you protest the charges and the angrier you get, the less inclined people may be
to listen to your side of the story. Talk to a Lawyer
Book a consultation with a lawyer. If the matter can't be resolved via simple mediation
within the workplace, you have to be sure to protect yourself and your job. A lawyer can advise
you of your legal rights and give you an idea of how to best proceed with such allegations
presented against you.
Write it Down
Provide a written account of what happened from your point of view. While this may differ
from the account of the person claiming the harassment, it is important that you at least get
your side of the story out. A written statement doing so gives human resources and/or
management something to refer to during the investigation.
Tell the Truth
Be honest. If you know you did what the accusers say you did, be honest and the ensuing
punishment may be less harsh. Talk to your manager about what happened, admit to what you did
wrong and provide solutions for how to avoid further incidents. Most important: stop the
"harassing" behavior immediately. The situation may worsen if it continues, whether you feel it
is actual harassment or not.
Provide Witnesses
Provide an alibi and/or witnesses, if the claims are not true. If someone says you harassed
them at a time when you know you were in a meeting or talking to someone in his office, then
say so. Supply the name of any witnesses who can provide you an alibi. If there were other
people around at the time that the alleged harassment took place, ask them to speak up on your
behalf.
Stay Calm
Avoid retaliating in any way. Particularly if you have been falsely accused, you may feel
angry, frustrated and more emotional than usual because of what you are going through. Don't
take any adverse reaction against the person that made the allegations or do anything that
might be perceived as retaliatory.
Draw Attention to Your History
Give an accounting of your track record with the company. If you've been accused of
something you know you didn't do and you have a clean personnel file, explain to your manager
that you've been with the company "X" amount of years, have never had a problem with another
employee and have always treated others with the utmost respect. Your record could work in your
favor.
Consult with HR
Consult with your human resources representative to determine how to best proceed according
to company policy. Explain your side of the story and focus on what you can do to resolve the
matter quickly and focus on your job. A human resources rep might be able to mediate in the
matter and get it settled without having to take things further; she may also advise you of the
steps you need to take or explain that there is nothing more you can do while the company
investigates.
Tip
Whatever you do, don't confront the accuser. This may provide additional fodder for the
allegations against you and anything you say might be misconstrued and used against you
later.
Also, don't discuss the case with other people in the workplace, as the gossip may in
turn spur the allegations against you.
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the
progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are
living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member
of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining
an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the
proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology.
Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy-
or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the
strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry,
rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of
one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of
language to private life.
Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long
sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his
nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when
Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the
so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the
Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election
year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions
and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp
mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was
impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the
questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater
interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus"
Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And
so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh
of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly
two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until
a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the
full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very
accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations
by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford
subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination --
but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in
extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the
same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation.
Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm
election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on
record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh
would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican
chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the
confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if
they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's
identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white
men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's
allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government
norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at
the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and
then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor
and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.
Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh
today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser
faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though
he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour
over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the
alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the
alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory
mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years
ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as
recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In
truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either
assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of
wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at
times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any
of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no
idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge
were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer."
Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of
alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged
suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36
years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of
felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago.
That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise
of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a
deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament,
and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are
ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden.
The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more
believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and
gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser,
a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under
which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special
considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras
and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a
victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving
her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was
Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed
into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond
from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face
cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender,
or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when,
as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any
more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant
named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet
or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for
unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does
not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought
"medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean
that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address
either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of
Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought
counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately
be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about
her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then
name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current
version.
Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient
facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential
social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident
pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased
as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting
that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime
-- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation.
Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee
that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the
committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the
Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s
vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the
all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at
parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the
"frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the
noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down
drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a
circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly
confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault
narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details
(schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of
the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her
earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she
had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an
accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her
charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another
sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she
followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could
either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative
after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during
the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only
difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to
be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness
Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had
charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the
larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in
a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and
should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence,
insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the
refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii
senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And
I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,
for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the
way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably
guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty
of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no
longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell
warned us about long ago.
All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?
Debt Slave , 16 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now
guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is
that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than
they did, right?
Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven
guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent.
I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe
he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in
the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia
that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom,
free speech may be next.
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's
goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private
restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!
opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full
Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that
government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex
crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away
from that part of his "swampy" past.
Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of
education...
CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to
protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page
seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.
my new username , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.
BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of
the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you
with it.
Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist
one, but nice try rewriting history.
Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become
SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
"... Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our civilisation such as the presumption of innocence. Accusers have to prove their charges. ..."
"... Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that. ..."
"... Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with this article. ..."
"... For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. ..."
Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our
civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.
Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe
can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that.
Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological
reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just
some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see
his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone
can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with
this article.
Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you
can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you
will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised
idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be
a shame.
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.
For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's
child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by
her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only
imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this
situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize
to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he
started strongly resembling his dad (her son).
False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.
Female psychopath are especially dangerous as "reverse sexual predators". Assumption that all women are honest in their
accusations is extremely naive. Revenge and other inferior motives are pretty common, especially in academic setting.
"A sense of walking on eggshells" is a sure sign of unhealthy psychopath dominated environment.
Notable quotes:
"... Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said. ..."
"... All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say. ..."
"... "If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," ..."
The #MeToo movement was supposed to make life easier for women in the workplace. It was all
about respect and making real abusers pay a price for their behavior. But is it possible to
have too much of a good thing?
One of the aims of the movement was to force a change in the conduct of men who said and did
sexually inappropriate things in the workplace -- a concept which few people could quibble
with. A year on from its beginnings, however, it seems the movement has morphed into something
else entirely -- and ironically, it's hurting both men and women.
The 'Pence Effect' and 'gender segregation'
The #MeToo movement has taken down men across a wide spectrum of industries -- but so far,
Wall Street has avoided a huge public scandal -- despite its reputation for being, well, a
fairly sexist and male-oriented environment. So why has it escaped the #MeToo
spotlight?
Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and
found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their
careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or
even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or
gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan
Stanley executive said.
Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who
previously admitted that he would never dine alone with any woman other than his wife. British
actor Taron Egerton recently also said he now avoided being alone with
women for fear of finding himself in #MeToo's crosshairs.
I remember when a woman I was friendly/kind with perceived me as someone who wanted
"more." She wrote me a message about how she was uncomfortable. I'm gay. https://t.co/7z0X7Dwzkp
All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust
#MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the
reporters say.
Hurting women's progress?
The most ironic outcome of a movement that was supposed to be about women's empowerment is
that now, even hiring a woman on Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according
to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might take something
said to her in the wrong way.
With men occupying the most senior positions on Wall Street, women need male mentors who can
teach them the ropes and help them advance their careers, but what happens when men are afraid
to play that role with their younger female colleagues? The unintended consequence of the
#MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of
the workplace to the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door
closed.
Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find
themselves facing another: Discrimination complaints.
"If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of
being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment
complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an employment
attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg.
Not all men are responding to the #MeToo movement by fearfully cutting themselves off from
women, however. "Just try not to be an asshole," one said, while another added:
"It's really not that hard."
It might not be that simple, however. It seems there is no escape from the grip of the
#MeToo movement. One of the movements most recent victims of the viral hashtag movement is not
a man, but a song -- the time-honored classic 'Baby It's Cold Outside' -- which is being banished
from American radio stations because it has a "rapey" vibe.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
Looks like DNC run a pretty sophisticated smear campaign against Sanders ...
Notable quotes:
"... It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies in promoting divisions based on those identities ..."
"... The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two candidates, each vetted for obedience to power. ..."
The Democratic presidential nomination race is a fascinating case study in how power works
– not least, because the Democratic party leaders are visibly contriving to impose one
candidate, Joe Biden, as the party's nominee, even as it becomes clear that he is no longer
mentally equipped to run a local table tennis club let alone the world's most powerful
nation.
Biden's campaign is a reminder that power is indivisible. Donald Trump or Joe Biden for
president – it doesn't matter to the power-establishment. An egomaniacal man-child
(Trump), representing the billionaires, or an elder suffering rapid neurological degeneration
(Biden), representing the billionaires, are equally useful to power. A woman will do too, or a
person of colour. The establishment is no longer worried about who stands on stage
– so long as that person is not a Bernie Sanders in the US, or a Jeremy Corbyn in the
UK.
It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in
our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In
truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content
should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies
in promoting divisions based on those identities. What concerns it far more is that we might
overcome those divisions and unify against it, withdrawing our consent from an establishment
committed to endless asset-stripping of our societies and the planet.
Neither Biden nor Trump will obstruct the establishment, because they are at its very heart.
The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets
selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two
candidates, each vetted for obedience to power.
Although a pretty face or a way with words are desirable, incapacity and incompetence are no
barrier to qualifying, as the two white men groomed by their respective parties demonstrate.
Both have proved they will favour the establishment, both will pursue near-enough the
same policies , both are committed to the status quo, both have demonstrated their
indifference to the future of life on Earth. What separates the candidates is not real
substance, but presentation styles – the creation of the appearance of difference, of
choice.
Policing the debate
The subtle dynamics of how the Democratic nomination race is being rigged are interesting.
Especially revealing are the ways the Democratic leadership protects establishment power by
policing the terms of debate: what can be said, and what can be thought; who gets to speak and
whose voices are misrepresented or demonised. Manipulation of language is key.
As I pointed out in my previous post , the
establishment's power derives from its invisibility. Scrutiny is kryptonite to
power.
The only way we can interrogate power is through language, and the only way we can
communicate our conclusions to others is through words – as I am doing right now. And
therefore our strength – our ability to awaken ourselves from the trance of power –
must be subverted by the establishment, transformed into our Achilles' heel, a weakness.
The treatment of Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the Democratic establishment –
and those who eagerly repeat its talking points – neatly illustrates how this can be done
in manifold ways.
Remember this all started back in 2016, when Sanders committed the unforgivable sin of
challenging the Democratic leadership's right simply to anoint Hillary Clinton as the party's
presidential candidate. In those days, the fault line was obvious and neat: Bernie was a man,
Clinton a woman. She would be the first woman president. The only party members who might wish
to deny her that historic moment, and back Sanders instead, had to be misogynist men. They were
supposedly venting their anti-women grudge against Clinton, who in turn was presented to women
as a symbol of their oppression by men.
And so was born a meme: the "Bernie Bros". It rapidly became shorthand for suggesting
– contrary to all evidence
– that Sanders' candidacy appealed chiefly to angry, entitled white men. In fact, as
Sanders' 2020 run has amply demonstrated, support for him has been more diverse than for the
many other Democratic candidates who sought the nomination.
So important what @ewarren is saying to @maddow about the
dangerous, threatening, ugly faction among the Bernie supporters. Sanders either cannot or
will not control them. pic.twitter.com/LYDXlLJ7bi
How contrived the 2016 identity-fuelled contest was should have been clear, had anyone been
allowed to point that fact out. This wasn't really about the Democratic leadership respecting
Clinton's identity as a woman. It was about them paying lip service to her identity as a
woman, while actually promoting her because she was a reliable warmonger
and
Wall Street functionary . She was useful to power.
If the debate had really been driven by identity politics, Sanders had a winning card too:
he is Jewish. That meant he could be the United States' first Jewish president. In a fair
identity fight, it would have been a draw between the two. The decision about who should
represent the Democratic party would then have had to be decided based on policies, not
identity. But party leaders did not want Clinton's actual policies, or her political history,
being put under the microscope for very obvious reasons.
Weaponisation of identity
The weaponisation of identity politics is even more transparent in 2020. Sanders is still
Jewish, but his main opponent, Joe Biden, really is simply a privileged white man. Were the
Clinton format to be followed again by Democratic officials, Sanders would enjoy an identity
politics trump card. And yet Sanders is still being presented as just another white male
candidate , no different from Biden.
(We could take this argument even further and note that the other candidate who no one,
least of all the Democratic leadership, ever mentions as still in the race is Tulsi
Gabbard, a woman of colour. The Democratic party has worked hard to make her as
invisible as possible in the primaries because, of all the candidates, she is the most
vocal and articulate opponent of foreign wars. That has deprived her of the chance to raise
funds and win delegates.)
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
Sanders' Jewish identity isn't celebrated because he isn't useful to the
power-establishment. What's far more important to them – and should be to us too –
are his policies, which might limit their power to wage war, exploit workers and trash the
planet.
But it is not just that Democratic Party leaders are ignoring Sanders' Jewish identity. They
are also again actively using identity politics against him, and in many different
ways.
The 'black' establishment?
Bernie Sanders' supporters have been complaining for some time – based on mounting
evidence – that the Democratic leadership is far from neutral between Sanders and Biden.
Because it has a vested interest in the outcome, and because it is the part of the
power-establishment, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is exercising its influence in
favour of Biden. And because power prefers darkness, the DNC is doing its best to exercise that
power behind the scenes, out of sight – at least, unseen by those who still rely on the
"mainstream" corporate media, which is also part of the power-establishment. As should be clear
to anyone watching, the nomination proceedings are being controlled to give Biden every
advantage and to obstruct Sanders.
But the Democratic leadership is not only dismissing out of hand these very justified
complaints from Bernie Sanders' supporters but also turning these complaints against them, as
further evidence of their – and his – illegitimacy. A new way of doing this emerged
in the immediate wake of Biden winning South Carolina on the back of strong support from older
black voters – Biden's first state win and a launchpad for his Super Tuesday bid a few
days later.
It was given perfect expression from Symone Sanders, who despite her surname is actually a
senior adviser to Biden's campaign. She is also black. This is what she wrote: "People who keep
referring to Black voters as 'the establishment' are tone deaf and have obviously learned
nothing."
People who keep referring to Black voters as "the establishment" are tone deaf and have
obviously learned nothing.
-- Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) March 3,
2020
Her reference to generic "people" was understood precisely by both sides of the debate as
code for those "Bernie Bros". Now, it seems, Bernie Sanders' supporters are not simply
misogynists, they are potential recruits to the Ku Klux Klan.
The tweet went viral, even though in the fiercely contested back-and-forth below her tweet
no one could produce a single example of anyone actually saying anything like the sentiment
ascribed by Symone Sanders to "Bernie Bros". But then, tackling bigotry was not her real goal.
This wasn't meant to be a reflection on a real-world talking-point by Bernie supporters. It was
high-level gaslighting by a senior Democratic party official of the party's own voters.
Survival of the fittest smear
What Symone Sanders was really trying to do was conceal power – the fact that the DNC
is seeking to impose its chosen candidate on party members. As occurred during the confected
women-men, Clinton vs "Bernie Bros" confrontation, Symone Sanders was field-testing a similar
narrative management tool as part of the establishment's efforts to hone it for improved
effect. The establishment has learnt – through a kind of survival of the fittest smear
– that divide-and-rule identity politics is the perfect way to shield its influence as it
favours a status-quo candidate (Biden or Clinton) over a candidate seen as a threat to its
power (Sanders).
In her tweet, Symone Sanders showed exactly how the power elite seeks to obscure its toxic
role in our societies. She neatly conflated "the establishment" – of which she is a very
small, but well-paid component – with ordinary "black voters". Her message is this:
should you try to criticise the establishment (which has inordinate power to damage lives and
destroy the planet) we will demonise you, making it seem that you are really attacking black
people (who in the vast majority of cases – though Symone Sanders is a notable exception
– wield no power at all).
Symone Sanders has recruited her own blackness and South Carolina's "black voters" as a ring
of steel to protect the establishment. Cynically, she has turned poor black people, as well as
the tens of thousands of people (presumably black and white) who liked her tweet, into human
shields for the establishment.
It sounds a lot uglier put like that. But it has rapidly become a Biden talking-point, as we
can see here:
NEW: @JoeBiden responds to @berniesanders
saying the "establishment" is trying to defeat him.
"The establishment are all those hardworking, middle class people, those African Americans
they are the establishment!" @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/43Q2Nci5sS
The DNC's wider strategy is to confer on Biden exclusive rights to speak for black voters
(despite his
inglorious record on
civil rights issues) and, further, to strip Sanders and his senior black advisers of any
right to do so. When Sanders protests about this, or about racist behaviour from the Biden
camp, Biden's supporters come out in force and often abusively, though of course no one is
upbraiding them for their ugly, violent language. Here is the famous former tennis player
Martina Navratilova showing that maybe we should be talking about "Biden Bros":
Sanders is starting to really piss me off. Just shut this kind of crap down and debate the
issues. This is not it.
This kind of special pleading by the establishment for the establishment –
using those sections of it, such as Symone Sanders, that can tap into the identity politics
zeitgeist – is far more common than you might imagine. The approach is being
constantly refined, often using social media as the ultimate focus group. Symone Sanders'
successful conflation of the establishment with "black voters" follows earlier, clumsier
efforts by the establishment to protect its interests against Sanders that proved far less
effective.
Remember how last autumn the billionaire-owned corporate media tried to tell us that it was
unkind to
criticise billionaires – that they had feelings too and that speaking harshly about
them was "dehumanising". Again it was aimed at Sanders, who had just commented that in a
properly ordered world billionaires simply wouldn't exist. It was an obvious point: allowing a
handful of people to control almost all the planet's wealth was not only depriving the rest of
us of that wealth (and harming the planet) but it gave those few billionaires way too much
power. They could buy all the media, our channels of communication, and most of the politicians
to ringfence their financial interests, gradually eroding even the most minimal democratic
protections.
That campaign died a quick death because few of us are actually brainwashed enough to accept
the idea that a handful of billionaires share an identity that needs protecting – from
us! Most of us are still connected enough to the real world to understand that billionaires are
more than capable of looking out for their own interests, without our helping them by imposing
on ourselves a vow of silence.
But one cannot fault the power-establishment for being constantly inventive in the search
for new ways to stifle our criticisms of the way it unilaterally exercises its power. The
Democratic nomination race is testing such ingenuity to the limits. Here's a new rule against
"hateful conduct" on Twitter, where Biden's neurological deficit is being subjected to much
critical scrutiny through the sharing of dozens of
videos of embarrassing Biden "senior moments".
Twitter expanding its hateful conduct rules "to include language that dehumanizes on the
basis of age, disability or disease." https://t.co/KmWGaNAG9Z
Yes, disability and age are identities too. And so, on the pretext of protecting and
respecting those identities, social media can now be scrubbed of anything and anyone trying to
highlight the mental deficiencies of an old man who might soon be given the nuclear codes and
would be responsible for waging wars in the name of Americans. Twitter is full of comments
denouncing as "ableist" anyone who tries to highlight how the Democratic leadership is foisting
a cognitively challenged Biden on to the party.
Maybe the Dem insiders are all wrong, but it's true that they are saying it. Some are
saying it out loud, including Castro at the debate and Booker here: https://t.co/0lbi7RFRqG
None of this is to overlook the fact that another variation of identity politics has been
weaponised against Sanders: that of failing to be an "American" patriot. Again illustrating how
closely the Democratic and Republican leaderships' interests align, the question of who is a
patriot – and who is really working for the "Russians" – has been at the heart of
both parties' campaigns, though for different reasons.
Trump has been subjected to endless, evidence-free claims that he is a secret "Russian
agent" in a concerted effort to control his original isolationist foreign policy impulses that
might have stripped the establishment – and its military-industrial wing – of the
right to wage wars of aggression, and revive the Cold War, wherever it believes a profit can be
made under cover of "humanitarian intervention". Trump partly inoculated himself against these
criticisms, at least among supporters, with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, and partly
by learning – painfully for such an egotist – that his presidential role was to
rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere about waging wars and projecting US power.
I'm just amazed by this tweet, which has been tweeted plenty. Did @_nalexander and all the people
liking this not know that Mueller laid out in the indictments of a number of Russians and in
his report their help on social media to Sanders and Trump. Help Sanders has acknowledged
https://t.co/vuc0lmvvKP
Bernie Sanders has faced similar smear
efforts by the establishment, including by the DNC's last failed presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton – in his case, painting him as a "Russian asset". ("Asset" is a way to
suggest collusion with the Kremlin based on even more flimsy evidence than is needed to accuse
someone of being an agent.) In fact, in a world where identity politics wasn't simply a tool to
be weaponised by the establishment, there would be real trepidation about engaging in this kind
of invective against a Jewish socialist.
One of the far-right's favourite antisemitic tropes – promoted ever since the
publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more than 100 years ago – is that
Jewish "Bolsheviks" are involved in an
international conspiracy to subvert the countries they live in. We have reached the point
now that the corporate media are happy to recycle evidence-free claims,
cited by the Washington Post, from anonymous "US officials" and US intelligence agencies
reinventing a US version of the Protocols against Sanders. And these smears have elicited not a
word of criticism from the Democratic leadership nor from the usual antisemitism watchdogs that
are so ready to let rip over the slightest signs of what they claim to be antisemitism on the
left.
But the urgency of dealing with Sanders may be the reason normal conventions have been
discarded. Sanders isn't a loud-mouth egotist like Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for the
establishment, if for one of its number who pretends to be against the establishment. Trump has
been largely tamed in time for a second term. By contrast, Sanders, like Corbyn in the UK, is
more dangerous because he may resist the efforts to domesticate him, and because if he is
allowed any significant measure of political success – such as becoming a candidate for
president – it may inspire others to follow in his footsteps. The system might start to
throw up more anomalies, more AOCs and more Ilhan Omars.
So Sanders is now being cast, like Trump, as a puppet of the Kremlin, not a true American.
And because he made the serious mistake of indulging the "Russiagate" smears when they were
used against Trump, Sanders now has little defence against their redeployment against him. And
given that, by the impoverished standards of US political culture, he is considered an extreme
leftist, it has been easy to conflate his democratic socialism with Communism, and then
conflate his supposed Communism with acting on behalf of the Kremlin (which, of course, ignores
the fact that Russia long ago abandoned Communism).
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Let me tell this to Putin -- the American people, whether
Republicans, Democrats, independents are sick and tired of seeing Russia and other countries
interfering in our elections." pic.twitter.com/ejcP7YVFlt
There is a final use of weaponised identity politics that the Democratic establishment would
dearly love to use against Sanders, if they need to and can get away with it. It is the most
toxic brand – and therefore the most effective – of the identity-based smears, and
it has been extensively field-tested in the
UK against Jeremy Corbyn to great success. The DNC would like to denounce Sanders as an
antisemite.
In fact, only one thing has held them back till now: the fact that Sanders is Jewish. That
may not prove an insuperable obstacle, but it does make it much harder to make the accusation
look credible. The other identity-based smears had been a second-best, a make-do until a way
could be found to unleash the antisemitism smear.
The establishment has been
testing the waters with implied accusations of antisemitism against Sanders for a while,
but their chances were given a fillip recently when Sanders refused to participate in the
annual jamboree of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobby group
whose primary mission is to ringfence Israel from criticism in the US. Both the Republican and
Democratic establishments turn out in force to the AIPAC conference, and in the past the event
has attracted keynote speeches from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But Sanders has refused to attend for decades and maintained that stance this month, even
though he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. In the last primaries debate, Sanders
justified his decision by rightly
calling Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "racist" and by describing AIPAC as
providing a platform "for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights".
Trump's Vice-President, Mike Pence,
responded that Sanders supported "Israel's enemies" and, if elected, would be the "most
anti-Israel president in the history of this nation" – all coded suggestions that Sanders
is antisemitic.
But that's Mike Pence. More useful criticism came from billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who is
himself Jewish and was until last week posing as a Democrat to try to win the party's
nomination. Bloomberg accused Sanders of using dehumanising language against a bunch of
inclusive identities that, he improbably suggested, AIPAC represents. He
claimed :
"This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination,
ethnicity, faith, color, sexual identity and political party. Calling it a racist platform is
an attempt to discredit those voices, intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the
US-Israel relationship."
Where might this head? At the AIPAC conference last week we were given a foretaste. Ephraim
Mirvis, the chief rabbi of the UK and a friend to
Conservative government leader Boris Johnson, was warmly greeted by delegates, including
leading members of the Democratic establishment. He boasted that he and other Jewish leaders in
the UK had managed to damage Jeremy Corbyn's electoral chances by suggesting that he was an
antisemite over his support, like Sanders, for Palestinian rights.
His own treatment of Corbyn, he argued, offered a model for US Jewish organisations to
replicate against any leadership contender who might pose similar trouble for Israel, leaving
it for his audience to pick up the not-so-subtle hint about who needed to be subjected to
character assassination.
WATCH: "Today I issue a call to the Jews of America, please take a leaf out of our book
and please speak with one voice."
The Chief Rabbi speaking to the 18,000 delegates gathered at the @AIPAC General Session at their Policy
Conference in Washington DC pic.twitter.com/BOkan9RA2O
For anyone who isn't wilfully blind, the last few months have exposed the establishment
playbook: it will use identity politics to divide those who might otherwise find a united voice
and a common cause.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating one's identity, especially if it is under threat,
maligned or marginalised. But having an attachment to an identity is no excuse for allowing it
to be coopted by billionaires, by the powerful, by nuclear-armed states oppressing other
people, by political parties or by the corporate media, so that they can weaponise it to
prevent the weak, the poor, the marginalised from being represented.
It is time for us to wake up to the tricks, the deceptions, the manipulations of the strong
that exploit our weaknesses – and make us yet weaker still. It's time to stop being a
patsy for the establishment. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook
The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN! Even the fact
that Elizabeth Warren stayed in the race was devastating to Bernie and allowed Sleepy Joe to
unthinkably win Massachusetts. It was a perfect storm, with many good states remaining for
Joe!
20 minutes later, Trump tweeted that it was " So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the
race ," as she has "Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly."
"So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him
Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!"
So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming
close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will
he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!
Three hours later, Trump tweeted: " Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie
Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas , not to mention various other
states. Our modern day Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go
down as the all time great SPOILER! "
Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day
Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time
great SPOILER!
"... Democrats want to pass (and have introduced) programs like subsidized day care, parental leave, and universal health care. If you're not hearing them address this, you're not listening. And anything they try to pass through Congress would be immediately shot down by the GOP. ..."
Feminists need to rout some of their commendable passion into making sure that American mothers are cared for.
Whatever one thinks about the roar of noise that is the #MeToo movement, it’s proved damned effective at galvanizing action and
debate.
It’s also demonstrated how the world has grown more willing to do something about sexist and misogynistic injustices—ranging from
minor everyday ones to graver ones entrenched over a lifetime—that women have endured for centuries.
In which case: why the barely audible squeaks about maternity leave for America’s moms?
In my native UK, contractually employed mums (our brave versions of your brave moms) are entitled to up to 52 weeks of
maternity leave, 39 weeks of which is paid. That’s left me continually stunned at how this issue is so rarely touched on in
America during these supposedly progressive and enlightened times.
The United States remains the only country in the developed world that does not mandate paid maternity leave. All that’s on
the books is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, which requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for mothers of
newborn or newly adopted children. And that’s only if they’ve been working in their jobs for a year and their employers have more
than 50 employees within 75 miles of where they work.
The downright pernickety-ness and stinginess of it all is only further exacerbated by the fact that if your spouse works at
the same company that you do, your employer can divide the 12-week total between the two of you.
Such splitting of hairs seems almost designed to pummel the morale of first-time or once-again mothers (as well as bleary-eyed
fathers). Yet very little has been said—and even less done—to improve matters since 1993. Not by politicians, not by public
figures, and, most tellingly for this article, not by feminists, even though the issue is a source of anxiety and woe for so many
women. All these sleep-deprived new moms, their bodies and hormones in chaos, their emotions rollercoastering, dragging
themselves back to the office.
Seven in 10 moms with kids younger than 18 were in the labor force in 2015, up from 47 percent in 1975, according to the Pew
Research Center, which also found that mothers are the primary breadwinners in four in 10 American families.
Given such stats and the miserable implications for families at such a challenging period in women’s lives, it’s odd to
observe what battles are not being fought by those feminists who claim to speak for all women, especially right now, when their
voices seem to be so effective. Admittedly several states have their own laws that offer partially paid maternity leave. And some
employers do offer paid leave of their own volition. But the fact is that, because FMLA is all there is, many women must return
to work after those 12 weeks are up.
So why not make more noise about #MomsToo, especially considering that #MeToo surely has some volume to spare?
I put that question to a single mom who works in women’s counseling, child assault protection, and the prevention of intimate
partner violence—suffice to say, she is well steeped in matters of men not stepping up or doing far worse. She countered that the
#MeToo movement is not just about sexual harassment; it’s about the general way that men and society view women. This in turn,
she explained, affects lots of other issues, including maternity leave, though she said that more pressing for her are the
terrible maternal mortality rates across the United States. In short, she says, the #MeToo tide is looking to raise all manner of
boats skippered by and sheltering long-suffering women.
I’d struggle to argue with any of that. At the same time, though, any worthy movement can become a bandwagon. And I suspect
the lack of #MomsToo attention has to do with some #MeToo supporters wanting to look edgy and on trend on social media, which
can’t usually be achieved by discussing the dull and antiquated institution of motherhood. Selfless devotion and sacrifice to a
little screaming brat who might not even live out the all but guaranteed extinction of the world? Please, girl.
I recently came across a book aimed at new moms that purported to explore the “brilliant, terrible, wonderful, confusing
realities of first-time motherhood.” Going off what I have seen of motherhood and speaking to new moms—my sister included, who
has had four kids, and does not hold back from offering candid assessments—that description seems apt. It captures the wild
spectrum of maternal experiences, which range from utter joy to utter nightmare, with an enormous amount in between.
Yet despite all that, American society keeps its arms folded when it comes to cutting moms some slack regarding their
so-called duties to their employers, with barely anything suggested about a duty of care due the other way.
Even more concerning is how the poor state of maternity leave is part of a much larger and more troubling dynamic, one that,
once again, the feminists could do more to consider and confront.
The New York Times comes in for a fair amount of criticism these days for its on-trend topics and attempts to appear woke. But
full credit to it for running in last weekend’s Sunday paper a devastatingly humane and thought-provoking article—the kind that
seems an endangered species—addressing declining birth rates in the developed world.
While acknowledging that the downward trend typically accompanies the spread of economic development that brings benefits to
women, it still delved into the nuances of how that trend also reflects a “profound failure: of employers and governments to make
parenting and work compatible” due to “the glaring absence of family-friendly policies in the U.S.”
This, the article’s author, Anna Louie Sussman, argues, is the result of the bigger picture that society is missing—and that
much talk of feminist empowerment misses too—whereby the current version of global capitalism is generating “social conditions
inimical to starting families.”
I think both sexes are being sold a lot of hokum in the name of self-realization, taking back control, and so on. And that
peddling is being done in the name of the overarching lord of us all: The Economy.
Sussman aptly addresses this, describing “a secular world in which a capitalist ethos–extract, optimize, earn, achieve,
grow—prevails,” while “a lifetime of messaging directs us” towards an “engaging career, esoteric hobbies, exotic holidays.” The
result, she says, is the “promise and pressure of seemingly limitless freedom, which can combine to make children an
after-thought, or an unwelcome intrusion on a life that offers rewards and satisfactions of another kind.”
This crisis in reproduction, Sussman argues, is compounded by the fact that so many people who are thinking of having a child
are wrestling with—and often giving up in the face of—well-grounded anxieties ranging from the increasing financial burdens of
child rearing to bringing children into a world wrought by environmental degradation.
Hence Sussman’s conclusion that improvements such as paid parental leave are “only a partial fix for our current crisis, a
handful of crumbs when our bodies and souls require a nourishing meal.”
As I’ve previously noted, men undoubtedly still play a role in women-centric issues, and hence have a right to participate in
important discussions that ultimately affect all of us.
Some feminists might disagree with that. But rather than calling out men for interfering, how about instead directing some of
that commendable passion into achieving important change? How about highlighting those more neglected issues such as maternity
leave that remain stubbornly entrenched amid the broader hypocrisies of a supposedly caring society that leaves so many mothers
in the lurch?
James Jeffrey is a freelance journalist who splits his time between the U.S., the UK, and further
afield, and writes for various international media. Follow him on Twitter
@jrfjeffrey .
Stingy maternity leave policies are driven by libertarian principles. The principal, driven by corporate donors, is that government
shall interfere with corporatism as little as possible. The other side of the lobby against maternity leave are conservatives
who don't believe women should be working at all while their children are in younger than high-school age. By the way, aren't
men parents too? Surely men should be on board with better maternity leave if they believe in family.
Why is AmConMag going beyond National Review in its series of articles "The Conservative Case for rabid Socialism"
This is both socialism and gender feminism. Or maybe because it isn't the government but "employers" enslaved by the government,
it is economic fascism?
Moms belong at home with their children over their entire childhood, and do they get another year of Maternity leave if they
get pregnant again within a few months of birth? Who pays for this? Maybe it is why we are sending jobs to Mexico and China because
they not merely do it cheaper, they don't have things like this that make employers into playing an inverse lottery. Hire a mother
to be, get stuck with a huge bill? But we've already wanted to lower wages so you need a two-income household, and how WILL those
women ever pay off their student loan debt?
You are extremely charitable with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. How about YOU supporting YOUR wife (and children)? If Women decide
they want to spend their 20's with college degrees, six figure debt, and careers, they shouldn't be mothers.
Instead, if you insist, why not do a "Child Support" on steroids and make the FATHER - even and especially if he is married
to the woman - pay for the leave and kid?
If paid maternity leave is so important, why don't conservatives lead? Oh, I forget conservatives don't care about maternity leave
because it would be a burden on businesses. Republicans (economic liberals) don't want any burdens on businesses. This isn't complicated.
Come on, why even write about this?
Democrats want to pass (and have introduced) programs like subsidized day care, parental leave, and universal health care.
If you're not hearing them address this, you're not listening. And anything they try to pass through Congress would be immediately
shot down by the GOP.
And states are coming up with their own paid family leave plans due to the failure of the federal government to come up with
a plan (WA state, for example).
What bubble are you in that you don't hear about these things?
why the barely audible squeaks about maternity leave for America's moms?
One wonders what you have been listening to, since the fight for paid family leave has been one of the most consistent, ongoing
issues of the US left for decades. And yes, that includes pretty much every "MeToo" activist. Of course, maybe you've just missed
it since we describe it as "family leave" that can be used by either or both parents; rather than your patronizing "maternity
leave for America's moms" framing.
"... "...real fear or anguish..." in fact only exist in people's heads. Identity politics poisoned neolibs like to externalize these sensations as being tangible features of the physical (non-metaphysical and non-imaginary) world. They are not. ..."
"... The corporate mass media exists solely to manufacture megatrends in society. Whether that is to manufacture mass cravings for a particular color and artificial flavor of carbonated corn syrup water or to manufacture the "real fear or anguish" that we are threatened by scary "others" to get the herd to crowd around symbols of security, the overall purpose is the same: Serve the interests of the big business elites. ..."
"...real fear or anguish..." in fact only exist in people's heads. Identity politics
poisoned neolibs like to externalize these sensations as being tangible features of the
physical (non-metaphysical and non-imaginary) world. They are not.
More topically, the corporate mass media excels at manufacturing "real fear or
anguish" . The farce taking place in HK is a perfect example of this, but we can see
similar examples elsewhere like Venezuela where well-fed upper middle class Venezuelans are
convinced beyond reason that Venezuelans (others that they don't know) are starving, or like
in Ukraine where western Ukrainians were certain in their anguish that eastern Ukrainians
were being killed by Russians. Many Americans are still experiencing very "real
fear or anguish" that Russians are wrecking their sham "Democracy™" . As
real as this may seem to the delusional and hysterical, it is still delusion and
hysteria.
The corporate mass media exists solely to manufacture megatrends in society. Whether
that is to manufacture mass cravings for a particular color and artificial flavor of
carbonated corn syrup water or to manufacture the "real fear or anguish" that we are
threatened by scary "others" to get the herd to crowd around symbols of security, the overall
purpose is the same: Serve the interests of the big business elites.
"... Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention. ..."
"... And the Empire knows it, and precisely for that reason, it does everything possible to elevate sex and sexuality into something tremendously important, glorified, as well as untouchable. Terms and definitions then get confused: centering people's identity around their genitals, gets defined as "their identity". Their struggle for sexual rights is now being defined as "progressive", even, bizarrely as left-wing. ..."
"... Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the UK and the US, than whether Western imperialism should be stopped, once and forever. ..."
"... This is not a push for tolerance, this is an Orwellian attempt to control perception of reality and also to control language. If a man declares himself to be a woman, then you MUST perceive him as a woman, and you must change your language to conform with his self-identity. ..."
"... This is a bold attempt at societal management. It has led to great splits in leftist movements, as people who prefer to remain reality-based, and who base their politics on material reality, instead of ephemeral idealism, consisting of "feelings inside", are being attacked, threatened, de-platformed and harassed by those who have adopted their master's agenda. ..."
"... Having mobs of young people, schooled in queer politics instead of class politics, who attack older activists who still understand that it is the material world which determines reality, not thoughts, prayers and internal feelings, is a very effective way of shutting down any principled resistance to the Empire's imperialism and to the destruction of the planet by unfettered capitalism. ..."
"... The CIA, from its very beginning, has been deeply influenced by the group psychology/mass manipulation theories of Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays, who worked for the agency after the war. ..."
"... Personally I think it is a last resort for a dying empire that has lost any credibility ..."
"... Globo Homo (aggressive, politicised, strident homosexuality; aggressive premature sexualisation and indoctrination of children enforced by law, and outright paedophilia; aggressive promotion of transgender dysphoria; bestiality and incest, together with the virulent denigration of normal healthy family life) is a symptom of an irredeemably degenerate and very sick society on the verge of total collapse. ..."
"... The same is true of the Great Global Warming Hoax, with Soros- and Wall Street-funded Little Greta astroturfing her way across the planet, so that Green Eco Warriors like Mark Carney can raid the pensions and transfer trillions upwards into the pockets of the 0.1%. ..."
"... The world system of capital is breaking up. Among its signs are multi polar violence, ecological collapse, returning fascism, etc. The system of capital is based on class relations, and class relations underlie all other human relations. Sexual relations are basic to the human condition, regardless of the political economic system. Therefore, as capitalism crumbles all social relations go into flux, including sexual relations. Public hysteria about sex is mainly a sign of a global system breaking down and a new in forming. ..."
"... The aim is to atomise society into a mushrooming number of arcane identity groups, based on race, gender, religion and sexuality. The 57 varieties of gender that are being peddled, with punishment for people who forget to use the right invented pronoun. People can then be classified according to their identity group and sub-group and sub-sub-group above all other considerations, rather like an extreme version of the Indian caste system. ..."
"... It is another form of destabilisation that West is desperately keep on creating. It could be a sign of a state of panic they are in. ..."
"... Identity and sexual politics and sport and porn and politics and war .. all tied up into one – an article to keep and share especially to all these still lapping up the Grauniad cool aid – which stuffs the nonsense down their throats daily. ..."
"... Thank you Andre for your takedown of the vapid banality and extreme me-ism of identity politics. I've said it a few times before on the site, and I'll repeat it: Identity Politics has been a very effective Trojan Horse used to fragment and splinter and create disunity. Especially amongst the Left; who by and large have jettisoned class politics and class struggle in favour of this postmodernist cul de sac crud. ..."
"... It's an artificial construct to deflect from the real agenda . Humanity against the transnational financiers. ..."
"... It's the old ruse: bread and circuses. The new opium for the people is 'identity politics'. The 99% of us should ignore it. And the 99% of us should boycott the media outlets that push it. This would be the democratic way to defeat this nonsense. ..."
In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one's sexual
orientation; who has sex with whom, and how. Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly
concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex, and who does not want to belong to any 'traditional'
gender bracket.
Thinking about 'it', writing about it, doing it, is considered "progressive"; cutting edge. Entire novels are
being commissioned and then subsidized, as far away as in the Asia Pacific. Western organizations and NGOs (so-called
"non-government organizations", but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.
These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new
types of combinations that many people never even heard about, or imagined could exist.
Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers "ladies, gentlemen and children", anymore, in order "not
to offend" those who do not want to be any of the above.
Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly, many times, that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you
will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even "left-wing'.
This is a discussion which is clearly encouraged, even invented by the Western regime: a safe discussion which is
aimed at diverting dialogue from topics such as the fact that even in the West, a great number of people are living
in fear and misery, and that the majority of neo-colonies of North America and Europe are once again being totally,
shamelessly exploited.
Talking about poverty and exploitation, about military coups triggered by Washington are rarely spoken about. Such
discussions are even being portrayed as old-fashioned, if not regressive.
Hype is, these days, all about the interaction of penises, of vaginas, or about the lack of such interactions. It
is about one's "identity" and about the right to change one's gender. What you do with your private parts is much
more important than billions of people who are forced to live in filthy slums. Surgery that is aimed at changing
one's gender is more newsworthy than the "regime changes" and consequent destruction of millions of human lives.
Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What
should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention.
Don't think that it is all a coincidence. It is clearly designed this way. Like the enormous flood of free
pornography did not come from out of the blue. The hidden message is clear: watch as much free porn as you can in
your free time, watch football, enjoy booze, and put your sexual identity at the very center of your existence.
Then, define all those who disagree with these sorts of lifestyles as 'intolerant', 'backward', and even
'oppressive'.
Why is all this happening? Why are Western countries so obsessed with "sexual identities"?
The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless
"rights", have hardly any time left to think about the rest of the world.
And vice versa: those who are passionately fighting for a better world, building people-oriented societies,
sacrificing their own comfort and personal benefits; those individuals often have no time, or very little time, to
think about the nuances of their sexuality. For them, sexuality is simply part of their life; often powerful and
important, but it is definitely not their center of gravity, not their very essence.
And precisely this kind of optimistic, unselfish mindset is extremely dangerous for the survival of Western
regimes, and the Empire itself.
*
I am all for people to have their right to choose how they want to express themselves sexually. As long as it is
done discreetly, and without forcing anyone into anything.
But I am strongly against the so-called sexual identity monopolizing political narrative of entire nations.
There are much more important issues that Western societies should be concerned with, and obviously are not.
And the Empire knows it, and precisely for that reason, it does everything possible to elevate sex and sexuality
into something tremendously important, glorified, as well as untouchable. Terms and definitions then get confused:
centering people's identity around their genitals, gets defined as "their identity". Their struggle for sexual rights
is now being defined as "progressive", even, bizarrely as left-wing.
It is, of course, an absolute nonsense. The fight for sexual rights is the fight for sexual rights: it is not
right, or left.
There is absolutely no guarantee that a man who undergoes gender-changing surgery, would gain a deep interest in
the US-triggered coup in Bolivia, or in the tremendous torment, inflicted by the West, on the people of Syria or
Afghanistan.
I have discussed this issue, in-depth, with my friends and relatives who happen to be professional psychiatrists
and psychologists: Jung, who attacked Western imperialism as a clinical disease (pathology), has been criticized and
discredited by almost all Western schools. While the self-centred Freud, has been glorified to this very day. He
became untouchable in Europe and North America. We are all encourage to see ourselves through his eyes.
We are supposed to think and analyze the world in a Freudian way. To say "penis" or "vagina", or to show them, and
especially change them, is supposed to send a shiver up our backs, to make us feel heroic, progressive.
While the Empire murders millions of people worldwide. While British and North American children are suffering
from hunger, while NATO is bringing our planet closer and closer to the next huge war which our humanity may not
survive, people inhabiting the Empire are encouraged to think, to write and to fight for totally different issues
than those that could save our humanity.
*
I have to report that, after working in some 160 countries of the world, on all continents, the issues that I am
addressing above, are prevalent only in the West. Well, also in countries and territories that have been deeply
indoctrinated by the West, like Argentina and Hong Kong, to give just two examples. Which makes one wonder what is
really going on?
I am not talking about people being born gay or lesbian and then getting discriminated against (such
discrimination should be, of course, confronted), or forced by brutal family practices (like I witnessed in Samoa) to
unwillingly change their sexual identity. I am fully, and determinedly supporting people to have their rights, to
practice what they feel like, and to be fully protected by the law.
I am addressing here this totally wild obsession with the topic. I am talking about forcing people in the UK, US,
Canada, Australia and some European countries, to accept as essential a dialogue, which is absolutely irrelevant to
more than 99% of the population on our planet. It is not about LGBT anymore. This is now about something absolutely
else; about color shades, about nuances, about details: while the entire world is burning; in flames.
Can we please talk, finally about Hong Kong, Iraq, Bolivia, North Korea?
And as a writer, as a novelist, I reserve my right to create, to write as I want to! If I want to say, "ladies,
gentlemen and children", you can all stop reading me, but I will write it precisely as I want. You can go and read
the latest generation of politically correct scribes. Although you know as well as I do, that you will never find any
great literature created by them.
The Empire makes sure that many essential topics, including those like whether the world should continue to live
under the boot of savage capitalism or whether it should be selecting socialism, hardly ever get discussed on the
television screens, and on the front pages of the internet.
Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the UK and the US, than whether Western
imperialism should be stopped, once and forever.
But remember: We will all burn if we burn. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, trans-gender individuals, even those whose
sexual orientation I still do not understand. If there is a Third World War, we will all be fried.
Therefore, I suggest that we first try to disarm the Empire, stop savage capitalism, give freedom and the right to
choose their destiny to all nations of the world, and then Only then, shall we make sure that we support all the
people of countless sexual orientation, that our humanity has.
But first things first, please!
Unfortunately, the majority of people do not have the capacity to fight on various fronts, for numerous causes.
And they often choose to struggle for the issues that are extremely close to their waist.
Sexual politics are very divisive and distractive, although the western indifference to who people choose
to have sex with, as long as they are consenting adults, is a healthy step, imo.
Sexual orientation, however, is separate from the sexual identity propaganda now being pushed so heavily,
and not just online. The entire Establishment is behind this agenda, including mainstream media, the
government, the military, the drug companies, the medical industry, the schools and universities,
libraries, the police, prisons, social workers, etc.
This is not a push for tolerance, this is an Orwellian attempt to control perception of reality and also
to control language. If a man declares himself to be a woman, then you MUST perceive him as a woman, and
you must change your language to conform with his self-identity.
"Preferred pronouns" are enforced by the
police in some cases, and "deadnaming" is a newly invented thought crime which has led to bans and
harassment in enforcement.
This is a bold attempt at societal management. It has led to great splits in leftist movements, as people
who prefer to remain reality-based, and who base their politics on material reality, instead of ephemeral
idealism, consisting of "feelings inside", are being attacked, threatened, de-platformed and harassed by
those who have adopted their master's agenda.
Longtime leftists, with decades of organizing experience, are being shut out of meetings, lectures,
Parties and organizations, with claims that their very presence "contaminates and makes unsafe" entire
buildings! And in the case of Helen Steel, a longtime activist in UK, an entire moor was deemed off
limits to her, to cater to trans activists and their claims of feeling unsafe.
Having mobs of young people, schooled in queer politics instead of class politics, who attack older
activists who still understand that it is the material world which determines reality, not thoughts,
prayers and internal feelings, is a very effective way of shutting down any principled resistance to the
Empire's imperialism and to the destruction of the planet by unfettered capitalism.
Ramdan
,
Today,a new Oxfam report came out where is claimed that 1% of the human species owns the equivalent of
6400 millions of other humans. Comments on social media are appalling, to say the least. Those who
dare criticized this situation are called haters and envious by .others also from the 99%. Mankind resambles a well-trained dog, one that learned helplessness .
Some representatives of the Homo "sapiens" fantisizes to have a colony in Mars by 2050 to scape .they
are part of that 1% .
As of today, humanity is happily waking to its own demise, and it seems that only through a
catastrophic event of biblical proportions, can humanity be saved from itself. Maybe then ,real wisdom
will come out and guide those who survive.
The CIA, from its very beginning, has been deeply influenced by the group psychology/mass manipulation
theories of Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays, who worked for the agency after the war.
Since today
all the USA mass and social media are controlled by the cia, it is fairly easy to see that the gender
identity hysteria is another manipulation whose purpose is to divert left-leaning people in the west away
from the true aims of leftism -- anti capitalism and anti imperialism -- towards an ideology which is
harmless.
I remember back in the '90's reading Triton by Sam Delany when I was into Sci Fi that was written in the
mid '70's where the protagonist was fixated on gender issues and contemplating changing his sex which he
eventually does. I think I eventually lost interest in the book and what passes for Sci Fi or what they
now call "speculative fiction" these days.
Anyway like Margaret Mead and Toffler's Future Shock crowd
at SRI that Sci Fi like Delany instead of speculating about the future were creating it through gradual
social engineering. This gender issue is a case in point. Since who would have thought it would actually
have been an issue back then?
Even after Gore Vidal wrote Mrya Breckenridge which became a best seller and the movie was a
blockbuster that started a fad for a while but then people went back to more substantive issues other
than getting a sex change in Sweden yet now it seems that the media has gone into a full court press on
this issue. So one has to ask "what's behind it?"
Personally I think it is a last resort for a dying empire that has lost any credibility as you seem to
be pointing out Andre.
George Mc
,
Consumer capitalism thrives on discontent. Convincing everyone that their hair is wrong, their skin is
bad, their face doesn't look right, their clothes are awful etc. to get them to buy buy buy. And sex is
the most intense engine of this constant drive to induce self-loathing.
Everything conspires to tell you
that you are repulsive, that you will not find a mate unless you splash out on this and that – and once
you've found a mate, perhaps he/she isn't really the one for you. The sex you're getting is never as good
as it could be. Look at all those glamourous stars. Imagine what they're getting up to. Hell – you don't
even have to imagine! Look at those glossy images! Read about this kind of sex and that kind of sex. Bet
you've never had anything like that etc.
Thus this glorified sex is the most perfect embodiment of the
laboratory rat wheel. No matter how fast you go and how much you buy, you stay in the same place. And yet
images of ecstasy pull you on. And all the time you're buying buying buying.
But perhaps it's all too easy now? Everyone is used to the common variations. Time for some new stuff.
Time for the sequel, the new series, the new fashion, the new lovely little honeypot scam. Let's invent
loadsa new sexualities. New areas for creating anxieties, hang-ups, phoney controversies, with all the
concomitant books and programmes and magazines and scandals and whipped up confrontations between
prejudices etc. KaChing! Looooovely!
paul
,
Globo Homo (aggressive, politicised, strident homosexuality; aggressive premature sexualisation and
indoctrination of children enforced by law, and outright paedophilia; aggressive promotion of transgender
dysphoria; bestiality and incest, together with the virulent denigration of normal healthy family life)
is a symptom of an irredeemably degenerate and very sick society on the verge of total collapse.
There
is nothing new in any of this. The same things were very much in evidence in ancient Rome as it declined
and fell, with a cross dressing emperor plying his trade as a prostitute.
The only difference is that these things are now aggressively promoted by a degenerate globalist
paedophile elite, both to legitimise their own habits and perversions and as a harmless distraction from
their other activities, their criminality, tyranny, parasitism and abuse of power.
The same is true of the Great Global Warming Hoax, with Soros- and Wall Street-funded Little Greta
astroturfing her way across the planet, so that Green Eco Warriors like Mark Carney can raid the pensions
and transfer trillions upwards into the pockets of the 0.1%.
Geoffrey Skoll
,
Andre is correct of course, but there is another angle. It's not just identity politics as distracting
and divisive. It's that identity politics, especially sexual identity politics has emerged when it
has–i.e., in the last few years. So, here is my thesis.
The world system of capital is breaking up. Among
its signs are multi polar violence, ecological collapse, returning fascism, etc. The system of capital is
based on class relations, and class relations underlie all other human relations. Sexual relations are
basic to the human condition, regardless of the political economic system. Therefore, as capitalism
crumbles all social relations go into flux, including sexual relations. Public hysteria about sex is
mainly a sign of a global system breaking down and a new in forming.
lundiel
,
Let's not forget, identity politics is not just about gender. It's all sorts of cultural, ethnic,
religious, environmental groups and factions along with sexual and gender based groups. I think this has
evolved partly because of social media, and partly because our political representatives are so shit.
They've all been telling us that class is dead, when it clearly isn't and the rot starts with local
politicians who are, mostly the worst people qualified to represent us.
lundiel
,
The only way to fix this, imo, is to take the marketing, lobbying and public relations out of
politics. The we can get on with addressing the issues that are important to people, and everything
else will be a whole lot easier.
paul
,
The aim is to atomise society into a mushrooming number of arcane identity groups, based on race,
gender, religion and sexuality. The 57 varieties of gender that are being peddled, with punishment for
people who forget to use the right invented pronoun. People can then be classified according to their
identity group and sub-group and sub-sub-group above all other considerations, rather like an extreme
version of the Indian caste system.
So people should vote for Clinton because she has a vagina. If
she is a corrupt, mendacious warmonger with blood on her hands, that doesn't matter, because she's one
of the wimmin.
You see the same mentality with people like Jess Phillips.
Ignore the fact that we are being ruled over by a psychopathic, self serving, kleptocratic
kakistocracy that is lying through its teeth, robbing us blind, and subjecting us to blanket
surveillance, among other things. Just go charging down the rabbit hole of your choice. And get the
gender pronouns right.
Berlin beerman
,
Mr.Putin got it right on this issue. Live free as you wish but I am not changing the bathroom signs and I am not altering the Russian
language.
Homosexuality is like the black man when it comes to societies. If you see the colour of the skin and
feel the need to discuss it, to address it, then you are the racist amoung us. Do you need a court to tell you what a racist is? Do you need a government ? Same thing with sexual
orientation.
Morgan Freeman explains it well enough for those with an IQ high enough to understand it and reason
with it.
It is another form of destabilisation that West is desperately keep on creating. It could be a sign of a
state of panic they are in.
... ... ...
Dungroanin
,
A great article to start the week – especially after yestetdays don't know what to call it.
Identity and sexual politics and sport and porn and politics and war .. all tied up into one – an
article to keep and share especially to all these still lapping up the Grauniad cool aid – which stuffs
the nonsense down their throats daily.
Thank you Andre for your takedown of the vapid banality and extreme me-ism of identity politics.
I've said it a few times before on the site, and I'll repeat it: Identity Politics has been a very
effective Trojan Horse used to fragment and splinter and create disunity. Especially amongst the Left;
who by and large have jettisoned class politics and class struggle in favour of this postmodernist cul de
sac crud.
My sexual orientation is just one part of who I am. A segment of the whole. It's not something I shout
from the rooftops, it's not something to ram down other people's throats.
My ideal is Live and Let Live – treat others as you'd like them to treat you – regardless of who they
are.
And yes, I've been bashed twice because of my sexuality, including by 'workmates' while at work. I've had
many instances of homophobic abuse directed at me over the years.
And I'll say this very clearly:
I fully oppose and reject identity politics, despite my own history.
Our real enemies are the parasitic 0.01% billionaires, the ruling elites who pull the strings, the Warren
Buffets, Jeff Bezos and Rupert Murdoch's who rake in vast fortunes from pillaging this planet and
screwing so many into the mud; the Wall St Banks, the Hedge funds, the IMF and World Bank, the
Multinational Corporations, the very Economic System which creates such despair and inequality and the
deaths of so many human beings.
To benefit so few.
Identity Politics is a cynical distraction from all of this bloody carnage. It separates us when we need
to unite more than ever.
.
Willem
,
Michael Parenti on gender inequality issues and how to tackle those issues (really funny)
"in this very exploitative society which we must continue to resist and rectify" .
Thanks for the clip Willem, and yeah, Michael Parenti nails it, as usual.
0use4msm
,
The push towards the dominance of sexuality and gender based identity in the West has been in various
successive waves. The most recent one was in response to the Occupy movement successfully putting
plutocracy and extreme inequality on the agenda with its 99% vs 1% memes back in 2011. I agree with the
article that this push was very deliberate.
nottheonly1
,
Worst answer ever:
The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless "rights", have hardly
any time left to think about the rest of the world.
Amazing how great the hate against 'Transgender' people is in a majority of Christian/Orthodox countries.
I have a solution for all you flaming hypocrites and story peddlers:
Why don't you push all the Transgender folks into the ovens? You surely remember how its done, right?
What a pathetic piece of drivel – blaming of course those whose lives are exploited and who are murdered every day in the most
cruel ways. Like ISIS style cutting off of the head. Like Jewish/Christian/Muslim stoning of people that don't deserve to live –
because of: sexual acts.
But for the last time for people like Vitchek et al:
SEX IS NOT GENDER.
GENDER IS NOT SEX.
If it would not be for religious freaks that are stuck in a morally flat world view the world over, people that do not conform to
their narrowminded and fanatic delusions would not be murdered.
It is saddening that OffGuradian has published this hate piece.
Especially, since the whole Gender and Sex thing is subject to greater evolutionary processes Mr. Vitchek et al are incapable to
detect. Well, haters.
To sum it up quickly:
Transgender Folks are responsible for everything that is fucked up on earth – making them fucked up as well. They went to
illegally assault and invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and voment overthrows of democratically elected governments. They have
corrupted the Western world with citizen united and poison the world with glyphosate and GMO. They steal trillions of dollars from
the war ministry and thus from the taxpayer.
No wonder religious people hate Transgender Folks so much. They are the reason for all evil in this world. As a matter of fact,
they could also be called 'satanic' – as they only aim at disrupting the bigoted, sex addicted minds of religious freaks.
This world would be a much better place if people just focused on WHAT REALLY HURTS AND HARMS.
Oh, and yes, of course. Mr. Vitchek, you were obviously not able to give a voice to those at the receiving end of the stick. Only
the voice of the emotionally hurt religious fanatics.
0use4msm
,
Congratulations for succinctly managing to exemplify what the article is describing. Since you have
failed to grasp that the article, and the issue it brings up at large, is
not
attacking the morality of individuals associated with the LGBTQ+ alphabet , I suggest you
read it again. And again, if necessary.
lundiel
,
I don't think he's attacking trans people, just the self absorbtion of those engaging in identity
politics, while denying/forgetting the class struggle. I don't see any hate here towards trans people,
just the fact that it's a personal issue that's been politicised. If we had a culture more like that
of the Maoris and less reliant on the Bible's teachings, this would never have been an issue.
Berlin beerman
,
Well you just stepped right into it didn't you.
Exemplified almost perfectly what Mr. Vitchek was trying to bring out in his writing.
juggle
,
all part of the fiendish cocktail of divide & rule they're putting in the water these days..
Dave Hansell
,
Precisely!
Confusing personal identity with social identity (which is about what you do) is bad
enough but insisting that everyone accept that they are (a) both the same and/or (b) the social
should be subservient to the individual – both on penalty of being ostracised from having the right
to survive and exist on the basis of having and expressing a different world view being equated to
hatred – is not grown up politics. It's the sort of approach one meets in a school playground.
Fortunately, like everything else in life, most sensible people – whatever their individual
identify – realise and comprehend that in any organised realm of life there are always sub-groups
of any particular group who kick the backside out whatever it is.
It's just a fact of life that those who make the most noise muddy an issue and are not
necessarily representative of the whole of a particular group.
Whatever it happens to be, the notion that one specific individual or sub-group subjective
opinion should trump either any differing subjective opinion or objective discernable reality on
the basis that simply articulating or holding either equates to the hatred of those belonging to
that whole group is dangerously divisive.
Society and social identity does not operate on the basis of someone, anyone, dictating that
just because they say something is so than it must be so and anyone challenging that is guilty of
hatred requiring not only their being ostracised from social media but that they should lose their
job for having such temerity (and it has happened); having the crime of rape against them
trivialised (again, it has happened); their hard fought rights to specific representation reduced
(it's currently happening in various organisations); that they be incarcerated and lose their
liberty (once again, this is being demanded).
The social space is a shared one. My right to throw out my arm with a clenched fist ends at the
point of someone else's, everyone elses, nose tip. My rights only start where someone else's ends.
And vice versa.
That's how society works and remains coherent.
On the same basis as detailed above the post- modernist left who push this line are not
representative of the left per se. They are a noisy and naive sub- group kicking the arse out of it
for everyone else and the sooner they grow up the better.
Don't forget to doff your cap and tug your forelock as you move forward in the queue towards the
oblivion of being surplus to requirements as there is no emergency exit – even for those with the
gumption to know there is need for one.
It's called social identity. It comes with wider responsibilities.
andyoldlabour
,
nottheonly1
Your response simply confirms what Andre has written in this superb article. Your post was a
narcissistic rant, very similar to others which I have read in the past year.
If someone wants to identify as something else and it doesn't impact on other people, then go for it,
fill your boots. However, should you overstep the mark and make unreasonable demands on society as a
whole, to present yourself constantly as a victim, then society will look less favourably at you.
Let me give you an example – male bodied people, irrespective of how they identify, do not belong in
women's sports, women's changing rooms or women's refuges.
George Mc
,
Amazing how great the hate against 'Transgender' people is in a majority of Christian/Orthodox
countries.
Nice try at erecting yet another phony battle. But the fact is that most people don't give a flying
fuck about "transgender" people – and indeed don't even know, and have no wish to know, what it means.
That's because most people are smart enough to know that by this time next year we will have any
number of new wondrously inventive demographics (Trans-glandular? Trans-testicular? Bio-quadrangular?)
to give the infinitely concerned an opportunity to scream about intolerance etc. And how revealing
that you drag religion into it for maximum divisiveness.
Jen
,
Dear NotTheOnly1,
You managed to create another category of people to demonise and attack: the
so-called religious fanatics and freaks.
Thanks very much for making things so much harder for the rest of us to resist the slice'n'dice
categorisation and the lifestyle-marketing brainwashing that goes with it
John Deehan
,
In many of his books Professor Antony C Sutton argued that the narrative of left and right was false.
Furthermore, he said the notion of division in politics was created by and encouraged by transnational
finance. To put it simply, it set up divisions which were used to manipulate the masses. Hidden History,
the secret causes of WW1, also illustrates how an enemy was created in order to justify the mass murder
of millions of people which is being repeated by the new designated enemy. It's called propaganda.
Vitchek is correct in his analysis of this latest wave of distraction from the most important issues
affecting humanity. How do the transnational financial overlords achieve these conjuring deceitful false
flag narratives. Well, ignorance through control of the media, academia and promotion of right thinking
apparatchiks is one method besides of course the deep stratification of society through the cast system.
Aldous Huxley looked at this in his book Brave New World. What is the end goal of it? A feudalistic
system of serfs, servers and sovereigns!
Ash
,
Left/right is an ECONOMIC continuum with a specific meaning, but of course the waters have been so
thoroughly muddied and so many unrelated issues being peddled as left/right that most people don't
even know what they're arguing about these days.
John Deehan
,
It's an artificial construct to deflect from the real agenda . Humanity against the transnational
financiers.
Einstein
,
It's the old ruse: bread and circuses.
The new opium for the people is 'identity politics'.
The 99% of us should ignore it.
And the 99% of us should boycott the media outlets that push it.
This would be the democratic way to defeat this nonsense.
"... Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick. ..."
"... In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at all. ..."
"... "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders, chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened." ..."
"... Warren's staff knows she is prone to "embellish" things ..."
"... No wonder Sanders was complaining about liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use for. ..."
The media cannot forgive Bernie Sanders for refusing to "bend the knee" to Elizabeth Warren
regarding her recounting of a now infamous December 2018 meeting between the two, in which the
Vermont senator allegedly said a woman could not be elected president.
Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you
mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So
fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick.
That is the clear takeaway after the media took off its fig leaf of journalistic
impartiality at the seventh Democrat presidential debate in Iowa Tuesday.
During the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillips had this exchange:
Phillips: You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win
the election?
Bernie: Correct.
Phillips: Senator Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn't win the
election?
Warren: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with
Bernie.
This is "when did you stop beating your wife" level debate questioning from CNN. The
question is premised around an
anonymously-sourced story CNN reported Monday describing a meeting between Sanders and
Warren in December 2018, where the two agreed to a non-aggression pact of sorts. For the sake
of the progressive movement, they reportedly agreed they would not attack each other during the
campaign:
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two
main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument
about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did
not believe a woman could win.
In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at
all.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she
was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders,
chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened."
"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," said Warren in a statement.
Cue CNN's gladiatorial presidential debates.
Eager to strike all the right girl-power notes for the night, Phillips followed up by asking
Sen. Amy Klobuchar the substantive policy question, "what do you say to people who say that a
woman can't win this election?" and Warren earned cheers for a line about women successfully
winning elections.
"Look at the men on this stage," Warren said. "Collectively, they have lost 10 elections.
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the
women: Amy (Klobuchar) and me."
After the debate, media commentators roundly declared Warren the winner, and pundits
attacked the very idea of questioning the veracity of Warren's account.
Here's CNN, just after the debate:
Chris Cillizza, CNN politics reporter: Sanders, look, a lot of it is personal
preference. I didn't think his answer vis-a-vis Elizabeth Warren and what was said in that
conversation was particularly good. He was largely dismissive. "Well, I didn't say it.
Everyone knows I didn't say it, we don't need to talk about it."
Jess McIntosh, CNN political commentator: And I think what Bernie forgot was that this
isn't a he-said-she-said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.
So to have him just flat out say "no," I think, wasn't nearly enough to address that for the
women watching.
Joe Lockhart, CNN political commentator: And I can't imagine any woman watching last
night and saying, I believe Bernie. I think people believe Elizabeth.
Van Jones, CNN political commentator: This was Elizabeth Warren's night. She needed to
do something and there was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came
to his comments about women. I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around. She knocked that
moment out of the park.
But isn't this story the literal definition of a he-said, she-said story?
The accusation may have appeared in a "reported-out story," but these are its sources:
"The description of that meeting [between Sanders and Warren in December 2018] is based
on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the
encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting."
Is it sexist to question why this story would come out on the eve of the debate -- after
months of the two candidates getting along as they had promised to do, when
Sanders pulls ahead of Warren in polling ?
In addition to Warren's tenuous relationship with the truth, there also happens to be video
from the 1980s where Sanders says a woman could be president:
1988, @BernieSanders , backing
Jackson:"The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man
*in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS* The real issue is are you on the side of workers
& poor ppl, or are you on the side of big money &corporations?" pic.twitter.com/VHmfzvyJdy
-- Every nimble plane is a policy failure. (@KindAndUnblind) January
13, 2020
Yet, you wouldn't know any of that, listening to the coverage of the debate, where
commentators waxed poetic about Warren's "win" and how any attacks on her predilection for
lying were misogyny itself.
Over on Sirius XM POTUS channel Tuesday, an executive producer on Chris Cuomo's show (Chris
Cillizza filling in) said that the suggestion from Sanders surrogates that Warren's staff
knows she is prone to "embellish" things
is "a misogynistic thing to put out there like, 'oh well, look at the quaint housewife, she is
prone to embellishment.'"
The New York Times also embraced the questionable sexism premise, writing that in"a
conflict heavily focused on which candidate is telling the truth, Ms. Warren faces a real risk:
Several studies have
shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty If
voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying, it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt
Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying."
Over at Vox:
The over-the-top language -- likening criticism of an opponent to aknife in the back-- was familiar. When powerful men have been accused of
sexual misconduct in recent years, they and othershave
often complainedthat they've been "killed" or that their "lives are over" The
situation between Warren and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of
the Me Too movement. But the exaggerated language around a woman's decision to speak out is
strikingly similar.
This sort of language is an insult to all women who have had to deal with sexism and
misogyny, both in the workplace and in society, and this need to glom on to any aggrieved
group, no matter how ill-fitting, is getting really stale.
Meanwhile, former Hillary Clinton and Obama Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri
tweeted, "I just rewatched the footage from last night and found it odd that Sanders never says
'a woman could beat Trump.' His formulation is he believes a 'woman could be president.' It's
only when he speaks about his own abilities that he talks about what it takes to 'beat
Trump.'"
This is the old sexist standby: "I'd vote for a woman, just not that woman."
What is it that these people want, for Sanders to endorse his opponent, simply because she
is female? Isn't that the very definition of sexism? By virtue of the fact that Sanders is
still in this race, he obviously thinks he can do a better job as president than Warren. There
isn't going to be another presidential race against Trump, but Palmieri still essentially wants
Sanders to say, in a five-way race three weeks before the Iowa caucus, "Warren can beat Trump
in November."
The question here should be whether this is a person that we can trust, not whether the
candidate is male or female. Does this person have a history of being honest, or do they have a
history of lying?
No wonder Sanders was complaining about
liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be
an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use
for.
What are you talking about? If you want to know what Sanders says on this issue, rad his
interview with the NYT which was conducted before this cynical hit job occurred. He says
many voters are misogynistic, but not that a woman can't win.
I think both were telling the truth in that Warren probably took it to mean a woman
can't win, but her campaign cynically released thi story over a year later because she was
slipping in tge pollls behind Bernie.
That's ridiculously generous of you, at least towards Warren. She knows perfectly well his
position on the possibility of a woman president, and women running for office generally.
she knows he campaigned vigorously for HRC after the nomination, and she knows that Sanders
knows that HRC took the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so he obviously knows that it
is highly possible for a woman to win the presidency. This is simply a bald-faced lie on
Warren's part, but she has gained nothing electorally for this desperate smear. Sanders not
only had a record fundraising day after this surfaced, but at least one poll has him up 2
points in Iowa, where he was already in the lead, with Warren stuck at 12%.
Six corporations own something like 90% of the media now.
And CNN is part of the corporate-media-complex.
So not too much of a surprise that they are going after Sanders.
The billionaires are worried he might win, so in a way, this is a good
sign.
The 24 hour news channels depend on Trump to bring in the outrage required to keep up their
viewing figures. So it makes sense that they should help give him a democrat opponent he
can't lose against, like Elizabeth Warren.
While it should be fairly obvious to most that Bernie Sanders political rivals are trying
everything they can to get ahead of him, it's also true that the DNC and the Main Stream
Media, are also trying to trash Bernie in an attempt to take him out as a candidate. The
DNC and the MSM did the same thing the last time he attempted to win the nomination, and it
appears they are doing so now.
The corporate MSM machine should be careful. Another candidate they trashed during the
last election cycle, and ever since, became the President. It seems some voters have tied
the corporate MSM together with the D.C. establishment, and voters that want an outsider to
lead them may just see the MSM's attempts to denigrate a candidate as a ringing endorsement
for the outsider.
As a side note, I find it humorous that the MSM attempts to diminish Bernie's supporters
as zealots and too extreme to be taken seriously... I thought that political candidates
actually worked to gain the support of enthusiastic and motivated supporters? Or, is that
just for the candidates that are acceptable to the Main Stream Media and the political
Parties?
Voted for Trump in great part because Hillary Clinton was such a liar. Now he turned out to
be an even bigger liar than she was. It sure would be nice to have a candidate who didn't
lie so much, but now I don't know whether that would be Sanders or Warren.
Strictly speaking, socialism was an abject failure which ended with the fall of the Iron
Curtain, There is an unfortunate tendency to conflate "socialism" with what is called the
"welfare state." The United States is a welfare state but can hardly be mistaken for a
socialist state.
I think I see it mostly the same way you do, but with semantic differences. I would argue
that communism - the totalitarian version of socialism - was the abject failure. Any first
world modern state is a blend of market-based economies and socialism. The question is
always which exchanges are best left to market forces and which are best managed from
above. And then, how much management to provide. I caution against seeing socialism vs
capitalism as some binary switch to flip.
And the fact is that many of these welfare states were implemented by self-declared
socialists, including many parties that were members of the Socialist, or Second,
International.
Unfortunately, many of these socialist and labor parties hopped on the neo-liberal train
in the 1980's, and are today deathly afraid of their own Bernie Sanders (see Corbyn,
Jeremy), and even more afraid of scaring off international finance and the German Central
Bank.
Point taken. Perhaps "radical socialism" would have been more accurate. Your description of
the modern state as a "blend" is spot-on. An economics professor I once had called ours a
"mixed economy", which was a phrase that has always stuck in my mind.
Social democratic and labor parties around the world turned neo-liberal in the 1980's,
including the Scandinavian ones. They've been helping to rip up the "social contract"
between Capital and Labor, and the social welfare state, ever since, as well as reversing
previous nationalizations and launching privatization. This phenomenon has included
Scandinavia, which is why the parties there are so sensitive to all this talk in the U.S.
about them being models of "socialism."
Fact is, all non-Marxist "socialist" countries are market based, and are in fact capitalist
at the economic base. When did any Scandinavian "socialist" country ever expropriate any
major corporations?
You might actually want to do a bit of research on that point. Going back 60, 70 or 80
years, there might be some nationalizations of railroads, utilities, energy companies and
other major industries not involved in the actual manufacturing of goods in Scandinavia.
Great Britain certainly saw such nationalizations, although revolutionary leftists
sometimes dismissed them as "lemon socialism" because the capitalist class was fobbing off
money-losing or capital-intensive sectors of the economy on the government, in order to
concentrate on more profitable enterprises.
Far-left activists don't just want Americans to approve of transgender ideology and to call
people by preferred pronouns unmoored from biological sex - they also want to force taxpayers
to foot the bill for dangerous experimental surgeries that leave people infertile and scarred
for life.
On December
23 , Illinois joined 19 other states and the District
of Columbia to explicitly require Medicaid to pay for transgender surgeries. The Department of
Healthcare and Family Services, the state's primary Medicaid agency, published new
administrative rules mandating the coverage of certain "gender-affirming" services. Illinois
formerly excluded "transsexual surgery" from the taxpayer-funded program.
"Health care is a right, not a privilege, and I'm committed to ensuring our LGBTQ
community and all Illinoisans have access to that right," Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) said in
a statement
in April.
" Expanding Medicaid to cover gender affirming surgeries is cost effective, helps avoid
long-term health consequences, and most importantly is the right thing to do. With continued
attacks coming from Washington, this administration will always stand with our transgender
community and their right to lead safe and healthy lives."
Almost everything in this statement was dead wrong. Health care should not be considered a
"right," because it involves the hard work of doctors and nurses, who deserved to be
compensated for their work. Perhaps most importantly, however, the idea that "gender-affirming"
surgeries help "avoid long-term health consquences" is false, as is the idea that covering
these surgeries is necessarily "the right thing to do."
Transgender activists have pushed this narrative based on the idea that the only way to curb
the high rate of suicide among people who identify themselves as transgender is to force
society to accept transgender identity. Te thinking goes like this: When transgender people
have surgery to "affirm" their identity as the opposite sex, they will be less likely to commit
suicide. Therefore, transgender surgery is essential to their health, and the government paying
for it actually saves money in the long run.
The evidence actually suggests the opposite. While there are few long-term studies on
transgender health available, the most
thorough follow-up study involving transgender people -- extending over 30 years and
conducted in Sweden, where there is a strong pro-transgender culture -- found that transgender
surgery does not paper over mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment,
the suicide rate of those who had undergone the surgery rose to 20 times that of their
peers!
Many of those who undergo the surgery experience deep and painful regret.
"Now that I'm all healed from the surgeries, I regret them," a 19-year-old man who had
himself surgically mutilated to affirm a female identity,
wrote in a letter . "The result of the bottom surgery looks like a Frankenstein hack job
at best, and that got me thinking critically about myself. I had turned myself into a
plastic-surgery facsimile of a woman, but I knew I still wasn't one. I became (and to an
extent, still feel) deeply depressed."
Transgender activist Jazz Jennings experienced complications during the surgery to remove
his male genitals,
leaving him with scars across the top of his legs.
"I am a real, live 22-year-old woman, with a scarred chest and a broken voice, and five
o'clock shadow because I couldn't face the idea of growing up to be a woman, that's my
reality," admitted Cari Stella.
The medical establishment has rushed to affirm transgender "health care" that often involves
giving healthy people a disease or urging genital mutilation on perfectly healthy men and
women.
After the case of the 6-year-old boy James Younger seized national attention, states across
the nation are expected to
pass laws protecting children from the damaging effects of transgender drugs.
Yet Illinois joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in going the opposite
direction -- forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for transgender surgery. California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and
Wisconsin also use Medicaid funds for transgender surgery.
Sixty-two percent of Americans said employers should be able to opt-out of covering
transgender surgeries, and 80 percent of them said doctors and medical professionals should be
able to opt-out of performing surgeries they think dangerous to their patients.
If businesses should be able to opt-out of footing the bill for dangerous and controversial
surgeries, why shouldn't taxpayers?
"... Maybe so, but ipso facto and for the same reasons, the ‘capitalist class’ don’t actually care about the oppression of women, nor of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class struggle. ..."
"... The phrase ‘class struggle’ is invariably misinterpreted by bourgeois liberals (such as yourself), incidentally. The class struggle is not something that working people choose to take part in. The class struggle is something that is going on and will continue whether you choose to fight in it or not (or whether or not you choose to recognise that it is going on, or not). ..."
"... Elites essentially created themselves and then began to create the various stratification strategies that, with increasing elaborations, we have had to live with since then, in order to hold on to the power that they had seized. So Buffet is right. ‘It’s my class that’s….making (the) war.’ ..."
"... The class war is not on any sense fought by the poor who choose to take part in it. The class war is willfully and deliberately fought by the rich, against the poor, who are forced to take part in it simply to defend themselves against this attack (and again, the war continues whether the poor choose to take part in it or not, or even whether or not they recognise that they are taking part in it or not. It’s just that if they choose one of these two options or both of them, then they lose). ..."
"... One of the core misrepresentations of Marxism (and it’s a claim that has been made over and over again, not least on CT comments threads) is that Marxism is a ‘determinist’ philosophy. But as Hobsbawm pointed out many years ago, even a quick skim through the Communist Manifesto, page one, shows this is not true: viz. ..."
"... Sure, of course the rich classes don't care about the oppression of minorities, women, LGBT, etc. They use the oppression of these groups to divide and weaken the lower classes. Of course. But that's not the POINT. ..."
"... The POINT is that some in these class-based movements argue that its WRONG for (e.g.) women's rights activists to focus so much on women's rights -- that instead, they should be focusing on building a broad class-based movement for economic redistribution, fighting inequality... ..."
@ 56 ‘Marxists, it seems to me, don’t actually care about the oppression of
women, nor of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class
struggle. They. Just. Don’t. Care.’
Maybe so, but ipso facto and for the same reasons, the ‘capitalist class’
don’t actually care about the oppression of women, nor of racial minorities, except
insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class struggle.
The phrase ‘class struggle’ is invariably misinterpreted by bourgeois
liberals (such as yourself), incidentally. The class struggle is not something that working
people choose to take part in. The class struggle is something that is going on and
will continue whether you choose to fight in it or not (or whether or not you choose
to recognise that it is going on, or not).
You don’t need to read this in Karl Marx, incidentally. Listen to Warren Buffet:
‘There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class,
that’s making war, and we’re winning.’
This is unquestionably and unarguably true. Back in the day, if you go back 20 or 30
thousand years, you had relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes. It was the changes in
human civilisation that date from about 15000 BCE (some would say earlier than that) that
moved things towards a class-stratified society, but please note this was not a
‘bottom-up’ thing but a. ‘top-down’ thing. Elites essentially
created themselves and then began to create the various stratification strategies that, with
increasing elaborations, we have had to live with since then, in order to hold on to the
power that they had seized. So Buffet is right. ‘It’s my class
that’s….making (the) war.’
The class war is not on any sense fought by the poor who choose to take
part in it. The class war is willfully and deliberately fought by the rich,
against the poor, who are forced to take part in it simply to defend themselves
against this attack (and again, the war continues whether the poor choose to take part in it
or not, or even whether or not they recognise that they are taking part in it or not.
It’s just that if they choose one of these two options or both of them, then they
lose).
One of the core misrepresentations of Marxism (and it’s a claim that has been
made over and over again, not least on CT comments threads) is that Marxism is a
‘determinist’ philosophy. But as Hobsbawm pointed out many years ago, even a
quick skim through the Communist Manifesto, page one, shows this is not true: viz.
‘Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another,
carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either
in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the
contending classes.’
You have a fight between the rich and the poor. Either the poor can win, or there is
mutual annihilation. What can’t happen is long term victory by the rich, because you
can have a society without the rich, but you can’t have a society without the poor (the
‘working classes’) or else nothing will get done. You can have a factory without
managers but not one without workers.
What we’ve seen over the last 100 years (at least since about 1950) is a series of
seemingly endless victories by the rich and powerful over the poor, by the global North over
the global South, and yet, mysteriously, these victories have not led to peace or stability
or anything similar but have instead turned to dust and ashes in their mouths , and it seems
that the current phase of the class struggle will not lead to some fantasy of American power
and dominance for eternity but, instead, the ‘common ruin of the contending
classes’ in the form of climate change and the oncoming eco-geddon.
And all this happens whether you recognize that this is happening or not.
Marxists, it seems to me, don’t actually care about the oppression of women, nor
of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class
struggle. They. Just. Don’t. Care.
This is perhaps true, on average. Most such favor measure they see as fixing the problem,
rather than demonstrating their empathy for those suffering. For example, in the anti-slavery
movement, proto-Marxists were often too busy arguing for economic change (i.e. abolition) to
spend as much time as they could have on thoughts and prayers for those enslaved.
Now it may be the case, and certainly a lot of people think, that no such
equivalently-effectively economic change is possible, or perhaps desirable, in the modern
day. But it is not the case that Marxists agree with that assessment; if you disagree with
them, that is the core of your disagreement.
Maybe so, but ipso facto and for the same reasons, the 'capitalist class' don't actually
care about the oppression of women, nor of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves
their goals of winning the class struggle.
Sure, of course the rich classes don't care about the oppression of minorities, women,
LGBT, etc. They use the oppression of these groups to divide and weaken the lower classes. Of
course. But that's not the POINT.
The POINT is that some in these class-based movements argue that its WRONG for (e.g.)
women's rights activists to focus so much on women's rights -- that instead, they should be
focusing on building a broad class-based movement for economic redistribution, fighting
inequality...
"In my view, the correct way to see oppressions is not as a set of different one to one
relationships where one is oppressor and the other oppressed, but one should sum all these
relationships and compare the sum to a sort of societal average, so that those above that
average and those below are the oppressed. As the society we live in is pyramidal, I expect
most people to be below that average."
I don't wish to pile onto Chetan Murthy's thoughtful reply @39, but rather restate the issue
a little more abstractly. I engage with this comment out of respect for MisterMr's
overwhelmingly well-considered comments here and elsewhere on this blog.
I think one of the disadvantages of Marxian analysis–and this particular critique is
much older than I am–is that it does tend to flatten out the contours of human experience
so that it can be rendered more intelligible and commensurable so that there can be a more
easily verbalized dialectic about class. In other words, Marxians are lumpers. And lumping has
its uses, but sometimes contours are needed to understand the underlying processes that result
in the social problems upon which we wish to improve with policy.
One of the advantages of intersectional analysis is that it acknowledges that experiences of
privilege/oppression are contextual because they are socially constructed and because social
construction is messy and non-uniform. We each experience privileges and/or oppressions that
are the results of historical processes (more and more) loosely bounded by geographical
inhibitions to travel.
In this way, an African American man can expect to experience such oppressions as being
treated as untrustworthy; assumed to be prone to violence; assumed to be a habitual drug user;
assumed to lack certain non-cognitive skills (which are really just the current preferred
collective habits of the upper middle class–I teach some of their kids kung fu) etc . A
woman can expect to experience such oppressions as being treated as unintelligent; evaluated
based on a narrow range of acceptability on her appearance, tone of voice, apparel,
accoutrements, hobbies, reproductive choices, sexual choices, really just about any
choices.
Even though each of these specific ways of being harmed by the collective (mostly)
non-conscious will to discriminate based on things that don't matter most of the time in most
places is at root a failure of most people most of the time to exercise their meta-cognitive
skills around the meaning of respect and to whom it is due and what kind of behavior that
requires of oneself, they do not easily offer a consensus on the sorts of policies that ought
to be implemented across a society because each of these oppressions are historically
contingent and enacted in specific kinds of social spaces for specific reasons–reasons
that most people most of the time are not required to articulate because hey, everybody's doing
it.
The difference between kinds of oppressions and the kinds of policy solutions they invite
sharpens when considering white women's and black men's disparate experiences with the police
across the history of the (sort of) former confederate states of America–yes, I know it
was bad everywhere else, too, but my understanding of the history is that the difference is
sharper in the South (no I will not provide J-D with a cite)–or their disparate
experiences interfacing with organizations such as firms and universities as the suite of
policies known as affirmative action became passed and enforced. In some ways, many individuals
classified in each (and both) group(s) aggregately benefited but the benefits were asymmetric
and the accompanying backlash manifested as different kinds of oppressions depending on the
most salient group assignment.
Incidentally, I think one of the better ways that coalitions form are when activist groups
find themselves being deliberately wedged against each other, for instance with aggressive
policing proposals, and try to find another way to meet each group's needs. The recent renewed
advocacy for Civilian Police Review Boards seems like one possible way forward to accommodate
the need from multiple constituencies that have historically been ignored.
I think intersectionality also happens to give us some useful theoretical tools to help make
these kinds of coalitional policy solutions more abundant and more easy to institutionalize
throughout a large and diverse state–which is why there is absolutely a political
interest among some (probably not so much the Marxians) in detracting from it.
Anyway, two cheers (for now) for intersectionality. But don't get cocky splitters.
The term privilege is often misused. The original meaning of the term is simply a right or an
advantage specifically conveyed on a certain group of people. It is not wrong for example to
call the right to attend a university a privilege. Not long ago, that right was a privilege
restricted to men (mostly upper class but also some lower class). The right to vote, if it is
not universal, could also be called a privilege. It is not correct to say that only the upper
class can be privileged – privileges can be to some extent independent of class
structure. OTOH Real privilege is enshrined in law. Habitual discrimination is a different
thing and it's probably better to call it by a different name.
"... In communist parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests, instead of asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in 100-year-old books. ..."
"... Curiously, events in Malmö have been mirrored somewhat in broader Swedish Left politics ..."
"... British Left "have no vision for an alternative to rampant neoliberalism and a deindustrialised, finance-led, low wage economy, they calculate the best way to make this work is within the EU." He argues that the cosmopolitan leadership of the Labour Party in particular "think we are some kind of uncivilised tribe, painting our faces blue, and only able to vote in a right-wing government," a view he finds "not only deeply insulting, but also self-defeating and overly optimistic about the EU." On immigration, Galloway argues that there is "nothing left-wing about unlimited mass immigration. It decapitates the countries from which the immigrants leave, and drives down wages in those where they arrive. The wealthy benefit from it, as they can afford cheap labor for their companies, or cheap au-pairs, cheap baristas, cheap plumbers. But the working class suffers." ..."
"... In this text, and other articles on the party's website, including this very interesting speech denouncing transgender ideology as anti-materialist and anti-scientific, the argument is made that ..."
"... Biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing . It doesn't just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world. And let's not forget how this debate impinged upon us. ..."
"... The endorsement and promotion of multiculturalism and its sex-politics corollaries never did make much sense within the framework of rational critiques of capitalism, and the tension between the nominal desire for working class solidarity and divisive pseudo-Marxian doctrines (e.g. Whiteness Studies) designed to mobilise imported ethnic factions against the largest section of the working class (blue-collar Whites) was always destined to bring about significant stress fractures when Leftist fortunes began to decline. ..."
"The life of the individual is a constant struggle, and not merely a metaphorical one,
against want or boredom, but also an actual struggle against other people. He discovers
adversaries everywhere, lives in continual conflict and dies with sword in hand."
Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World
Although Nietzsche seems to be the philosopher of choice for many on the Dissident Right,
I've always had a soft spot for Arthur Schopenhauer. His cantankerous philosophical pessimism
has always struck a chord with my own temperament, and for many years I've found his
quasi-Buddhist and highly compassionate conceptualisation of suffering to be strangely
comforting. That life is a struggle involving endless adversaries and competitors also forms an
aspect of Schopenhauer's philosophy, and this continues to be significant in shaping my
political and philosophical outlook. Certainly, it goes without saying that adversaries have
never been in short supply for members of the Dissident Right. They are arrayed before us now,
emerging from all points of the political spectrum, and often even from within our own ranks.
Dissident right political philosophies, more than any other, appear destined to be mired in
continual conflict, and I often find it difficult to shake the dark impression that one day I
will die, metaphorical sword in hand, with every battle raging but far from won. For this
reason, I sometimes permit myself the relief of optimism (a form of cowardice to both
Schopenhauer and Spengler), and part of this is the attempt to find allies where formerly one
may have seen only foes. This brings me to the subject matter of this essay -- recent
developments on the Left which appear to suggest the emergence of an anti-globalist,
anti-immigration, and anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic politics.
Swedish Communists Wake Up
Just days ago, Sputnik
reported on the fact that almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö,
Sweden, are resigning. They plan to establish a new workers' party that no longer features
multiculturalism, LGBT interests, and climate change as key policy goals. Nils Littorin, one of
the defectors,
told a local newspaper that today's Left has become part of the elite and has come to
"dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic." Littorin suggested that the
Left "is going through a prolonged identity crisis" and that his group, instead, intends to
stick to the original values, such as class politics. Littorin adds "[The Left] don't
understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT movement and Greta
Thunberg are something fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s' Germany and that
workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been infected by some Nazi sickness." In a
piece of simple insight previously rare on the Left, he argues that the rise in right-wing
votes for people like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are in fact due to "widespread
dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to low-wage competition and the
ghettoisation of communities, a development that only benefits major companies." Rather than
being beneficial to working class Whites, Littorin condemns a "chaotic" immigration policy that
has led to "cultural clashes, segregation and exclusion due to an uncontrolled influx from
parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan mentalities."
Littorin continues to talk sense when it comes to the LGBT agenda. He explains that LGBT
issues and the climate movement are merely "state ideologies" that are "rammed down people's
throats". Littorin adds that phenomena like these happen at the expense of real issues, such as
poverty, homelessness, and income equality: "Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing
with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily about having a job and
having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are
old."
As well as prioritising jobs and pensions over the flamboyant celebration of buggery,
Littorin and his colleagues have pledged to abandon the name and ethos of Communism, describing
it as a
word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In communist
parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain
avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests, instead of
asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never
been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in 100-year-old books.
Curiously, events in Malmö have been mirrored somewhat in broader Swedish Left
politics, with Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party, expressing
similar
thoughts in an op-ed titled "Socialists don't belong to the left," accusing the mainstream
left of completely abandoning
its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the
middle class."
British Socialists Reinvent Themselves
Almost simultaneously, an identical process is occurring in Britain with George Galloway 's announcement of a
new Workers
Party of Britain . At the time of its launch Galloway described the party as "hard Brexit
and hard labour," and added: "If you're a liberal who thinks it's Left if you're still pining
for the EU, if you think shouting "racist," "homophobic," "transphobic" at everybody who
doesn't agree with you is the way forward, we're probably not for you." Galloway's pro-Brexit
stance is rooted in his
belief that the modern British Left "have no vision for an alternative to rampant
neoliberalism and a deindustrialised, finance-led, low wage economy, they calculate the best
way to make this work is within the EU." He argues that the cosmopolitan leadership of the
Labour Party in particular "think we are some kind of uncivilised tribe, painting our faces
blue, and only able to vote in a right-wing government," a view he finds "not only deeply
insulting, but also self-defeating and overly optimistic about the EU." On immigration,
Galloway argues that there is "nothing left-wing about unlimited mass immigration. It
decapitates the countries from which the immigrants leave, and drives down wages in those where
they arrive. The wealthy benefit from it, as they can afford cheap labor for their companies,
or cheap au-pairs, cheap baristas, cheap plumbers. But the working class suffers."
Galloway has also stressed that his new party will strongly pursue anti-Israel politics, and
is fully committed to opposing the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Galloway and the Workers Party of Britain have also taken a stand against the more extreme
forms of LGBT indoctrination, particularly the mass promotion of transgenderism. Galloway, who
has previously been attacked by a
self-styled "trans anarchist" while giving a speech, is here following the lead of the
pro-Brexit Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) which recently published
Identity Politics and the Transgender Trend: Where is LGBT ideology taking us and Why does
it matter?
In this text, and other articles on the party's website, including this
very interesting speech denouncing transgender ideology as anti-materialist and
anti-scientific, the argument is made that
Biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing . It doesn't
just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual
reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the
diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world. And let's not
forget how this debate impinged upon us. We've been following this ideological trend, and
encountering identity politics (idpol) among supporters and candidates for membership of our
party, and amongst people we've been working with for at least four or five years. Because
idpol has become a fashion in that period. And it is a fashion; it is a trend. And it
suddenly -- from being very marginal to certain academic institutions in the 1970s -- became
mainstream globally worldwide; it was actively promoted. Not promoted by communists, not by
socialists, but picked up on and accepted by many of them, because they are led by, and they
blindly followed, bourgeoise society down this dead-end. There is a group of self-proclaimed
'socialists' who are not actually any longer fighting against our oppression, they're
fighting against reality!
The Left in Crisis?
None of these developments are entirely surprising and, in fact, the argument could be made
that they are the inevitable side effect of what Nils Littorin termed the Left's prolonged
"identity crisis." The endorsement and promotion of multiculturalism and its sex-politics
corollaries never did make much sense within the framework of rational critiques of capitalism,
and the tension between the nominal desire for working class solidarity and divisive
pseudo-Marxian doctrines (e.g. Whiteness Studies) designed to mobilise imported ethnic factions
against the largest section of the working class (blue-collar Whites) was always destined to
bring about significant stress fractures when Leftist fortunes began to decline.
And decline they have. Of course, we have to set aside rampant ideological and cultural
success. Figures and cliques operating under the banner of social equality and eternal progress
continue to hold the reins of power in government, academia, and the mass media. But the Left
is without question currently subject to a period of political decline. It's losing votes, and
more important, it's fast losing hearts and minds. I should also add that they aren't losing
them to right-wing ideas, but to the hollow shells of right-wing ideas (Free Enterprise! Build
the Wall!) and to the charismatic globalist play-actors who promote-these ideas like salesmen
selling used cars or aftershave. White working-class people are voting for free enterprise
without hesitation while Jewish
vulture capitalism operates with impunity under that very banner, destroying their towns,
exporting their jobs, and repossessing their homes. The same people vote for a wall they'll
never get -- and would never really solve the problems resulting from capitalism or ensure a
majority White future. And they do it not because of concern about identity or racial destiny,
but in the same way one might decide to install CCTV in a grocery store -- the ever-elusive
Wall will never be built so long as it represents nothing more than the aspiration to protect
mere inventory. The hollow men of the pseudo-Right-wing offer flimsy placebos, and yet the
political Left, supposedly the historical repository of hard materialism, can't seem to
compete.
There's been a scramble to blame the situation on
a lack of charismatic leaders , disunity, a lack of attractive policies, and even the idea
that the European Left made the
fatal mistake of trying to meet the Right on its own turf by "flirting with closed-border
nationalism or neoliberalism." But the real reason is surely the fact the Left has consistently
alienated and browbeat working class Whites, while slowly revealing itself to be an elite-run
clique of cosmopolitans, who are living the high life while waxing lyrical about oppressions
that are rarely real and often imaginary, and in any case never affect them personally. Added
to this is the fact Leftist ideology has become so convoluted and contorted, with the
square-peg doctrine of Marx endlessly forced into new and increasingly abstract circular and
triangular holes, resulting in Marxist interpretations of such ephemera as graffiti, pop music,
and drag queens, all of which strike the average blue-collar worker as a steaming pile of
effeminate middle-class navel-gazing. All this plays out as young yet dithering social justice
warriors, jobless and senseless, search for oppression like an old lady with dementia searches
for a purse she hasn't owned in 20 years. As the pundits split hairs, I look on, and it occurs
to me rather simply that right now the pseudo-Left-wing liars aren't quite as good as the
pseudo-Right-wing liars.
Are These Rebels Potential Allies?
When I was around 11 years old, my mother made a new friend, a Scottish woman in her 30s,
who always struck me as very strange. It was her eyes. I didn't know at first what
schizophrenia was, though I would soon find out. One day she arrived at our house and,
recognising her, I opened the door and welcomed her in. I called to my mother, who was
upstairs, and made small talk with the Scottish woman, who, standing still and staring right at
me, seemed perfectly cheerful and articulate. She asked about how I was doing at school, and we
talked a little bit about science, which she seemed to know a lot about. It was only after a
few minutes that I noticed the smell and deduced that the woman had fouled herself. By the time
my mother arrived, the Scottish woman had descended into a stream-of-consciousness gibberish
that culminated in her attempting unsuccessfully to retrieve a knife from the kitchen before
running from the property. She'd simply stopped taking her medication. We later discovered she
was found by police that night, dancing and weeping with bare, bloody feet in a nearby
graveyard, wearing nothing but a nightgown and proclaiming to the dead that she was God,
distraught at the death of the crucified son.
The episode has remained with me now for over two decades, shaping my perceptions of
reality, relationships, and trust. Here it suffices only to remark that the insane talk sense
at times, even as their psyche shatters. And if we dig deeply enough into the statements of
these moderately "awakened" Leftists, do we yet see signs of madness? A look again at the
statement from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), along with some reading
between the lines, suggests something decidedly off . Yes, "biological differentiation
between male and female is a real thing." Of course it is. But so is biological differentiation
between races, and yet here our erstwhile British hardcore materialists, currently led by a
full-blooded ethnic Indian named Harpal Brar , decide to fight against reality.
On that note, we should add that Brar's daughter, Joti Brar, has been announced as George
Galloway's deputy leader at the "hard Brexit and hard labour" Worker's Party of Britain.
Galloway, it's worth adding, has been married four times, with three marriages to non-Whites
(Palestinian Amineh Abu-Zayyad in 1994, Lebanese Rima Husseini in 2007, and ethnic Indonesian
Putri Gayatri Pertiwi in 2012). So for all his protestations of being against mass migration,
one gets the distinct impression that Galloway is a committed multiculturalist and that his
party will be internationalist in every meaningful sense of the term.
If there is any hope for some sanity in this camp of frustrated Leftists it is for the
simple reason that these small new pockets of reason are for the most part free of Jewish
influence and all the intellectual distortions such influence entails. In a 2018 essay titled "
On
"Leftist Anti-Semitism": Past and Present ," I considered the gradual shift of Jews away
from the hard Left due to growing anti-Zionism, and their growing confinement in centrist
neoliberalism:
Jewish blindness to their privileges, genuine or feigned, is of course one major cause for
the undeniable friction between Jews and the modern Left. It was perhaps inevitable that
foolish but earnest egalitarians on the Left would come to the slow realization that their
'comrades of the Jewish faith' were in fact not only elitists, but an elite of a very special
sort. The simultaneous preaching of open borders/common property and 'the land of the Jewish
people' was always going to strike a discordant note among the wearers of sweaty Che Guevara
t-shirts, especially when accompanied so very often by the cacophony of Israeli gunfire and
the screams of bloodied Palestinian children. Mass migration, that well-crafted toxin
coursing through the highways and rail lines of Europe, has proven just as difficult to
manage. Great waves of human detritus wash upon Western shores, bringing raw and passionate
grievances even from the frontiers of Israel. These are people whose eyes have seen behind
the veil, and who sit only with great discomfort alongside the kin of the IDF in league with
the Western political Left -- the only common ground being a shared desire to dispossess the
hated White man. For these reasons, the Left could well become a cold house for Jews without
becoming authentically, systematically, or traditionally anti-Semitic. One might therefore
expect Jews to regroup away from the radical left, occupying a political space best described
as staunchly centrist -- a centrism that leans left only to pursue multiculturalism and other
destructive 'egalitarian' social policies, and leans right only in order to obtain elite
protections and privileges [domestically for the Jewish community, internationally for
Israel]. A centrism based, in that old familiar formula, on 'what is best for Jews.'
As seen in the recent clash between Jews and the UK's Labour Party, the political relocation
of Jews to a kind of amorphous and opportunistic centrism will bring them into direct conflict
with those on the hard Left who not only pursue anti-Zionist politics but also object to
manifestations of raw Jewish power like the mass adoption of the IHRA definition of
anti-Semitism and the economic abuses of politically ambiguous (neither Left nor Right, but
Jewish) oligarchs like Paul Singer. As such, and together with their natural aversion to being
part of the Right, Jews will increasingly find it difficult to define themselves politically as
anything other than Jews, leading to the increased visibility of their activities and interests
-- something witnessed in the unprecedented step of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis openly calling
for British Jews to move against Jeremy Corbyn. This increased visibility can only be a good
thing for those concerned with Jewish influence, and who have been frustrated in previous
periods by Jewish influence masquerading in various political guises.
A potential opportunity, imperfect but perhaps feasible, may therefore be arising whereby
White interests could be subliminally or even publicly defended through savvy, nominally
hard-Left activism against mass migration (on economic rather than racial grounds), against
Israel and international Zionist influence, against some aspects of PC culture, and against the
capitalist excesses of the Jewish vulture funds. It goes without saying that Leftist activists
don't receive anywhere near the same level of social, professional, or legal punishment for
their activism as those on the Right, especially the dissident Right. I don't think I'm too
wide of the mark in suggesting that an anti-immigration agitator with "Workers Party of
Britain" plastered over his social media is less likely to lose his job than someone with
public National Front affiliations. It may therefore be worth serious consideration by young
activists as to whether they might want to cultivate a kind of "Leftist" mask to defend White
interests in much the same way as Jews in the past have adopted various convenient political
masks while concealing deeper ethnic interests. I am suggesting a combination of infiltration
and masquerade. What matters most is the private motivation and the potential benefits of the
ultimate goal -- White interests and objectives serving them.
There are, of course, also dangers in supporting such movements. I am not suggesting the
investment of serious time and money in these groups, since the risk is great that the majority
of their members are committed to a politics that is ultimately antagonistic and destructive to
our own ultimate goals. There is also huge potential for betrayal on many of the issues where
we might have common ground -- immigration, LGBT madness, PC culture -- and I find it difficult
to shake off the impression that these developments bear the mark of a temporary despair and
are designed to dupe blue-collar Whites into voting Left once more.
Still, 2020 may open up a new front in the war, and as the New Year approaches, I'll silence
my inner Schopenhauer and toast to that.
@ Tim #3: Totally. Already, 20% of immigrants voted for Trump. Even somewhere between 12 and
15% of African-American men voted for him. Not because they like him, but because they don't
identify with the rhetoric of the left. And I say this as a longstanding member of the left.
The highly exclusionary mottoes of the various identity-based groups that the Democrats
provide a home for are working against us -- "the future is female," "gender is not binary
and not fixed," "the problem of whiteness," the extreme insistence on equality of outcomes
over equality of opportunity -- these are all pushing parts of the natural Democratic
constituency away and into the arms of the Republicans (or into a stance of not voting at
all).
And the rhetoric around economic issues is not helping either. Voters are not stupid; they
realize that free college, college loan forgiveness, Medicare for all, and massive spending
on housing are not going to happen all at once given the makeup of congress. They are not
hearing enough from the Democratic primary candidates about policy changes that can
realistically happen in the next 4 years.
This stupid idea of "intersectionality" is just a fig leaf on dangerous government policy
Notable quotes:
"... Being labeled a conspiracist is actually not that bad, as probably 80% of major conspiracies (the term invented by CIA to discredit the opposition to Warren commission findings) proved to be the most adequate, albeit "politically incorrect" explanations of the events in question. They are just the explanations that undermine the establishment narrative. Right now most people (around 61% of voters and 71% of independents) believe that CIA operatives at senior levels played active role in JFK assassination. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/ ..."
"... the left, as a movement, is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group, instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as class warfare. ..."
"... The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of widespread dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition" and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development that "only benefits major companies". ..."
"... Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state ideologies that are "rammed down people's throats". According to him, phenomena like LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg and "other -isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality. ..."
"... "Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin explained. ..."
"... 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never been successfully updated for the 21st century ..."
"... similar thoughts in an opinion piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the mainstream left of completely abandoning its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the middle class". ..."
As I see it, intersectionality combines a recognition that people are oppressed both through the economic structures of capitalism
and as members of various subordinate groups with a rejection of both:
"essentialist" identity politics, based on the claim that some particular aspect of identity (gender, race, sexuality,
disability etc) should trump all others; and
"working class" politics, presented as a politics of universal liberation, but reduced by the failure of revolutionary
Marxism to another kind of identity politics (I took this formulation from
Don Arthur on Twitter. I had something
to say about class and Marxism
a while back)
likbez 01.02.20 at 1:11 am (no link)
Jake Gibson 01.01.20 at 3:49 pm @35
Here, I thought likbez was just a social reactionary, now I find he/she is also an infowars style conspiracist.
This is an ad hominem attack and as such is without merits.
Being labeled a conspiracist is actually not that bad, as probably 80% of major conspiracies (the term invented by CIA
to discredit the opposition to Warren commission findings) proved to be the most adequate, albeit "politically incorrect" explanations
of the events in question. They are just the explanations that undermine the establishment narrative. Right now most people (around
61% of voters and 71% of independents) believe that CIA operatives at senior levels played active role in JFK assassination.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
So IMHO if a person views Russiagate as a color revolution against Trump run by intelligence agencies and Ukrainegate as attempt
to replicate 2018 success with Mueller witch hunt on a new level by neoliberal Democrats led by Pelosi and Schumer, this suggests
some attempt of independent thinking, and some level of resistance to neoliberal groupthink. Which may be a bridge too far, but
in general is not that bad, even if wrong.
The opposite camp that does not question the establishment narrative, especially as for Russiagate (and related false flag
operations such as DNC leak converted by Crowdstrike into Russian hack using CIA malware, probably from Vault 7 exposed by Wikileaks
and the creation of Gussifer 2.0 fake personality ) can be called a camp of neoliberal lemmings, or victims of neoliberal brainwashing,
your choice ;-)
Also for an Infowars adept I have friends in strange places -- a faction of Swedish communists -- which somehow managed to
replicate my views almost to a tee ;-)
Almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö are resigning. Instead, they plan establish a new workers' party
that doesn't put as much emphasis on things like multiculturalism, LGBT issues and climate alarmism, which have become the
staples and rallying calls of today's left.
Nils Littorin, one of the defectors, explained to Lokaltidningen that today's left has become part of the elite and has
come to "dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic". Littorin suggested that the left, as a movement,
is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group, instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as
class warfare.
"They don't understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT movement and Greta Thunberg are something
fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s' Germany and that workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been
infected by some Nazi sickness," he explained to Lokaltidningen.
The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of widespread dissatisfaction
with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition" and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development
that "only benefits major companies".
According to Littorin, one of the underlying problems is a "chaotic" immigration policy that has led to cultural clashes,
segregation and exclusion due to an uncontrolled influx from parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan mentalities.
Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state ideologies that are "rammed down
people's throats". According to him, phenomena like LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta
Thunberg and "other -isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality.
"Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily
about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin
explained.
The goal, according to Littorin is to enter Malmö City Council by 2022. The name of the party remains undetermined, but
Littorin stressed that the word "Communist" will no longer be present.
It's a word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In communist parties, there is this risk
of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own
best interests, instead of asking people what they want.
20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never been successfully updated for the 21st century
but has been stuck in 100-year-old books. But the principles that Marx formulated, they still apply to me," Littorin concluded.
Earlier this week, Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party expressed similar thoughts in an opinion
piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the mainstream left of completely abandoning its base , switching
from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the middle class".
"... In my book, I identify two main factors that make the "soft totalitarianism" we're drifting into different from the hard totalitarianism of the communist years. One is the vastly greater capabilities of surveillance technology, and its penetration into daily life in this current stage of capitalism. The other is the pseudo-religion of Social Justice, the holy trinity of which is Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The mathematician James Lindsay last year wrote an insightful essay analyzing Social Justice ideology as a kind of postmodern religion ("faith system," he writes). Reading Slezkine on Bolshevism illuminates this with new depth. ..."
"... To be clear, Social Justice religion is not the same thing as Bolshevism, which conquered a nation and turned it into a charnel house. But the psychological dynamics are so similar that I can understand now why Soviet-bloc emigres feel in their bones that something wicked is coming, and coming fast. ..."
"... The Marxist faith system prophesied a worldwide conflagration -- Revolution -- that would see the saints (the Proletariat) cleanse the world of the wicked (the Bourgeoisie) and their false religion (Capitalism). The Revolution would establish Communism: a paradise in which the state would wither away, because the cause of man's alienation would have been dealt with. Marx despised religion, but he did not believe that his system was religious at all. It was, he taught, entirely scientific -- thus making Marxism entirely compatible with what Enlightenment-era elites believed was the prime source of authority. ..."
"... Here's an interesting difference: from what I can tell, most SJWs don't have a clearly envisioned utopia ..."
"... They don't know; all they know is that these things must come to pass, and will come to pass. We have to first destroy the old world and its corrupt structures. From the point of view of someone who stands to be smashed by these revolutionaries, it doesn't really matter whether or not they have a plan for what to do after you're overthrown. ..."
"... Here's another interesting difference, and an important one: SJWs may want to destroy the oppressive practices, but unlike the Bolsheviks, they don't want to destroy the institutions of society. Rather, they want to conquer them and administer them . The religion of Social Justice has already conquered the university, as James Lindsay points out, and is moving quickly into other institutions: media (the NYT is its Pravda ), law, tech, entertainment, and corporate America. The Social Justice faith system can be easily adapted by the institutions of bourgeois capitalism -- a fact that conceals its radicalism. ..."
"... The people who have lived in societies suffused with this kind of ideology -- emigres from Soviet-bloc countries -- can see through the veil. With this new book I'm working on, I'm going to do my best to help readers see through their eyes. Meanwhile, if you are really interested in the Russian Revolution, I strongly urge you to read The House Of Government -- all 1,128 pages of it. Yuri Slezkine is a masterful storyteller. It reads like a novel. ..."
"... even evil men respect great writers sometimes. ..."
"... The main difference between the Bolsheviks and SJWs is gender and class. ..."
LGBT Pride poster in Soviet Style (
Design
Boom ) I'm reading one of the best books I've ever seen, historian Yuri Slezkine's The House of Government: A Saga of the Russian Revolution . It's a massive
-- over 1,000 pages -- history of the Bolshevik movement, focusing on the people who lived in a vast apartment building constructed
across the Moskva River from the Kremlin, for party elites. In the 1930s, during the purges, it was the most dangerous address in
the country. The secret police came for people there all the time.
The book has given me a breakthrough in understanding why so many people who grew up under communism are unnerved by what's going
on in the West today, even if they can't all articulate it beyond expressing intense but inchoate anxiety about political correctness.
Reading Slezkine , a UC-Berkeley historian, clarifies things
immensely. Let me explain as concisely as I can. All of this is going into the book I'm working on, by the way.
In my book, I identify two main factors that make the "soft totalitarianism" we're drifting into different from the hard totalitarianism
of the communist years. One is the vastly greater capabilities of surveillance technology, and its penetration into daily life in
this current stage of capitalism. The other is the pseudo-religion of Social Justice, the holy trinity of which is Equity, Diversity,
and Inclusion.
The mathematician James Lindsay last year wrote an insightful essay analyzing Social Justice ideology as a kind of postmodern religion
("faith system," he writes). Reading Slezkine on Bolshevism illuminates this with new depth.
To be clear, Social Justice religion is not the same thing as Bolshevism, which conquered a nation and turned it into a charnel
house. But the psychological dynamics are so similar that I can understand now why Soviet-bloc emigres feel in their bones that something
wicked is coming, and coming fast.
I'm going to give a brief overview of the ideas in this part of Slezkine's book. Slezkine describes the Bolsheviks as "millenarian
sectarians preparing for the apocalypse." He gives a short history of apocalyptic sects, which he said began in the
Axial Age , the period between the 8th and the 3rd centuries
BC that saw parallel developments in civilizations -- Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Greco-Roman -- that caused a fundamental shift
in human consciousness. The Axial Age introduced some concepts that are still with us today, including the idea that history is linear.
Religion and philosophical systems of the Axial Age developed a sense of separation from the Real (that is, what is material), and
the Ideal (what is transcendent). They also introduced the idea that time would culminate in a final battle between Good and Evil
that would result in the End of History and the everlasting reign of Justice. The rich will be conquered, and the poor will triumph.
Slezkine writes at some length about these themes in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but points out that they also existed in
parallel in other religions of the era. The two Abrahamic religions that emerged from Axial Age Judaism -- Christianity and Islam
-- modified these same concepts for themselves. The Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible is the standard Western account of
the Apocalypse, but not the only one.
In the 16th century, the radical Protestant theologian
Thomas Müntzer , leader of an apocalyptic Reformation sect, led an armed revolt against the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, and
feudal authority. He and his followers believed the Last Days were upon the world, and that revolutionary violence was necessary
to prepare for them.
These movements, says Slezkine, often depend on the virtuous mutually surveilling each other to keep everyone in line. Calvin's
Geneva was like this, and had laws prescribing the death penalty for relatively minor violations of its purity code. In the 17th
century, the English Puritan movement under Thomas Oliver [the mistake was mine --
RD] Cromwell (the "Puritan Moses") was in this same vein.
The Enlightenment birthed apocalyptic millenarianism without God. Slezkine doesn't mention him, but I want to put in a plug for
the book Black Mass by the English political philosopher John Gray,
which I wrote about here. Gray
is an atheist, but he cannot stand the militant atheism of people like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. In the
book, Gray writes about how the instinct for utopia, born out of religion, keeps surfacing in the West, even without God. Nothing
is more human, he writes, than to be prepared to kill and die to secure meaning in life. More Gray:
Those who demand that religion be exorcised from politics think this can be achieved by excluding traditional faiths from public
institutions; but secular creeds are formed from religious concepts, and suppressing religion does not mean it ceases to control
thinking and behaviour. Like repressed sexual desire, faith returns, often in grotesque forms, to govern the lives of those who
deny it.
Slezkine writes that this same apocalyptic millenarianism erupted in anti-Christian form in the French Revolution. The Jacobins
were Enlightenment apocalyptics, believing in the triumph of Reason, Science, and Virtue. And they were proto-Bolsheviks. Robespierre,
in a 1794 speech to the National Assembly, praised "virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is
impotent. The Terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue."
In 19th century America, millenarianism took more gentle forms, but was still popular. Baptist preacher
William Miller prophesied the end of the world
in 1843, and reached a national audience with his forecast of doom. It didn't happen, but his work gave rise to the Adventist movements,
which are still with us today. Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter-Day Saints faith, was another millenarian -- a more successful
one.
Slezkine says that apocalyptic millenarianism in 19th century Europe often took the form of nationalism. Karl Marx advocated German
nationalism as the first step in the worldwide communist revolution. Following Hegel, History was Marx's god. Slezkine:
[F]aith in progress is just as basic to modernity as the Second Coming was to Christianity ('progressive' means 'virtuous'
and 'change' means 'hope'). 'Totalitarianism' is not a mysterious mutation: it is a memory and a promise; an attempt to keep hope
alive.
By "totalitarianism," he means the system by which apocalyptic millenarians enforce the conditions they believe will constitute
the New Jerusalem -- the utopia in which their sect believes.
The Marxist faith system prophesied a worldwide conflagration -- Revolution -- that would see the saints (the Proletariat)
cleanse the world of the wicked (the Bourgeoisie) and their false religion (Capitalism). The Revolution would establish Communism:
a paradise in which the state would wither away, because the cause of man's alienation would have been dealt with. Marx despised
religion, but he did not believe that his system was religious at all. It was, he taught, entirely scientific -- thus making Marxism
entirely compatible with what Enlightenment-era elites believed was the prime source of authority.
In Russia of the late 19th century, there was a great deal of apocalyptic fervor, and, of course, a number of Marxist and other
left-wing revolutionary groups. The Bolsheviks were the most ruthless and disciplined of them all. Slezkine says it doesn't matter
whether the faith of the Bolsheviks was really a religion or not. The fact is, it functioned like one. If religion is a set of agreements
about sacred realities, though sacred realities believed to be objectively true, and the community organized around those beliefs,
then every state on earth is religious. The Bolshevik "faith" united people, focused them around what Slezkine calls "the ultimate
conditions of their existence," and told them what they had to do.
For the pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks, the priests and the prophets were their intellectuals, who were "religious about being secular."
Writes Slezkine: "A conversion to socialism was a conversion to the intelligentsia, to a fusion of millenarian faith and lifelong
learning."
The Bolshevik faith was initially spread among the intellectuals primarily through reading groups. Once you adopted the Marxist
faith, everything else in life became illuminated. The intellectuals went into the world to preach religion to the workers. These
missionaries, says Slezkine, appealed to and tried to intensify hatred in the hearts of their listeners. They spoke to the moral
sense within the common people, and gave them what, if taken in a strictly religious sense, would be called prophetic revelations.
The pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks denounced "Philistines" -- people who are sunk in their everydayness, and lack revolutionary
consciousness. It is chilling to read the lines of description they had for people like this. Slezkine calls the Philistines the
"stock antipode of the intelligent" -- that is, the kind of person that a member of the intelligentsia saw as his exact opposite.
In pre-revolutionary Russia, the intelligentsia saw themselves as a kind of secular priesthood. The way they wrote about their enemies,
and the way they rhapsodized about revolution, was utterly fanatical and inhuman. Slezkine:
The revolutionaries were going to prevail because of the sheer power of their hatred. It cleansed the soul and swelled like
the flood of the real day.
The "real day" is the day of Apocalypse, when the truth is fully made manifest, and all evil, injustice, and lies are cleansed
from the earth. It would come about through "sacred fury." Slezkine quotes Bolshevik memoirs recalling the revolutionary days of
1917-18. Pure ecstasy, like the day of Pentecost in the New Testament.
Slezkine draws this interesting distinction:
Marx and Engels were not utopians – they were prophets. They did not talk about what a perfect system of social order should
be and how and why it should be adopted or tested; they knew with absolute certainty that it was coming – right now, all by itself,
and thanks to their words and deeds.
The Bolsheviks, however, did have a complex plan for creating utopia. Reading Slezkine, you can't help but be impressed by the
power and discipline that Lenin and his lieutenants exercised. He was one of the most evil men who ever lived, Lenin -- Slezkine's
accounts of Bolshevik mass murder of class enemies on Lenin's orders make Robespierre's bloodthirstiness seem like amateur hour.
But he was a true revolutionary genius.
For young people in pre-revolutionary Russia, being part of these leftist groups "gave one a great sense of purpose, power, and
belonging." Note this: one reason for the advance of revolutionary consciousness is that parents, despite depending on the stability
of Tsarist autocracy, would not turn away from their radicalized children. Slezkine: "The 'students' were almost always abetted at
home while still in school and almost never damned when they became revolutionaries."
Bolshevism in power tried to destroy the traditional family, seeing it as an incubator of capitalism. Slezkine writes about how
this form of Bolshevik radicalism had to give way to a more conservative ideology of the family, because it caused problems that
Soviet society could not deal with.
In power, Bolsheviks carried out apocalyptic destruction of the old order, including the mass murder of class enemies. I have
just now arrived at the point in Slezkine's narrative in which he describes the "Great Disappointment" -- a term (borrowed from the
Millerites) for the experience of the New Jerusalem not having arrived as promised. As I understand it, Slezkine will describe the
homicidal spasms of the 1930s, under Stalin, as the vengeful Bolshevik reaction to utopia's failure. Utopia can only have failed
because its proselytes were weak in faith -- and therefore deserve to be punished for their infidelity.
So, what does this have to do with our own Social Justice Warriors? There are clear parallels. Again, I encourage you to read
James Lindsay's
analysis of the postmodern faith system of Social Justice for more. I believe that this is what those who lived under communism
intuit from the Social Justice Warriors -- I mean, why it frightens them:
Like the early Bolsheviks, the SJWs are radically alienated from society. They regard ordinary people as the intelligents
regarded the so-called Philistines: with visceral contempt.
Justice depends on group identity. For Marxists, the line between Good and Evil ran between classes: the Proletariat and the Peasants
on one side, the Bourgeoisie on the other. Marxism sees justice as entirely a matter of taking power away from the Bourgeoisie, and
giving it to the revolutionary classes. Some in the bourgeoisie acquired revolutionary consciousness, and aided the Revolution.
Similarly, for the SJWs, the line also passes between groups, based on group identity. The Oppressors are whites, males, capitalists,
heterosexuals, and Christians. The Oppressed are ethnic minorities, women, anti-capitalists, LGBTs, atheists, and other "marginalized"
people. Justice is about taking power from the Oppressors and giving it to the Oppressed. Some among the Oppressors acquire revolutionary
consciousness and aid the revolution; they are called "allies," and practice "allyship."
Social Justice Warriors, like the early Bolsheviks, are intellectuals whose gospel is spread by intellectual agitation. It is
a gospel that depends on awakening and inspiring hatred in the hearts of those it wishes to induce into revolutionary consciousness.
This is why it matters immensely that they have established their base within universities, where they can train those who will be
going out to work in society's institutions in
ideologized hatred.
SJWs believe that science is on their side, even when their claims are unscientific. They are doing the old post-Enlightenment
utopian trick of making essentially religious claims, but claiming that they are objectively true. Quote from a Times story:
"We're all born nonbinary. We learn gender."
Our talk shifted again from the past to the future. Jacobs spoke about foreseeing a time when people passing each other on
the street wouldn't immediately, unconsciously sort one another into male or female, which even Jacobs reflexively does. "I don't
know what genders are going to look like four generations from now," they added, allowing that they might sound utopian, naïve.
"I think we're going to perceive each other as people. The classifications we live under will fall by the wayside."
Among the voices of the young, there are echoes and amplifications of Jacobs's optimism, along with the stories of private
struggle. "There are as many genders as there are people," Emmy Johnson, a nonbinary employee at Jan Tate's clinic, told me with
earnest authority. Johnson was about to sign up for a new dating app that caters to the genderqueer. "Sex is different as a nonbinary
person," they said. "You're free of gender roles, and the farther you can get from those scripts, the better sex is going to be."
Their tone was more triumphal: the better life is going to be. "The gender boxes are exploding," they declared.
In the case of transgender SJWs, parents can become the greatest advocates for their children, as in pre-revolutionary Russia
with the radical youth. A distressed parent of a female-to-male transgender told me that in her child's high school, the pressure
on parents from other parents to suppress all doubts about transgenderism was intense. Here, from that same NYT Magazine piece
I quote above, is another anecdote:
Kai grew up in the Maryland suburbs outside Washington; both his parents are economists. He came out to them as genderqueer
a year and a half ago, and they, as he put it, were willing "to step through the door" he held wide for them, the door into his
way of seeing himself. They read a piece of creative writing he gave them, a meditation using Dadaism to explicate the nonsense
of either-or. His mother asked if she could buy him new clothes. "Shopping for clothes was something we'd always done," he said.
"It was her way of saying, 'I want to keep being part of your life.' That was really stepping through the door. And then, all
the nerve-rackingness of shopping in the men's section of a department store and trying on pants and worrying about how people
are looking at you and reading your gender, it would have been really hard to do on my own. But my mother was there. Just like
when we'd shopped together before. And that made it normal."
Here's an interesting difference: from what I can tell, most SJWs don't have a clearly envisioned utopia. What will the world
look like when whiteness is once and for all defeated? When toxic masculinity has been fully vanquished? And so forth. They don't
know; all they know is that these things must come to pass, and will come to pass. We have to first destroy the old world and its
corrupt structures. From the point of view of someone who stands to be smashed by these revolutionaries, it doesn't really matter
whether or not they have a plan for what to do after you're overthrown.
Here's another interesting difference, and an important one: SJWs may want to destroy the oppressive practices, but unlike the
Bolsheviks, they don't want to destroy the institutions of society. Rather, they want to conquer them and administer them . The religion
of Social Justice has already conquered the university, as James Lindsay points out, and is moving quickly into other institutions:
media (the NYT is its Pravda ), law, tech, entertainment, and corporate America. The Social Justice faith system can be easily
adapted by the institutions of bourgeois capitalism -- a fact that conceals its radicalism.
The people who have lived in societies suffused with this kind of ideology -- emigres from Soviet-bloc countries -- can see through
the veil. With this new book I'm working on, I'm going to do my best to help readers see through their eyes. Meanwhile, if you are
really interested in the Russian Revolution, I strongly urge you to read The House Of Government -- all 1,128 pages of it.
Yuri Slezkine is a masterful storyteller. It reads like a novel.
I cannot believe you, Rod. You cannot keep this up. You post twice as much as anyone else at AC, even more than the manic Trump-hating
machine (I mention NO names). Go to bed, please. The only reason I'm still up (just an hour ahead of LA) is...well...never
mind.
___
...but reading this (just getting started) reminds me that Bulgakov, author of The Master and Margarita was, allegedly,
protected by Stalin, even though Stalin knew he was writing it. Maybe your friend, Prufrock, mentioned that recently. Either
he or someone else I follow observed that even evil men respect great writers sometimes.
The main difference between the Bolsheviks and SJWs is gender and class.
The Bolsheviks may have been led by intellectuals, but they did have genuine support among much of the industrial working
class, especially the workers of Petrograd, the Latvian riflemen, as well as ethnic minorities in the Russian empire. The fact
that they were utterly hated by much of the peasantry for their grain collection and collectivization efforts should not obscure
that they did have a base of support within the proletariat.
The Bolsheviks were also an (almost) entirely male group. SJWs on the other hand are disproportionately female, sometimes
radically so. Both of these factors mean that the potential of SJWs for mass revolutionary violence is probably relatively
low. Of course, they can still harm society in other ways, but I doubt we will ever see an SJW version of Stalin or Che.
In some ways, the SJWs represent the hollowness of the modern left. There had always been vegans, sexual utopians, and organic
fruit drinkers on the left, but at least in the past this bohemian influence had been tempered by trade unions and fraternal
organizations of working class men. Now, it's bohemian hipster silliness all the way down.
While you may be correct about the potential for specifically revolutionary violence, that does not mean we cannot end up living
under a repressive regime. Writing the neo-Bolsheviks off as "silly" is to gravely underestimate the potential consequences
of their seizure of our civic institutions.
Yes, we may find them intellectually unserious. They probably are, after all. That doesn't mean that they themselves are
not deadly serious in their beliefs, however. Just because you don't share their irrational faith doesn't mean that you can't
be forced to live according to its dictates should they gain enough power.
I wouldn't refer to vegans as "bohemians". If anything the program strikes me as decidedly ascetic, and one of the few such
instances in modern culture.
I believe that any group, once its members become convinced that they are saving the world and that anyone in their way is
The Enemy to be Destroyed, can move into engaging in mass murder. Don't forget that the progressives of yesteryear not only
supported the Bolsheviks, but every other communist movement and not only being morally superior, but superior in every other
way, too.
Read back issues of Sojourners after the Vietnam War ended. Jim Wallis either denies that mass executions were taking place
or he hints that maybe those being executed deserved their fate. He also refused to condemn the murderous destruction of Cambodia
while it was going on. I believe that it is only one step that a lot of these people have to take before they descend into
the hell of mass killing.
Its Dostoevskys Demons that is the most insightful work from/about Russia on the psychology of political fanatics: Bolshevism,
SJW, etc are all illumined by his masterpiece more so than analogies between social-political systems with very different etiologies.
Could't agree more. The similarities of both branches of totalitarianism are staggering. Couple of points:
In Russia of the late 19th century, there was a great deal of apocalyptic fervor, and, of course, a number of Marxist and
other left-wing revolutionary groups. The Bolsheviks were the most ruthless and disciplined of them all. Slezkine says it
doesn't matter whether the faith of the Bolsheviks was really a religion or not. The fact is, it functioned like one.
1) Bolsheviks didn't exist in 19th century. Bolsheviks faction of RSDRP - Russian social-democratic party was formed in
1903. They were not the most ruthless either - there were many other vicious parties and groups, more violent and outright
crazy.
2) Revolutionaries in Russia acted like religious fanatics and did't hesitate to use Religious terminology either. Take
the infamous 1869 "The Catechism of a Revolutionary" by Sergey Nechayev:
The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the
bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all
its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order
to destroy them more speedily
Lenin adored the man.
Dostoevsky's "Demons" were inspired by Nechayev and his followers.
People on the liberal end of the spectrum regularly tell each other horror stories about how conservatives are just like fascists
and draw parallels and so forth. There's a theory about authoritarian mindsets. And if you hang around comment sections on
the political right you will see dehumanizing rhetoric about the left.
Probably everybody is right about the terribleness of the Other political tribes.
The problem with that is that conservatives want to actually conserve the institutions and sensibilities that have served as
the foundation of our civilization for centuries.
The Left wants to tear everything down because it feels good in the moment, damn the ultimate consequences, which more often
than not, are negative.
They did it in Russia a century ago, and their spiritual heirs are doing it again here.
There is a lot in Slezkine's book which is quite interesting, but a lot more which is merely tedious. Rod does us a big favor
with this Reader's Digest version.
The Year of Big Russian Books! Currently reading the newly translated Stalingrad by Grossman, to be followed by its
better-known sequel Life and Fate . Now this. Oy vey!
Seriously though, this looks amazing.
This is what I was getting at the other day when I said on another thread that SJW-ism is fundamentalist. It's not actually
Bolshie, because it stems too much from a godless version of Yankee Puritanism. But the parallels are definitely there.
I stumbled into the book because I had to make the 8-hour drive to Dallas, and was looking for a book on tape. Our local library
had it available through the streaming app Libby. I had meant to read it earlier in my research, but was intimidated by its
size. However, sitting in one spot for 16 hours over the course of a weekend, it's more approachable. On audiobook, it's 45
hours long! I ended up buying a paperback copy so I can continue. I'll be going to Russia next week, and might bring it with
me.
Fr Seraphim Rose was writing and warning 40-50 years ago about precisely this phenom coming to America -- obviously not with
prophetic specificity concerning the LGBT agenda, etc., -- the essentially religious aspect of secular millennialist movements,
tracing them to the Anabaptist uprisings, the French Revolution, etc. Have you read his slim book 'Nihilism'?
"they don't want to destroy the institutions of society. Rather, they want to conquer them and administer them"
Yes, that is the brilliant insight of the SJW and the modern left: No need to abolish capitalism, just get all the jobs in
the HR department so you can indoctrinate all the employees.
Good insight about the apocalyptic style of the SJW. They indeed look for the progressive Son of Man from Heaven so to speak,
who will lay the ax to the old tree of white/Christian/hetero culture and cast the bad fruit into the fire. Escape this via
the Benedict Option? "Who said you could flee from the coming wrath?", their prophets will ask.
What an absurd claim. Fox News is much more akin to Pravda than the NYT ever would be. Fox literally runs non-stop propaganda
for the president and attempts to cover for his corruption. NYT has never had that kind of relationship with any president
that we know of. Hosts on Fox have massive conflicts of interest which they don't report (Hannity and his use of Cohen as his
private lawyer). That is what a Pravda looks like.
Look, I'm a paid subscriber to the Times. I have to read it for the same reason Kremlinologists had to read Pravda. It really
is Pravda for the Social Justice faith system.
That you are this myopic regarding the Times makes Rod's point about Pravda better than he did.
If you think the Times, or their writers and editors, has no conflict of interests, then there is no hope for you.
Seriously.
You're right. I changed it. What's so funny is that as I was up late last night writing that post, I was thinking about a book
Prof. Tighe sent me this year about Thomas Cromwell. I told myself to be sure not to make the mistake of putting Thomas's name
where Oliver's should be. And I made that very mistake!
I was going to point that out but figured someone else had beaten me to it.
The two Cromwells were akin (Thomas was a collateral ancestor to Oliver) but they were as different as could be. Thomas was
a political nihilist who did whatever Henry VIII wanted, until he failed to anticipate the mercurial monarch and lost his head.
Oliver was a bit of a fanatic, though with a few decent instincts (he stopped the looting of the royal tombs, and saved Westminster
Abbey from demolition).
Criticism of ideologies that embody millenarianism without God is all well and good. The problem is that the various politically
conservative ideologies that also nominally orient themselves around a Judeo-Christian worldview consistently turn a blind
eye to grave evils committed by members of the societal elites, in the name of whatever political and economic ideology they
support instead.
There is an absence of a courageously prophetic stand for truth and justice on the part of Christian elites and intellectuals.
It so happens that many of the parties making such critiques adhere to an ideology embodying secular messianism, and this is
then employed as a rationalization by Christian intellectuals to turn a blind eye to the evils in question in the service of
their own pet political ideology.
Here are ongoing examples right now, picked almost at random, where such a prophetic witness is lacking:
- The ongoing slaughter and mass starvation in Yemen being caused by Saudi Arabia, and supported by the United States
- The betrayal of the Kurds (if being true to the promises made to them must come at the expense of American geopolitical interests,
then this is what the Christian moral witness necessitates)
- The ongoing criminal violation of anti-trust laws by the medical industry involved in their refusal to make public the costs
of their services
- The homicidal criminality of the Boeing executives who knowingly put a death-trap airliner into global circulation
- The homicidal drug-dealing criminality of pharmaceutical company executives who knowingly caused the opoiod crisis by employing
a business model built on deliberately addicting people
Secular messianism would lose a lot of its appeal and raison d'etre if the Christian intelligentsia would take from the
secular messianists, and take upon themselves, the task of prophetically denouncing the criminality routinely engaged in by
their society's power elite.
No one is bearing prophetic witness to those things, to use your term. Only a few Cassandras here and there. It's not just
our Christian elites that fail here, it's all of them, left, right and center.
A picture is worth a thousand words. While it used to be that Communists were demeaned by associating with homosexuality, now
homosexuals are demeaned by association with communism.
He wasn't as crazy as, say, the Fifth Monarchy Men, but he did impose draconian moral regulations and he left his tolerance
at home when he went to Ireland.
Oliver Cromwell wasn't so tolerant if you were Catholic or Irish or worked in the theater; and he was less tolerant and liberal
than Charles I (who was executed) or Charles II, who thankfully ended the Puritan reign after Cromwell's death.
Well, he was more tolerant of Catholics than a lot of Catholics were of Protestants at the time (cf. massacres of Protestants
in Ulster--let along continental Europe--and Cromwell's actions with respect to Maryland), more tolerant than his predecessors
toward Jews, and more respectful of free conscience than most of his contemporaries. Anyway, my point is not that he was a
saint or some kind of liberal before his time; just that he doesn't deserve to be categorized with Bolsheviks and Jacobins.
A Soviet emigre myself, I would like to point out that there is a silver lining here. Totalitarian ideologists may very well
succeed at capturing power and inflict immeasurable harm on the societies they control. But the structures they erect will
ultimately fall apart due to the major flaw of totalitarian / mythological thought: its denial of reality. The Nazis attacked
the Soviet Union (whose totalitarianism was more beningn for its victim groups than the future envisaged by the Nazis for their
racial enemies, though) believing they would be invincible because of their racial superiority. The Soviet Union entered an
arms race with the United States believing its economy would be able to sustain it. If Post-Marxism succeeds at consolidating
its power, its eventual downfall is virtually assured, too. Let's hope, it won't take 70 years.
Here's another interesting difference, and an important one: SJWs may want to destroy the oppressive practices, but unlike
the Bolsheviks, they don't want to destroy the institutions of society. Rather, they want to conquer them and administer
them. The religion of Social Justice has already conquered the university, as James Lindsay points out, and is moving quickly
into other institutions: media (the NYT is its Pravda), law, tech, entertainment, and corporate America. The Social Justice
faith system can be easily adapted by the institutions of bourgeois capitalism -- a fact that conceals its radicalism.
Does id-pol's total congruence with massive multinational consumer capitalism "conceal its radicalism," or does it rather
point up the insane radicalism of global consumer capitalism? Western conservatives who embraced the free market out of fear
of communism embraced something that is, or at least has the potential to be, as radical as communism is.
Identity politics are *the* way to manage and administer global consumer capitalist organizations and societies, since they
function as a way of rendering populations legible to technocrats and unseen, unaccountable, untouchable administrators who
work on computers, with spreadsheets. People can now be databased, can be put into "relational databases" and characterized
with algorithm-friendly descriptors. People are rendered text-searchable; people are catalogued the same way a multinational
corporation catalogues its products and the different pieces/ingredients components of each product.
Identity politics are ideal for global consumer capitalism for a number of other reasons, too. For one thing, they disintegrate
ties of solidarity between members of families and between citizens of nations, and disintegrate historical communities as
well, and even social or economic classes, by prioritizing market segmentation into discrete categories based on *self-creation*
or self-satisfaction. For example, sexual identity -- sexual identity categories are aggressively emphasized because these
are categories based on individual desire and appetites, and a sort of self-idealization.* And the emphasis on migrants/immigrants
being superior or ideal members of a community because they *chose* to be where they are, they chose to move, rather than just
staying where they were born.** But even market segmentation based on tastes like "I enjoy comedies" or "I enjoy tearjerkers"
or "I like fantasy video games" vs. "I like first-person shooter games" is a form is categorization and disintegration based
on personal preference and tastes. The point is that unchosen bonds or ties, and relational bonds or ties or classes, are to
be disintegrated in favor of self-chosen self-actualizing categories.
(*Identity politics so loves and adores sexual identity "diversity" that it tolerates a particularly wide range of sexual
self-categorization, 88 genders and 256 orientations or whatever, because what it loses in algorithmic legibility it gains
in the sheer power of liberationist sexual self-identification to explode unchosen and strong affiliative bonds in favor of
a radically atomized and self-focused individual, a perfect foot soldier with absolutely no counter-loyalties to anything other
than the idpol regime/ideology.)
(**Note that both establishment Democrats AND establishment Republicans enthusiastically push and promote this idea that
the person born on the other side of the world who moves to America tomorrow is BETTER and MORE AMERICAN than somebody who
was born here, because of the active *choice* to come to the USA rather than just be some loser non-"dynamic" non-"innovative"
schmuck who happened to be born within the country's borders and thus deserves no credit or regard whatsoever.)
As identity politics disintegrates unchosen and God-given bonds and ties and relational categories, in favor of "self-directed"
"self-chosen" legible identity markers, it renders traditional left-wing goals and causes related to class solidarity and economic
equality toothless and impotent, riven to pieces by the progressive stack; the solidarity that can sustain a picket line is
shredded to pieces by the narcissistic self-created individual, who tells himself that he is BETTER than the picketers because
whereas they call the strike-breakers "scabs," he sees them as morally superior and he would never be so mean and cruel as
to dehumanize them in that way. Of course, the scabs are in actual truth meaningless to him except as symbols of his own superior
moral worth, and the picketers are equally meaningless to him because he has no class solidarity and never subordinates himself
willingly to the group on a class basis. He would far rather enjoy the narcissistic satisfaction of publishing a thinkpiece,
for pennies, about how dehumanizing the language of "scabs" is, with his name on it, with his sheer goodness visible to all,
than engage in the kind of class solidaristic activity that would mean subordination to a larger group of people some of whom
are probably hopelessly behind the times in their thinking.
Identity politics were deployed during Occupy Wall Street to neuter it and they have been utilized by both the Democratic
and Republican establishments to dissolve populations of problematic subjects into naked individuals atomized and self-actualized
into totally dependent subjects of the system. Kevin Williamson and National Review telling problematically non-libertarian
poor whites to sever ties with their communities and their homes, to "get a U-Haul" and go where the market wants them. Hillary
Clinton saying "if we break up the big banks, will that end sexism? Will that end racism? Will that end homophobia?" Both National
Review and Hillary Clinton want the atomized individual completely subject to money power, to the capitalists, to the financial
class; National Review tells *its* audience that true conservatism, morality, and Christianity all demand it; Hillary Clinton
tells her audience that true morality, progressivism, and liberality demand back-burnering systematic economic and political
change of the kind that is national in character and requires class solidarity-- in favor of instead focusing on deliberately
vague and endless efforts to stop "sexism" and "homophobia" and "racism" that of course will always have to be priorities forever
since these things can never end as the idpol advocates themselves admit and which will be attempted via the policing and targeting
and harrassment of ALL, including the poor, by ideological commissars and apparatchiks. The government/the demos/the state
is not to be trained on the billionaires, to tackle them or correct them, but on all of us--WE are the problem. A politics
of petty bureaucrats, snitches, informants, ideological policemen -- again, a politics that SEVERS ties and bonds between people
in favor of the atomized and legible individual, the row of Excel spreadsheet column signifiers on some technocrats' massive
file of humans rendered legible to the algorithm.
Identity politics is global consumer capitalism and the fact that neither establishment liberals nor conservatives can accept
this since it shows that each is actually a lie and the opposite of what it pretends to be is why the whole system is felt
to be both untouchably strong/unassailable and liable to full and total and sudden collapse. What does "The End of History"
mean if not that there aren't really contesting/opposing powers anymore, that there isn't actually any more real conflict?
On Day One in creative writing class you learn that there is no story, no narrative, at all, if there is no conflict.
Occupy did a pretty good job of neutering itself, rejecting any form of coherent leadership and spending its days in a drum-banging
pot smoking daze. Wayne and Garth do political protest.
Identity politics are *the* way to manage and administer global consumer capitalist organizations and societies, since they
function as a way of rendering populations legible to technocrats
You could expand this into a pretty good follow-up to James C. Scott's "Seeing like a state" (if you will, "Seeing like
a Social Justice Technocrat"), which presents the art of making unruly populations "legible" as the central concern of modern
statecraft. There's an interesting difference between your argument and his, though: where you argue that the current version
prefers people who are mobile and unattached to any particular location, Scott argues that "nomads and pastoralists (such as
Berbers and Bedouins), hunter-gatherers, Gypsies, vagrants, homeless people, itinerants, runaway slaves, and serfs have always
been a thorn in the side of states. Efforts to permanently settle these mobile peoples (sedentarization) seemed to be a perennial
state project". Basically, the only way to make populations legible was to make them stay put. I guess that changed.
This is an interesting point. I would say that consumer capitalism cares little about nomads, vagrants, homeless people, etc.,
because there's no money in them. Why should consumer capitalism care about them? It feels no loyalty to a specific community
and its people; it feels no loyalty to those who happen to exist somewhere in its proximity; it has no use for them. I mean,
Seeing Like A State is written from a Cold War perspective, when American cities had real, serious problems with criminal activity
from poor and marginal people, and it was affecting even the upper middle class and the rich. But the Cold War ended, and at
basically exactly the same time things started to improve in American cities (the ones that matter, anyway, like NYC and Washington
DC).
Maybe Seeing Like A State is more concerned with the way a more robustly national -- that is, not completely globalist --
elite or ruling class conducts itself, but here at The End of History, I'm not sure things are the same. If vagrants, homeless
people, itinerants, etc. are not terribly legible, nobody cares, because they aren't worth anything anyway. They don't buy
things, they can't be farmed for debt payments, and they probably can't even be used effectively as vote banks.
Conversely, the middle-class single man or woman whose job is everything to him or her and who conspicuously consumes --
*this* is where the money is. The single person whose entire lifestyle is about consumption -- the right foods, the right products,
travel, clothes, etc. -- and whose entire focus is on their career -- this is the ideal for the multinational corporation.
Any roots, or ties to specific places or communities, will interfere with this ideal specimen's total devotion to and capture
by consumerism.
I guess what I'm saying is there's "Seeing Like A State," and then there's Seeing Like a Multinational Corporation, or a
globalist organization. The former might want itinerants to plunk down somewhere. The latter knows that there's no real escape
*physically*, nowhere "out of reach" short of going into outer space, and that the more people get moved around the more shorn
they are of particularist, illegible-to-the-market bonds, ties, and obligations.
One can understand the appeal of Marxism, and to a greater degree socialism. The pseudo-spiritual parallel of "the last will
be first" akin to Christianity is perhaps the greatest attractor to the social justice minded individual. While I don't think
we will experience anything like revolutionary Russia in this country, I truly feel there are similarities to our present day.
Namely, the envy and vindictiveness which has become so commonplace in our daily lives. There is a general anxiety and anger
out there which is manifesting itself through economic realities such as the growing wealth gap. You combine this with the
growing aversion to institutions such as the family and religion which are purveyors of traditional hierarchy, and this is
laying the foundation for the far-left in this country to essentially weaponize their ideology on to a younger generation.
And just like the Bolsheviks, it is all centered in envy, vindictiveness, anger and bloodthirsty want of power in order to
bring about a utopia where the last will now be first. That was marxist communism, and as Rod continues to point out, these
components are slowly revealing themselves in a soft totalitarianism through which the invocation of "science" is being used
to chip away at civic virtue, decency and the greater public good. There are indeed parallels to revolutionary Russia.
Thanks for pointing this out. The "last shall be first" end-point is exactly the inverted hierarchy of the SJW.
So what are we saying? We're not supposed to take it literally? We don't really mean it? That the whole "Blessed are the
poor.".. ends with an Emily Littela "Never mind"? Or is it just that we want to get there on our own bus... With our own idea
of who is marginalized?
Everyone wants their own personal Jesus I guess.
BTW - by the way, I think one of the weakest components of Rod's thesis is the refusal to weigh the power of industrial,
finance and late-stage capitalism and it's corollary effects on culture. Unless one is willing to conflate Liberalism with
Capitalism there is no excuse for ignoring its overwhelming impact on culture and civic morality.
Show's what you know. I'm devoting an entire chapter to Woke Capitalism, and how so many conservatives are blind to the threat
from it because we are programmed by our past to think of the State as the only threat.
I'm chuckling here for a number of reasons. I am pleased and apprehensive at the same time.
I may be wrong but I was thinking this just before you responded. The reason you guys - conservatives and traditionalists
- lost was because while your side was investing in retrograde politicians, megachurches and tv evangelists; gold as a great
investment; guns and prepper equipment the secularists were investing in publishing, movies, film, literature, art, technology
and education, i.e, mass media.
It had nothing to do with ideology. It was that nihilistic value-engine, corporate America, commoditizing and monetizing
everything from Air Jordans to pornography to in vitro fertilization - all of it. Daniel Bell was talking about this back in
the 70's but you know this. It wasn't "woke" Capitalism that did this. It was just that good ole American capitalism chipping
away at the culture dollar by dollar - along with all those concomitant trends in marketing, industrialization, communications,
rural to urban and suburban migrations, etc.
You guys not only put your eggs in the wrong baskets but you gave them to the Republican Party, who cheered it on; "What's
good for GM is good for America". By the time FOX rolled around it was too late. That's why the party had to spend so much
time over the last couple decades on gerrymandering, voter suppression and r*tf&*$king election tactics.
"Woke" Capitalism is what happens when you pay attention to the wrong stuff and end up losing every battle before this one.
I'll be interested in what you have to say in the new book. Good luck with it.
The Bolsheviks only came to power because Russia had been ruled by incompetents for time out of mind, and things fell apart
badly during the debacle of WWI. Radicals of both Left and Right we shall always have with us. They will not be a threat as
long as our leaders are reasonably capable, government is somewhere within hailing distance of popular consensus, and no external
catastrophe sinks us.
Here's an interesting difference: from what I can tell, most SJWs don't have a clearly envisioned utopia. What will the
world look like when whiteness is once and for all defeated?
Many of us can thank God, then, that SJW's understand and accept the carcinogenic risks of tanning booths.
I understand the parallels, and you do a good job of explaining them. But it seems a little forced. Cutting to the basic difference
- the Bolsheviks were more than prepared to use violence, terror and intimidation to crush the old order, techniques used on
a scale rarely if ever seen before in human history, over decades. I just can't see SJWs (of which I have a couple of sympathizers
in my immediate family) getting to grips with the business end of an assault rifle or concentration camp. To me, they seem
just another group of middle class nags, wokier-than-though types who are more likely to irritate me to death than actually
kill me for believing the wrong things. Although the image of drag queen story hour with added Kalashnikovs and gallows does
have a certain dark, Pythonesque appeal.
Point of interest, do you have a vision of what it be like if whiteness is once and for defeated. You should have a vision
so that you can point out the ultimate horror of what they want to achieve. I never really bought into the SJW conspiracy but
reading more of your posts I am rethinking this issue. Still not convinced it is a movement with any staying power.
The difference is that there's no such thing as soft totalitarianism.
All totalitarianism is hard. What you call "soft totalitarianism" is simply a set of social ethics you don't like, that
make life uncomfortable for people with a very different set of social ethics. In other words, it's the price of living in
a non-totalitarian society where people get to accept the values they like and reject those they don't. Not a perfect society,
but definitely not a totalitarian one.
In the 60s, the various radicals, including the Weathermen and Black Power groups, were supported by white collar leftists,
no matter the violence of the era. Today, antifa is supported and aided by Democratic politicians and bureaucrats in its violence.
Much of the antifa are radicalized wealthy college kids LARPing as revolutionaries, but they are violent nonetheless.
Likewise, BLM engaged in considerable violence in various protests.
They are all proto Bolsheviks, sure of their own righteousness as they support violence against opponents ("punching Nazis",
throwing cement milkshakes, and the like).
People, more than a few, are losing their jobs and/or social standing because of this insanity, and their numbers increase
daily, as does the number of people who keep their mouths shut because of fear of job loss.
This issue is not to be met by shoulder shrugging and indifference.
now is the time for average people to begin speaking up and out whenever this nonsense rise to the surface.
Have you been paying attention to the "black shirts" that are terrorizing anyone who dares wear a MAGA hat, or attend a conservative
rally of any sort?
There's a growing trend among the SJW crowd to arm themselves, and organize for violence.
Don't underestimate the willingness of the left to commit violence on a grand scale.
In Europe, the alienated turn towards Islamic Radicalism or various forms of ethno-nationalism. In the North of Ireland, those
alienated turn towards either the IRA (if Irish and Catholic) or the UVF (if British or Protestant). How are the social justice
warriors in the United States any different than the various types of bourgeoise European ethno-nationalism, such as Catalan,
Scots, or Irish nationalism?
There is no significant difference between the status of a serf growing food for his feudal lord and someone living under a
Socialist system where the government runs everything. In both systems a person can't work for himself, nor does he own any
land. Socialism is a trap invented by the old feudal elite to fool people into surrendering all the advantages they got from
the advances of the last few centuries and going back to new form of Feudalism.
Yes, the ability to own property -- and especially to own income-producing property -- along with the rule of law to protect
that property are the keys to society-wide prosperity.
From the point of view of someone who stands to be smashed by these
revolutionaries, it doesn't really matter whether or not they have a
plan for what to do after you're overthrown.
That lack of a plan, that lack of realization that utopia is unattainable on this earth, means that sooner or later everyone
stands to be "smashed by the revolutionaries". While we've long congratulated ourselves on the uniqueness of the American Revolution,
an alternate view appears increasingly tenable, viz. that it is merely an imitation, per augmentationem , of
the same basic theme in the grand prolation canon of revolutions.
Nothing is more human, he writes, than to be prepared to kill and die to secure meaning in life.
Nothing is more human than to be prepared to kill and die to secure dominance and glory. Jesus expects his followers to
resist their natural inclinations resulting from The Fall.
So this is a problem with "secular millenarians" but not religious millenarians? Of course, reframing secular left politics
into an apocalyptic religious frame work requires it. But it doesn't necessarily make it so. It may accelerate it.
And "The revolutionaries were going to prevail because of the sheer power of their hatred. It cleansed the soul and swelled
like the flood of the real day." could just as easily apply to Trump's base. The contempt and schadenfreude at Trump
rallies is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
In fact, many of those in the center and the Left frame the current moment in terms of Weimar and the rise of National Socialism.
The parallels have been noted by more than a few historians. You've noted them.
So why is this apocalypse more likely than the other? After all Trump and his minions have been co-opting American institutions
from the Court and Congress to law enforcement; intelligence; foreign policy, etc, etc, etc. The Left has the universities?
What happens when they fall next? If not to this Trump then the next one.
This really reminds me of the old Chinese Finger Trap puzzle. The harder each opposing side pulls the more entrapped they
become.
Bingo! And i fear this as well. We have the neo-Weimar neoliberal mostly fecklless hedonists of the left and the nascent growing
*something* that will oppose them, or react to them. It's different and strange, it's right-wing but not really, and fascist
but not really, and nationalist but not really. It's VERY dangerous though and growing.
Bingo! And i fear this as well. We have the neo-Weimar neoliberal mostly fecklless hedonists of the left and the nascent growing
*something* that will oppose them, or react to them. It's different and strange, it's right-wing but not really, and fascist
but not really, and nationalist but not really. It's VERY dangerous though and growing.
So i'm much more worried about the young men in the big black pick up trucks, back from multiple deployments, with the punisher
stickers, and think blue line flags.
The mopey woke gender studies grad in HR may not be the long term threat the guy with the simmering and growing anger, and
with the practical experience with long rifles, and with the peers who feel the same way, turn out to be.
What happens when instead of Trump, we get a Lenin or a Stalin, distinctly American, who can appeal to and organize these
angry young men?
Either way, I'll work to peacefully oppose both these extremes, trust in Christ, work on turning the other cheek, spread
the gospel, and focus on enduring to the end.
Here's an interesting difference: from what I can tell, most SJWs don't have a clearly envisioned utopia. What will the
world look like when whiteness is once and for all defeated? When toxic masculinity has been fully vanquished? And so forth.
They don't know;...
Which is why they are doomed to fail.
SJWs are trying to solve socio-economic problems with metaphysical, therapeutic solutions. Stigmatizing white skin and Western
culture isn't going to provide economic investment to impoverished minority communities. Delegitimizing law enforcement won't
reduce violent crime. Obliterating gender distinctions doesn't lead to equal pay for women or get more women and LGBT into
STEM professions.
Their worldview is built on the fallacy that a better world can simply be willed into existence. It's analogous to the Underpants
Gnome theory of profit.*
Emotion is not reality, and self-expression is no substitute for competence.
To round out the SJW religion, their Church Fathers are: Foucault, Butler, Derrida, Lacan, Said, etc. And like the worst
aspects of Abrahamic religions, SJW theologians (ie, Sociologists, Studies professors, etc.) are prone to an idiotic, if often
hilarious, textual fundamentalism.
Regarding the role of parents, Sailer recently posted about a Soviet "child saint" who snitched on his parents. A reminder
that Faith comes before family.
More and more has my mind been turning to my memories of the late fifties, when Russia was called the existential threat by
my influencers. I was ten years old. Only much later did I learn of the HUAC and backlash against the "Red Scare". Only even
later did I learn of men and ideas like Lincoln Steffens... in the 30's .."I have seen the future, and it works."
And now, the existential warnings are emanating from both sides of Political World. It's a Bizarro version of deja vu.
This is most interesting and insightfull once again. I will definitely buy your new book, once it arrives. One thing I would
like to add: The SJWs know how to appeal to ordinary people and install hatred in their hearts by adressing REAL injustices
and problems in society, just like the Bolsheviks did. Problems and injustices that those who reject and oppose SJW-religion
often ignore (to their own future peril). For instance, SJWs are hammering on extreme and ever growing inequality. A thing
ordinary people who need three McDonals-jobs to survive can relate to. Then there is Climate Disaster. A thing that will hit
those ordinary people, who are already struggling, hardest.
Simply put in general: When an intellectual stromtrooper-elite pushes a new faith in the mainstream, they need one or more
levers. If the old faith is willfully blind to the existance of these levers, it propably deserves to die.
Haven't read all of this but I don't really think there's much utopian thinking left in the West - and especially amongst segments
of the younger generation. If that's where you're going with this I think you're mistaken. Instead, we're living under the
tyranny of the now, or 'quarterly capitalism'.
Byung Han's got some great work on this..the burnout society: a society that can't imagine a future and that must be pumped
up on fictions, intoxicants, just to keep desire, and the system, going. Or, as G. Steiner acutely remarked: there are no new
beginnings. So, there isn't really an acceleration of time but a fragmentation of it ( since there is no direction to it..no
fulfilment of time).
I'm sure there's some 'revolutionary' zeal in some parts but I think fatigue, ennui, and a blasé attitude are equally if
not more common. Yeah, like, whatever ( I hear you say).
Also, with so many people in debt I doubt they buy the idea of progress. For all the whirl of change, the factory remains
( Chesterton said). In fact, the mania for superficial change is almost an admission that real change ( utopian thinking) cannot
come about.
My tuppence worth.
If you weren't making that point..profound apologies.
I agree with this. The point of identity politics is in fact *not* a revolutionary new regime or the establishment of a new
dispensation--identity politics is so atomizing and disintegrating that it is unappealing to people to even think/fantasize
of some shared new common destiny... identity politics is thoroughly bourgeois and capitalist, it is a rat race, it is climbing
the corporate ladder, it is the "self" -- note well, the *self* -- as brand. At most identity politics looks forward to a world
that resembles an international airport or the hotel and corporate convention center attached to such an airport-- not something
people really actually want to spend much time fantasizing about.
You should watch HBOs documentary of Theranos, because Silicon Valley is really the dominant force in the wokification of corporate
America, which is far more significant than most SJW trends. There's a specific part that's fascinating, an experiment done
by Dan Ariely where they design a payoff based on the outcome of a dice roll that is very easy to cheat. The twist: they had
a lie detector strapped on. When the payoff simply was given to themselves, lying was infrequent and detectable. When they
were told the money would be given to a charity of their choice, lying shot up and it was not detectable by the machine.
Conclusion: believing in a cause will make people physically believe their own lies. It's a huge reason why startup founders
have learned to bilk billions from credulous investors, and it's a huge reason why SJWs are now able to bilk liberals into
legitimizing their increasing mania. It's all basically strategic bullshit, just like Theranos' completely nonfunctional technology,
but for whatever reason it's worked for an entire decade.
This strategy has been enormously successful in the last decade, and corporate America is just bandwagoning. But they're
bandwagoning mania and dishonesty, and often running organizations that serve much more vital businesses than chat apps and
sales automation.
I did not realize anyone still believe that a lie detector can actually detect lies, but as long as it was done for the
good cause of scientific research, I guess it does no harm;-).
Anyway, if you enjoyed that movie, I highly recommend John Carreyrou's book about Theranos, which investigates the case
in much more detail than the movie (
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-... ).
A couple of other authors to consider, from an older generation (born before WWII), writing along similar lines. I'm sure Slezkine
refers to them:
Andrzej Walicki (Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom)
Martin Malia (The Soviet Tragedy and other works)
Walicki is a bit less well known than Malia, but very worth reading in the context of your book, for his assessment of how
certain ideas of what constitutes true freedom (as opposed to bourgeois liberalism) lead in practice to totalitarianism.
The people who have lived in societies suffused with this kind of
ideology -- emigres from Soviet-bloc countries -- can see through the
veil.
Right, as can many Americans who came of age before about 1990 (I believe a paradigm shift took place culturally after the
WWII generation a la George Bush and the Me generation a la Bill Clinton).
The West, and the East for that matter, has done fine without DQST for many, many centuries.
In a healthy society, people would feel no reason to conceive of or initiate such a thing in the first place, let alone try
to suppress it.
And I think you already knew that.
Not having a clearly delineated utopia was also an essential characteristic of Marxism. Del Noce explains it very well: to
the extent that Marx was expecting the revolution to engender a new, divinized man that would take back all the characteristic
he had alienated into God, the new society could not really be described in term of any what we know about the pre-revolutionary
world, just like, say, a Christian cannot describe paradise.
" The Social Justice faith system can be easily adapted by the institutions of bourgeois capitalism -- a fact that conceals
its radicalism."
Bingo!
Rod, I don't know about you but I feel I'm living from one week to the next. Do you really know anyone who's got this utopian
way of thinking or is it mainly an elite ("they've already taken the universities") kind of thing?
I think it's like the Bolsheviks in pre-revolutionary Russia: the intellectuals will guide and instruct the masses, who don't
have to fully comprehend what they're doing to be effective.
And the voices of the intellectuals are radically magnified by social media and the entertainment industry, to a degree undreamt
of by the revolutionaries in Russia.
This was a dense post, and a single comment can't do justice to it.
Social justice advocates picked a bad target for their wicked. Whiteness in a country that is 72% white, maleness in a world
that is 50% male, and heteronormativity in a world that is at least 90% heterosexual.
It ensures that when they infiltrate an institution, they'll generate strife and enemies, and be outnumbered, even with
allies.
Social Justice moved through universities more easily because they started off liberal, and are more insulated from profit
constraints than other businesses. The rate of tuition increases indicates the market is inelastic. So there's so much demand
any costs social justice incurs its host institution is unimportant.
This is not the case with many other businesses. Which when colonized by social justice ideology find themselves stepping
on the toes of more than half of their consumers. Many of these consumers will go to competitors and starve the business of
profit. Even a small decline in the consumer base can be traumatic to the balance sheet, hence the aphorism "Get Woke, Go Broke".
It's not even true for all universities as University of Missouri and Evergreen college found out.
This means there are likely limits to the spread of social justice ideology. But I suspect this won't phase its adherents
because they likely derive meaning from the struggle, and lack of success is secondary.
One interesting parallel between the contemporary social justice crowd and their communist counterparts, as Slezkine presents
them, is that many intellectuals who converted to the revolutionary religion were driven by intense feelings of shame and guilt
"on account of [what they perceived as] their unearned privilege" (p24, 26); many were themselves children of intellectuals,
and felt "both chosen and damned" because of the leisure this afforded them (ibid). But such feelings were a rather intellectual
affair: their guilt did not stem from any interaction with the less privileged, but was largely "derived from books" (ibid).
This seems rather similar to the current crop, most of whom seem to feel immense guilt about things they have only read about.
Like the early Bolsheviks, the BenOps are radically alienated from society. They regard ordinary people as dangerous and morally
corrupt.
Justice depends on group identity. For the BenOp Trad, the line between Good and Evil runs between the Faithful on one side,
the Left on the other. BenOp sees justice as entirely a matter of taking power away from the Left, and giving it to the reactionary
classes.
BenOp Trads, like the early Bolsheviks, are intellectuals whose gospel is spread by intellectual agitation. It is a gospel
that depends on awakening and inspiring fear of SJWs in the hearts of those it wishes to induce into reactionary consciousness.
This is why it matters immensely that they have established their base within churches, where they can train those who will
be going out to work in society's institutions in ideologized hatred.
BenOp Trads believe that science is on their side, even when their claims are unscientific. They are doing the old pre-Enlightenment
utopian trick of making essentially religious claims, but claiming that they are objectively true. "It's Adam and Eve, not
Adam and Steve."
BenOp Trads are utopians who believe that their personal Safety requires smashing all the old forms for the sake of liberation.
Jurists seemed "unqualified" by the nonpartisan ABA are elevated to lifetime positions in the judiciary. Government corruption
at the highest level is acceptable, so long as the government protects the BenOp Trad.
Parents can become the greatest advocates for their children, as in pre-revolutionary Russia with the radical youth. Parents
are encouraged to home-school their children, to insulate them from mainstream ideas. Public libraries are to be avoided.
Here's an interesting difference: from what I can tell, most BenOp Trads don't have a clearly envisioned utopia. The movement
is not towards physical segregation in an isolated community, like millenarians past. They've given up hope of conquering the
culture or the government, and there's no clear way forward besides individual BenOp outposts.
The media is the driving force on this subject because it really is outrageous and sensational which gets people watching the
ads that pay the media's salaries and office spaces. Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon for economic reasons also. I think people
who are against this trend are clueless about how to fight against it. Write the sponsors and tell them why you won't buy their
products. In advertising world mentality, every letter or email represents at least 500 or more people who agree, but don't
communicate their opinions. Complaining accomplishes nothing, and never has.
Thanks Rod -- a great piece. Just a couple of quibbles: SJW is of course, really just neo-Marxism or "Cultural Marxism". With
that in mind, another parallel with Bolshevism comes to mind, one highlighted by the characterization of dissenters as "Philistines".
A fascist cynic and satirist, Giovanni Papini, had this to say about Lenin in his book 'Gog' (a novel published in 1931 largely
consisting of fictional interviews with famous personalities of the time):
'I [the narrator's name is Gog] murmured a random compliment on the great work he [Lenin] had done in Russia. And then that
half-dead face became filled with spectral wrinkles that sought to be a sarcastic smile.
'"But everything was done," exclaimed Lenin with an unexpected and almost cruel brio, "everything was done before we arrived.
Foreigners and imbeciles assume that something new has been created here. Blind bourgeois error. The Bolsheviks have done nothing
but adopt, by developing it, the regime established by the tsars and which is the only one adapted to the Russian people. One
cannot govern a hundred million brutes without the baton, spies, secret police, terror, gallows, military tribunals, galleries
and torture. We have only changed the class that founded its hegemony over this system. There were sixty thousand nobles and
perhaps forty thousand grand bureaucrats; in total, one hundred thousand people. Today there are about two million proletarians
and communists. It is progress, great progress, because privileges are twenty times more numerous, but ninety-eight percent
of the population has not gained much on the other hand. Indeed, to be sure, it has gained nothing, and this is at the same
time what it wanted, what it sought, although on the other hand it was absolutely inevitable."
'..."Then," I muttered, "what about Marx, and progress, and the rest?"
'"To you, who are a powerful and foreign man," he added, "we can say it all. No one will believe it. But remember that Marx
himself has taught us the purely instrumental and fictitious value of theories. Given the state of Russia and Europe, I have
had to use communist ideology to achieve my true end. In other countries and at other times I would have chosen another manner.
Marx was nothing more than a Hebrew bourgeois clinging to English statistics and a secret admirer of industrialism. He lacked
a sense of barbarism, and for this reason he was only a third of a man. A brain saturated with beer and Hegelianism, in which
his friend Engels sketched out some brilliant idea. The Russian Revolution is a complete negation of Marx's prophecies. Where
there was almost no bourgeoisie, Communism has won there."
'""Men, Mr. Gog, are frightful savages who must be dominated by an unscrupulous savage like me. The rest is charlatanism,
literature, philosophy and music for the use of fools. And since savages are similar to criminals, the main ideal of any government
should be that the nation should resemble as closely as possible a penal establishment. The old tsarist dungeon is the last
word in political wisdom. Well thought out, the life of the prisoner is the most adapted to the vulgar average of men. Not
being free, they are, at last, exempt from the dangers and nuisances of responsibility and are in conditions of not being able
to do evil. As soon as a man enters prison, he must, by force, lead the life of an innocent man. Moreover, he has no thoughts
or worries, for those who think and command for him are already there; he works with the body, but his spirit rests. And he
knows that every day he will have something to eat and he will be able to sleep, even if he does not work, even if he is sick,
and all this without the worries that are incumbent upon the free man to obtain his bread every morning and a bed every night.
My dream is to transform Russia into an immense penal establishment, and do not imagine that I say this out of selfishness,
because with such a system, the most enslaved and sacrificed are the bosses and those who second them."
'..I.dared to ask one of my questions: "And the peasants?"
'"I hate the peasants," replied Vladimir Ilyich with a disgusting gesture, "I hate the mujik [peasant] idealized by that
softened Westerner called Turgenev and by that converted satyr hypocrite called Tolstoy. The peasants represent everything
I detest: the past, faith, heresy and religious mania, manual labor. I tolerate them and pet them, but I hate them. I would
like to see them all disappear, down to the last. For me, an electrician is worth a hundred peasants...
'"We will come to be able, I hope, to live with the food produced in a few minutes by the machines in our chemical factories,
and we will finally be able to finish off all the useless laborers. Life in Nature is a prehistoric shame...
'"Keep in mind that Bolshevism represents a threefold war: that of scientific barbarians against rotten intellectuals, of
the East against the West, and of the city against the countryside. And in this war we will not hesitate in the choice of weapons.
The individual is something that must be suppressed. It is an invention of those Greek idlers or those fantastical Germans.
Whoever resists will be extirpated like a malignant pustule. Blood is the best fertilizer offered to Nature...
'"Do not believe that I am cruel. All these executions and all these gallows that are raised by my order displease me. I
hate the victims, especially because they force me to kill them. But I cannot do otherwise. I boast of being the director of
a model penitentiary, of a peaceful and well-organized prison. But here are to be found, as in all prisons, the rebels, the
restless, those who have the stupid nostalgia of old ideologies and homicidal mythologies. All those are suppressed. I cannot
allow a few thousand sick people to compromise the future happiness of millions of men. Besides, after all, the ancient medical
bleedings were not a bad cure for bodies. There is some voluptuousness in feeling the master of life and death. Since the old
God was killed - I don't know if in France or Germany - certain satisfactions have been monopolized by man. I am, if you will,
a local demigod, camped between Asia and Europe, and so I can afford a little whim. These are the tastes whose secrets, after
the decline of the pagans, had been lost. Human sacrifices had something good: they were a deep symbol, a high teaching; a
healthy feast. And I, instead of the hymns of the faithful, feel the screams of the prisoners and of the dying come to me,
and I assure you that I would not change that symphony for Beethoven's 9th, announcing the beatitude to come."
I quote from this text because I genuinely think efficiency of empire eventually came to weigh, before Communism, as the
existential concern of both Leninism and Stalinism, that is to say the long-term survivability of Russia as it was mattered
most, i.e. its definitional indissolubility as empire--an empire of peasants (unlike the US, which was one immigrants), but
an empire all the same.
Leninism/Stalinism superceded tsarism because it, like Maoism, avoided the colonial disintegration of the vast empire-as-nation,
the nation which can only ever be conceived as empire or "cataclysmically"--for the foundational ethnos--lose all sense of
self and purpose otherwise; in that strict sense of imperial essentiality, which Tocqueville noted long before the appearance
of the Bolsheviks, Russia is the closest compeer of the United States.
If these spoiled and lazy SJWs had been made by their parents to leave home and get a real job, go rent an apartment, and start
paying the bills and taxes, and work their way through college... They wouldn't be SJWs, they would "grow up" pretty fast !
As I recall from my limited reading and discussions, the Bolshies were composed of "workers and soldiers soviets." The peasants
(many of them kulaks) weren't considered part of the revolutionary class and later fared quite badly. I'm not sure what the
Russian Revolution's parallel would be to our woke capitalists who adjust quite easily to SJW ideology since the SJW's don't
challenge them in any meaningful sense. Also, the Bolshies did more than virtue signal. Economic hard times here may dissipate
SJW energies rather quickly as their commitment to revolutionary change may turn out to be skin deep. A lost generation may
be violent at the fringes but its members have no traction unless the police and the military were to take up their cause.
But their version of social justice may be quite different than that of the university-educated SJW's.
You should add the important point that the Socialist-Revolutionaires (SRs, Esers) were much more popular than the Bolsheviks
among the intellectuals and also the common people. They were focused on the peasants, and after the war wanted to split Gentry
estates between the peasants.
The House of Government is indeed a great book. One of the best I've ever read about Bolshevism, and modern leftism and utopian
movements in general. It should be required reading for all incoming college freshmen.
Not only do the defectors regard these phenomenons as having been "rammed down workers'
throats" by the establishment, but they also want to discard the name "Communist" as "drawn
down to the dirt". Almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö are
resigning. Instead, they plan establish a new workers' party that doesn't put as much emphasis
on things like multiculturalism, LGBT issues and climate alarmism, which have become the
staples and rallying calls of today's left.
Nils Littorin, one of the defectors,
explained to Lokaltidningen that today's left has become part of the elite and has
come to "dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic". Littorin suggested
that the left, as a movement, is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group,
instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as class warfare.
"They don't understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT
movement and Greta Thunberg are something fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s'
Germany and that workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been infected by some Nazi
sickness," he explained to Lokaltidningen.
The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of
widespread dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition"
and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development that "only benefits major companies".
According to Littorin, one of the underlying problems is a
"chaotic" immigration policy that has led to cultural clashes, segregation and exclusion
due to an uncontrolled influx from parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan
mentalities.
Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state
ideologies that are "rammed down people's throats". According to him, phenomena like
LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg and "other
-isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality.
"Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that
human dignity is primarily about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you
are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin explained.
The goal, according to Littorin is to enter Malmö City Council by 2022. The name of the
party remains undetermined, but Littorin stressed that the word "Communist" will no longer be
present.
"It's a word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In
communist parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a
certain avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests,
instead of asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union,
it has never been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in
100-year-old books. But the principles that Marx formulated, they still apply to me,"
Littorin concluded.
Earlier this week, Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party expressed
similar
thoughts in an opinion piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the
mainstream
left of completely abandoning
its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the
middle class".
Owing to its long-standing socialist traditions, Sweden currently has two active communist
parties , the Communist Party and the Swedish Communist Party, both dating back to the
1970s. Despite formally remaining loyal to Marxism-Leninism, the two are not on speaking terms.
Also, the Left Party, which unlike the two aforementioned ones has parliamentary
representation, was called the Communist Party for several decades
"... Not only do the defectors regard these phenomenons as having been "rammed down workers' throats" by the establishment, but they also want to discard the name "Communist" as "drawn down to the dirt". ..."
Not only do the defectors regard these phenomenons as having been "rammed down workers'
throats" by the establishment, but they also want to discard the name "Communist" as "drawn
down to the dirt".
Almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö are resigning. Instead, they
plan establish a new workers' party that doesn't put as much emphasis on things like
multiculturalism, LGBT issues and climate alarmism, which have become the staples and rallying
calls of today's left.
Nils Littorin, one of the defectors,
explained to Lokaltidningen that today's left has become part of the elite and has
come to "dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic". Littorin suggested
that the left, as a movement, is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group,
instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as class warfare.
"They don't understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT
movement and Greta Thunberg are something fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s'
Germany and that workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been infected by some Nazi
sickness," he explained to Lokaltidningen.
The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of
widespread dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition"
and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development that "only benefits major companies".
According to Littorin, one of the underlying problems is a
"chaotic" immigration policy that has led to cultural clashes, segregation and exclusion
due to an uncontrolled influx from parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan
mentalities.
Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state
ideologies that are "rammed down people's throats". According to him, phenomena like
LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg and "other
-isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality.
"Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that
human dignity is primarily about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you
are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin explained.
The goal, according to Littorin is to enter Malmö City Council by 2022. The name of the
party remains undetermined, but Littorin stressed that the word "Communist" will no longer be
present.
It's a word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In
communist parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain
avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests, instead of
asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never
been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in 100-year-old books. But
the principles that Marx formulated, they still apply to me," Littorin concluded.
Earlier this week, Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party expressed
similar
thoughts in an opinion piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the
mainstream
left of completely abandoning
its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the
middle class".
Owing to its long-standing socialist traditions, Sweden currently has two active communist
parties , the Communist Party and the Swedish Communist Party, both dating back to the
1970s. Despite formally remaining loyal to Marxism-Leninism, the two are not on speaking terms.
Also, the Left Party, which unlike the two aforementioned ones has parliamentary
representation, was called the Communist Party for several decades.
"Identity politics involves a demand not merely for tolerance but for acceptance."
For me this is the critical issue. When we 'demand' something from another, or another
group, we are making an explicit statement of our own intolerance, we refuse to accept the
values, attitudes, and/or behaviours of another. And the framing of this demand as a right,
rather than a request, or a suggestion, is a problem for many here.
The levels of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance expressed towards MAGA people in general,
and a few individuals in specific, over the last three years has been breathtaking. The
notion that respect, tolerance, and acceptance cut both ways is routinely explicitly
rejected. Indeed, so much so that both the NYT and the WAPO this weekend felt the need to
remind readers of the need to respect MAGA people. The same might be said of people of faith,
another much-maligned group, especially if these folks happen to be white and Christian.
I'm glad that JH posted the 'amateur' warning, because that's precisely what too much of
what CT has become. People may or may not be engaging in good faith arguments. Calling people
racists and fascists, as a matter of course, in no way contributes anything to any
discussion, and would seem to be a direct violation of the comments policy. Yet, in thread
after thread, that's what we continue read – racist, Christian, fascist, racist,white
fascist, racist, fascist until the terms have lost all meaning, lo these many years.
The ground is moving beneath our feet. If the last few months (years?) are any indication,
the CT community has very few ideas about what is happening in America, Europe, and other
nations, or what to do about it. Or, people are expressing their ideas elsewhere.
Buying into myths does the community no good: remember all the time wasted on Koch
Conspiracy Theories? Then, from 2016 up to the present, leading Democrats and 'progressive'
bubbleheads literally channelled Joe McCarthy 'I have secret evidence, which I cannot divulge
now, that leading members of this administration are in fact agents of a foreign power!' I
mean, you couldn't make that stuff up.
Night after night, day after day for the last three years – TRAITORS, RUSSIAN
AGENTS, and no matter how many times a few (Greenwald, Taibbi, Tracy) tried to point out that
the accusations had been crafted literally by the same intelligence agents that brought us
Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, these factual cautions fell on deaf ears.
Lost in all of this is reality: which is that the world is not twitter. All firsthand
reports I receive from family and friends in Canada, America, and Europe is that people of
different faiths and opinions work hard, if not harder now, to demonstrate respect and
compassion to one another and sincerely enjoy doing so. Huh?
JQ: To get back to the criticism of identity politics from the left, consider what would
happen if your original post was made in a less sedate, more idpol-friendly forum. Nobody
would be engaging with the arguments you've made, which at least some commenters on this
thread have been doing. Instead, they'd be focussing on you , working out which
classes of privilege you enjoy – particularly racial, gender-based and
(dis)ability-based privileges – so that they can attack you from those directions in
the knowledge that any response from you would be considered an expression of privilege, and
thus subject to further criticism.
Since this post is pretty unobjectionable you might get away with it, but I can see at
least a couple of angles of attack in the first line ("Warning: Amateur
sociological/political analysis ahead"): if you're an "amateur", why are you speaking
instead of listening to the people who have direct personal experience of [whatever
marginalised identity]? , and why does this analysis need to come from you when
you could be making space for someone less privileged to give their own, more valuable
analysis?
I read the sequence in the OP differently, I think, from most commenters (and, I think, from
JQ):
Tolerance: Women allowed the vote (19th Amendment, 1920);
Acceptance: Women admitted to all-male Ivy League universities (Yale, 1969)
Deference: Affirmative Action (EEOC, 1965)
Dominance: ? The election of Barack Obama (2008) ?
[Note: This is the interpretation given by those on the right – those currently in
power.]
Identity Politics has served to mask the real problem in the U.S. over the past 30-40
years: growing inequality. Yes yes, I know: intersectionality – but how successful has
that been, really? Examples, please. [Note: Idpol imho belongs to the so-called "private
sphere," not the "public sphere" – I have no interest in the private life of others;
their public life, however, is of considerable interest to me and other citizens.]
I don't think this was accidental. It is to the ruling class's benefit that
citizens/voters coalesce emotionally around issues which detract attention from growing
inequality.
The U.S. is governed by the rich, the 1%. But if this were broadly understood and
accepted, the 1% would be voted out of office at all levels (local, state, national).
Identity politics ensures that voters will be more or less equally distributed between Ds
and Rs, with Ds = pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion; Rs = anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-abortion (+
other issues).
I invite CT commenters to engage in a small thought-experiment: What would it be like in
the U.S. if its Gini score were half what it was in 2016 (so, 20 instead of 40+)?
On a related – though not, for some, alas, obviously so – note, I recommend an
about-to-be-published book by labor historian Toni Gilpin: "The Long Deep Grudge: A Story of
Big Capital, Radical Labor, and Class War in the American Heartland," which will come out
early in 2020. Gilpin analyzes the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) union and their strike in
Louisville, KY against IH (International Harvester), during which blacks and whites united
against IH for economic reasons, and won.
Full economic equality goes a fair way towards advancing tolerance and acceptance,
obviates the need for deference, and does away with the existence of dominance.
It seems to me that in this thread there is a lot of confusion about the idea of identity
and groups, and your comment doubles down with the idea that economic class is an
identity.
First from a old fart Marxist point of view, you are mixing up base (the economic
structure, the relationship with the means of production) with superstructure (blue collar
identity). These two are not the same thing, the same way sex (a biological fact) is not the
same as gender (a cultural thing). Only gender is a matter of identity, biological sex cannot
be, precisely because it is not a cultural thing. For similar reasons class proper is not the
same as identities based more or less on class.
Second, however you want to put it high education at best makes you upper middle class,
not ruling class (although many people of the ruling class also have high education, but they
aren't ruling class because of this). This again is the old (19th century) distinction by Max
Weber between classe and ceto, I use the Italian words because they both translate as "class"
in English damn you anglophones. I recently chatted with a friend who has a degree in
statistics who confirmed that this is still a taught as a bread and butter distinction in
statistics, at least in Italy.
Finally there is a big distinction between identities and the often (but not always)
different moral assumptions that go with that on the one hand, and on the other the way these
identities are used in terms of political marketing, that is something different and mostly
make sense in democracies, but not for example in an argument about colonialism where
identities still exist but the political situation is totally different.
Finally, the problem is that with each identity or set of identities comes a set of moral
values. Now if we see morals as coming from identities but identities as a natural thing, we
enter in a world of moral relativism where only the identity group who cries louder can
manage to force its values on others.
This is in fact the implicit idea in right wing populism, and the reason they sometimes seem
to think that political might makes right.
But in reality:
1) identities are not a natural thing at all, for example gender identities depend on forms
of the family that are obviously historical and linked to economic structures, so is the low
education blue collar identity;
2) many disequalities are objective and we can measure them, for example we know that
economic inequality increased in recent decades.
So on the whole I think it is possible to make a case about objectively more egalitarian
(and therefore better) sets of values and identity.
1. There is a missing category in the 4-stage paradigm, and it is "affirmation." People
can feel tolerated and then accepted, but not affirmed as much as the majority group feels
affirmed, and this is a significant. Although what, specifically, it feels like to be
affirmed, or to extend affirmation, can be murky. Is affirmation even a legitimate or
realistic thing to expect or demand from one's social environment? Why or why not? What
proportion of the social environment should extend affirmation in order for an individual
from a marginalized group feel that they are being treated equally?
2. In every society in which there are dominant identities (I can think of few where the
dominant group is singular and monolithic), there is history to contend with. The four (or
five) states of intergroup relations are not like a light switch that can be turned on or
off. What rate of changed attitudes and relationships of power are realistic to expect?
3. How do we feel about groups who are in some senses marginalized, but that within their
own community, express dominance in harmful ways against some members of their group or
against some members of other groups? What about feminists who look down on specific (or all)
religions, and within their group do not tolerate religious individuals? what about religious
minorities that persecute LGBTQ individuals? and so forth.
I invite CT commenters to engage in a small thought-experiment: What would it be like in
the U.S. if its Gini score were half what it was in 2016 (so, 20 instead of 40+)?
There's been considerable academic work on this subject. Just off the top of my head,
there's the seminal paper by Bland, Castile, Crawford, Garner, Martin, Rice et al. And
another important study of labor force effects by Argent, Arquette, Beckinsale, Garth, et al.
And no literature review would be complete without discussing the groundbreaking work by
Boyne, Carroll, Crooks, Harth, Holvey, Zervos et al.
An alternative take on what "identity politics" might mean:
A style of politics in which people are people are divided – for the purposes of
political organization – on the basis of a small number of characteristics, which
initially appear to be relative hard to change and easy to determine. Further, such groups
are treated as if they were homogeneous, with a shared political interest.
But:
a) Such characteristics are typically not mutually exclusive. A political group that is
"homongenous" wrt to one characteristic may well contain members that differ in some other
politically relevant characteristic, with consequent divergence of political objectives. eg.
"woman" contains both "white women" and "black women". cf. bell hooks
b) Who is a member of the group and who isn't often turns out to be more vexed than it
might initially appear. There exist people of mixed race, people with intersex conditions,
transgendered people, white momen who have grown up in a household with African-American
step-siblings (cf. Rachel Dolezau), etc. etc. A noted feature of "identity politics" is
people getting very, very upset about the existence of a small number of borderline cases
whose political group membership is being argued.
Black Lives Matter isn't just fighting for economic rights: they're fighting for the
right to not be executed in the street.
I think this gets to the heart of the matter: the very thin definition of the word
'economics' held by certain liberals, mostly referring to the precise timing of the next
stock market boom/bust cycle.
To those with a less restrictive definition, people being executed in the street is,
absolutely and centrally, a matter of economics. Those who support or enable those executions
do so because they do not trust the government to effectively defend their private property
rights without such measures.
The radical economic solution to that is the abolition of private property; it is of
course perfectly understandable that those most affected are not keen on waiting for
that.
Nevertheless, the less radical solution is still economic in nature, mainly involving
raising taxes in order to spend the money on a police force adequate to the task of
maintaining public order without such executions. Most of Europe provides the existence proof
that such a thing is possible.
Measurable social issues require the commitment of non-symbolic amounts of societal
resources to solve them. In an ideal world, this would leave the phrase 'identity politics'
for those issues which could potentially be resolved by the right person tweeting the right
thing
There is a horror at finding myself – as a gender critical feminist – adjacent to
arguments like Likbez's @1 that I think puts the fear of God in me. So I feel compelled to
write a comment, though I usually just observe the conversation here.
Likbez @1 is, I think, similar to those people who would pop up in conversations about gay
rights in the 90's and say, "What about this man, who had sex with 300 strangers in one
week," as an example of "gay rights extremism." The difference I notice here is that there is
no longer any concern, on the conservative or progressive side of the argument, with prurient
interest. We glibly discuss the most private details of a child's life and body, and it's
incumbent on everyone involved to either hash out the details while condemning, or hash out
the details while celebrating.
I * do * think a child accessing sterilising medical and surgical treatments for the
purposes of gender affirmation is extreme (and to me it's no less extreme when that child has
a supportive family around them). Another useful parallel might be the conversations we had
about whether it was respectability politics to not include "bareback" subcultures in gay
pride. But again, even there, we had a stable liberal position which could acknowledge the
subculture / without / having to condemn or celebrate it.
I wonder if it isn't the gay marriage debate that has evacuated that liberal posture. Well
might a social conservative answer a question about the decriminalisation of sex between men
by saying, "You can engage in x, y, or z sexual practice, but don't expect me to like it,"
and it's not really remarkable – why would I expect or require a stranger to / like /
the sex I have?! But when it's said about marriage there is something mean about it –
marriages, or at least weddings, are by definition the communal celebration of a sexual
relationship.
Can we as a liberal society tolerate the miserliness of refusal to celebrate gay
marriages? And if we can't, what do we do with this blurring of public and private, this need
to endorse and celebrate what is done by strangers (even the compulsion to have a clear
formed opinion on all the private activities of strangers).
– I wonder if there isn't a further connection with the anxieties of young people, a
need for the approval of strangers.
***
"Instead of being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant
group becomes the object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident,
particularly in relation to the culture wars around religion."
I immediately thought John was talking about Catholics. For centuries, where Catholics
have lived as a minority in predominantly Protestant and Anglican societies, they have been
exposed to all the bigotry and mistreatment we associate with minority status. But this has
had no effect on the institution of the Catholic church, or its hegemony in Catholic
societies (and even Catholic communities in protestant / Anglican societies).
(On reflection, I'm not sure that's what JQ is referring to at all).
"Good questions. I'm not sure there is a necessity for a default identity and dominant
groups; I merely observe that in most if not all stable, long-lived societies there has been
such. If you can think of exceptions, they would be very interesting."
As I'm not an expert in the area, I'm probably not a good person to ask. If we assume the
observation is true, however, while it may be interesting I don't see that it is particularly
helpful.If the number of attempts were zero then that doesn't really tell you anything about
if it would work or not.
For example, from my understanding monarchies were the "default" organisational structure
in Europe for a long period of history. One can imagine someone who lived during those eras
saying – correctly – that most if not all stable, long-lived societies were
monarchies. I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't really tell us much about if Monarchies are
the only, or indeed even best way of organising a society?
In short, I think that while your observation may be true (I'm afraid I lack the evidence
to make any claims one way or another), I don't think it really gets us any closer to
understanding whether or not a default identity and/or dominant group are a) necessary, b)
useful, and c) beneficial.
As for the default identity including sexuality: I'm not sure it's necessary, just that
it mostly goes that way.
Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the male/female binary is a) not
necessarily biologically supported (from asking biologists) and b) may in fact not be the
default identity (I believe there are examples outside of western culture, in the
Philippines, Mexico, etc.). Of course, I am not an expert (I believe you've already said your
not either?) so perhaps it would be better to ask someone who is rather than us speculating
in ignorance?
I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude
bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two).
Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender? I don't see
that it is helpful or clarifying in any way – bestiality is about what you have sexual
intercourse with (and implies a problematic lack of consent), while being transgender is (as
the name helpfully implies!) about your personal gender identity (which is not about
preferences regarding sexual intercourse, and does not have the problematic inherent consent
issue), so these would seem to be very different categories.
[Moreover, and I mean this as a helpful future tip, perhaps if you want to avoid fully any
doubts people might have about whether or not you are equating these two things, but you feel
it is useful to include a form of sexual attraction, why not pick homosexuality, bisexuality,
etc. instead?]
Perhaps I am a bit odd in this respect, but if you ask me to imagine a "default" English
person, I don't think I could. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I would think of
the people I know who are English, and I don't think there is enough commonality for me to
make an assessment. I suspect (though I don't have evidence) that if there is such a thing as
a default identity, it is probably most similar to a stereotype. And, as far as I can tell,
stereotypes are a) generally not excessively helpful to accuracy and b) vary from area to
area and region to region.
Moreover, I would think that "dominant culture" is something that can change (as the OP
implies). For example, homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently (if I recall correctly
England and Wales: 1960s, Scotland and Ireland 1980s), but I think that now the number of
people who would support recriminalizing it is pretty small. The dominant culture which was
hostile to homosexuality is now – at the very least – indifferent, if not
actively absorbing it. While I certainly wouldn't suggest homophobia is a thing of the past,
perhaps in future eras (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out due to our incompetence at
handling looming crises) people objecting to homosexuality will be thought of as odd and
irrelevant – changing the dominant culture still further. Is it not possible, then,
that such a thing could happen with transgender identities?
In short, with respect, I'm not sure what you (or I) can imagine is particularly relevant.
Given that neither of us appear to have much expertise in this area, perhaps we should wait
for others with better evidence and understanding to way in?
[Blast, apologies to the OP, but could you accept this instead of my previous post, I made a
HTML tag error which makes it seem as though one of Stephen's statements is actually mine.]
Stephen @ 56
"Good questions. I'm not sure there is a necessity for a default identity and dominant
groups; I merely observe that in most if not all stable, long-lived societies there has been
such. If you can think of exceptions, they would be very interesting."
As I'm not an expert in the area, I'm probably not a good person to ask. If we assume the
observation is true, however, while it may be interesting I don't see that it is particularly
helpful.If the number of attempts were zero then that doesn't really tell you anything about
if it would work or not.
For example, from my understanding monarchies were the "default" organisational structure
for a long time – and one can imagine someone who lived during those eras saying
– correctly – that most if not all stable, long-lived societies were monarchies.
I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't really tell us much about if it is the only, or indeed
even best way of organising a society?
In short, I think that while your observation may or may not be true (I'm afraid I lack
the evidence to make any claims one way or another), I don't think it really gets us any
closer to understanding whether or not a default identity and/or dominant group are a)
necessary, b) useful, and c) beneficial.
As for the default identity including sexuality: I'm not sure it's necessary, just that
it mostly goes that way.
Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the male/female binary is a) not
necessarily biologically supported (from asking biologists) and b) may in fact not be the
default identity (I believe there are examples outside of western culture, in the
Philippines, Mexico, etc.). Of course, I am not an expert (I believe you've already said your
not either?) so perhaps it would be better to ask someone who is?
I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude
bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two).
Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender? I don't see
that it is helpful or clarifying in any way – bestiality is about what you have sexual
intercourse with (and implies a problematic lack of consent), while being transgender is (as
the name helpfully implies!) about your personal gender identity (which is not about
preferences regarding sexual intercourse, and does not have the problematic consent issue),
so these would seem to be very different categories.
[Moreover, as a helpful future tip, perhaps if you want to avoid fully any doubts people
might have about whether or not you are equating these two things, but you feel it is useful
to include a form of sexual attraction, why not pick homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.
instead?]
Perhaps I am a bit odd in this respect, but if you ask me to imagine a "default" English
person, I don't think I could. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I would think of
the people I know who are English, and I don't think there is enough commonality for me to
make an assessment. I suspect (though I don't have evidence) that if there is such a thing as
a default identity, it is probably most similar to a stereotype. And, as far as I can tell,
stereotypes are a) generally not excessively helpful to accuracy and b) vary from area to
area and region to region.
Moreover, I would think that "dominant culture" is something that can change (as the OP
implies). For example, homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently (if I recall correctly
England and Wales: 1960s, Scotland and Ireland 1980s), but I think that now the number of
people who would support recriminalizing it is pretty small. The dominant culture which was
hostile to homosexuality is now – at the very least – indifferent, if not
actively absorbing it. While I certainly wouldn't suggest homophobia is a thing of the past,
perhaps in future eras (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out due to our incompetence at
handling looming crises) people objecting to homosexuality will be thought of as odd and
irrelevant – changing the dominant culture still further. Is it not possible, then,
that such a thing could happen with transgender identities?
In short, with respect, I'm not sure what you (or I) can imagine is particularly
relevant.
Seren Rose, likbez is a straight-up christian fascist. If you find your politics overlapping
with his in any way shape or form, it might be a good idea to assess whether the overlapping
part is something you want to keep. Here's a tip: if the overlapping part is based on
excluding a minority from public spaces, there's probably a reason it appeals to likbez.
Also as a gender critical feminist I'm guessing you are in favour of preventing trans
women from using female-only spaces. I recommend you
read this so that when natal women start being harassed and beaten up as a consequence of
your policies, you can't make the excuse that you weren't warned.
Well, I wasn't going to bring it up, but now we're here
Rightwing trolls or troll-like posters like likbez don't focus on transgender activism by
accident. It's the ne plus ultra of identity politics gone wrong: it seems
superficially reasonable, by association with LGB liberation movements, but its claims are
irreconcilable with long-standing goals of other movements usually found on the left
(particularly many kinds of feminism); it demands the use of language that makes it difficult
or impossible to express disagreement and harrasses, threatens and deplatforms people who
refuse to submit; it is relentlessly, viciously misogynistic. And when otherwise sympathetic
people get a glimpse into the nastier side of trans activism and who exactly it is protecting
(the Dana Rivers, the Karen Whites, the Jessica Yanivs, etc. etc.), and especially what its
goals mean for women and girls – the stuff that the activists try with all their might
to stop feminists drawing attention to – they tend to begin to regard it as completely
bonkers. Which is of course one reason why all dissent must be silenced before it can
spread.
I am trying very hard right now to give you the benefit of the doubt in your arguments.
You haven't addressed any of my criticisms or comments in my post at 36 (fair enough, you
don't owe me any answers). I would assume normally you have missed it, didn't think it was
worth replying to, or are formulating a response. However, your most recent comments at 60
are, to put it mildly, very problematic.
First, have you got around to making a working definition for transgender extremism yet? I
only ask, because if I think religious extremism I imagine beheadings, massacres, suicide
bombings; if I imagine political extremism, I imagine violence, bombings, terrorism; but as
far as I can tell your definition of transgender extremism is apparently daring to exist and
ask maybe if they could be treated as human beings rather than evil incarnate. One of those
does not seem like the others.
Here are my problems with your post at 60. I hope you will at least consider this, and
perhaps re-evaluate what you are saying and how you are saying it.
" With this quote I think we reached the point in this discussion when it might be
appropriate to discuss the appropriate scope of repression for deviant minority groups when
their demands conflict with the larger society or more powerful groups ethics and cultural
norms.
"deviant minority groups". OK, so Mormons? Or were they not the deviant minority group you
were thinking of? You see, that's one of the fundamental problems with your assertions
– you are unable or unwilling to offer any clear ideas as to how you come to decide the
term and who it applies to. You seem to operate on what you personally feel comfortable with
– which is not a particularly useful starting point.
The usual "woke" argumentation is very weak in issues outlined below and opposite
arguments have a real weight: I would repression of the minority groups start with pedophiles
and financial oligarchy especially vulture funds leadership such as Romney, Paul Singer, etc.
But this is just me.
Funnily enough, people pushing for transgender awareness are not pro-paedophile. I know
that you seem to struggle with understanding this (or, indeed, anything judging by your
inability to reason), but paedophilia = having sex with children; being transgender = taking
on a gender identity in-keeping with your internal model and different to that assigned at
birth. The key difference there, and bear with me as apparently you find this very complex,
is that one group are raping children, the other isn't. Try repeating this a few times in the
mirror – I am optimistic you will eventually get it.
"IMHO insatiable "demanding" and proselyting of transgender identity already brought us
very close to a strong corporate and community backlash against transgender rights and by
extension LGBT rights as a whole."
You know, people said the same thing about gay rights. And you know what was interesting?
It turns out the whole "line to far" was that they existed. Given you haven't really made any
attempt to explain why you think "personal medical decision" is functionally extremism, I am
not overly confident in your ability to determine what constitutes "too much" demanding.
"Of course transgender folk is just minor, expendable pawn in a bigger game of Dem
Party identity politics, but still."
Yes, because the Democratic party of America basically rules Europe. That was sarcasm, by
the way. I did point out before that making US based judgements and assessments without
considering how it fits into the global phenomena makes you look ignorant. Apparently you
don't think that that was a point worth considering.
Again, when discussing transgender people, you start bringing in sexual abuse with
children. Yet no-where in the article is any reference to transgender people. I am now a lot
less optimistic in your ability to understand the difference. It is also worth considering
that the Catholic Church – which arguably has a little more power and privilege than
the LGBT – has been complicit in covering up a horrific amount of child-rape.
Interestingly, you don't seem to be railing against them.
To summarise
You don't seem interested in researching anything or gaining any facts. You don't appear
to consider other arguments. You repeatedly conflate transgender people with paedophiles. You
don't support your arguments, don't define your terms, and don't seem to care whether or not
anything you say is rooted in evidence.
This is why I am having a very hard job considering you someone who is arguing in good
faith right now.
Finally, as a few comments I hope you will consider.
1) Paedophilia and transgender people
The reason I object to paedophiles is not because they are a small number of people who
are different to me. I object to paedophiles because they are causing harm. They are causing
harm, because they are committing an action (sex) with someone who cannot give consent (a
child).
Transgender people are committing an act (adopting a different gender identity) which
affects only themselves (who give consent because they are undertaking it).
If you do not make a case to link transgender people and child rape, I would appreciate if
you stopped conflating the two. Even if I assume the absolute best case – that you
don't think the two are the same but are trying to incoherently make a point – it makes
for a completely incoherent argument to include here.
2) Transgender people in society
If you want to argue that transgender people should be denied privileges available to
other people, that is your prerogative. But you should probably actually make a case, and try
to support it with evidence. For example, if you could prove that people being allowed to
determine their own gender is objectively bad in some way, that would be a good starting
point. You don't though – and, though I try to avoid ascribing motivations to other
people, I suspect it is because you don't actually have an argument that it is harmful
– merely that you don't like it. And apparently, for you, "I don't like this" is a good
reason to deny rights to one group of people you extend to others. It might be worth
reflecting on what that says about you as a person.
3) likbez
When someone repeatedly refuses to make their case after adopting the burden of proof, it
is very difficult to take them seriously on that topic. It also impacts how you precieve them
on other topics.
You don't owe me anything, and if you wish to continue making unsupported statements,
falacious arguments, and equivication falacies, by all means do continue. I won't however,
consider you as someone who should be considered worth listening to – which I hope
you'd agree is my prerogative.
Undiscovering America. It's too late for that, I think. The muddying of the waters, i.e.
post-historical tribalism, can't obscure the fact that the underlying conflict is between our
individual and our collective identity(ies). It doesn't really matter whether the collective
is family, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sports team. If we aren't, as individuals,
the ultimate arbiters of our own allegiances, and if the collective(s) we belong to, either
by accident, affinity, or choice, are unwilling to give up on the project of defining us
without asking us what we prefer, then our present conflicts will continue, and in all
likelihood get nastier as the stakes in our-post hierarchical, post-literate universe rise
ever higher.
I should probably add that China's much-touted ignoble experiment in Gleichschaltung
is going to introduce modes of historical failure which the world hasn't seen since Roman
times. Xi Jinping has absolutely no effing idea of the doom he's trifling with. Compared to
Donald Rumsfeld, I suppose you could call him a visionary, but only if you love the smell of
apocalypse in the morning.
I've no wish to tell you "this is how you should think", and am open to having a dialogue
with anyone who is interested in doing so (it helps me refine my position or, when I am
wrong, to re-evaluate my premises). I hope, therefore, you'll be will to indulge me a little
when I make the following comments – I would, if you are interested, value your
thoughts (though I don't wish to make demands on your time).
I don't particularly enjoy discussing anyone's private details – I generally prefer
it if private lives can remain private – and certainly would hope I don't do so glibly.
Unfortunately, when there is a discussion about whether or not a person should be permitted
to make a private decision, sometimes it is necessary to discuss the facts surrounding the
case. I would state, however, that to me it is important that as much anonymity as possible
is afforded the individual, and as little of the details are discussed as necessary. Do you
think that that is unreasonable?
My first comments were regarding Likbez's first link. To me, it is not only the first
mentioned, but also the most clear cut. Someone who is 17 wishes to transition, their mother
(who they have alleged was abusive, whom they left 2 years ago) objects. Given that the
individual seems to have made well-reasoned comments, their mother does not seem to be
well-placed to make any evaluations (or indeed make any decisions regarding their child), and
I have no reason to think they are unable to make an assessment regarding their own gender, I
don't see any reason to object. Do you think there is?
Hopefully you'll agree that I have managed to avoid discussing them or their body too
much. If not, I'd certainly appreciate it if you pointed out where I've erred – this is
not sarcasm, I genuinely want to do better.
You appear to have considerable concerns regarding Likbez's second link. You know what
– so do I. It isn't quite as portrayed – further reading indicates that what was
proposed was a reversible treatment with no surgery, which allays some of the concerns
– but I agree that "what age can someone make a reasonable decision regarding their
gender" is a good discussion to have. As is, "what is the best way to handle this", and "how
do we ensure that people are afforded freedom proporitionate with their maturity and
responsibility". However, I would want such a discussion to involve evidence (not specific
details of people, but anonymised scientific evidence), logical arguments, and conclusions
which come as close as possible to achieving the best decision. I hope you would agree that
that is a good approach?
Now, I am not an expert. However, as far as I can tell, the people who study this for a
living seem to say that biology and gender are far more complex that traditional models allow
for. That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to change these models. After all, if
you are worried about the effects of peer-pressure on children, I would think that being
forced into an identity which causes you incredible discomfort (or even feelings of
dissonance) is probably not good for their long term health. For example, trying to force
people who are homosexual to be heterosexual does not seem to have been good for them, or for
society. I imagine, as a gender critical feminist, you can think of similar examples of the
harm resulting from women being forced into roles far better than I.
In short, my position is that people should be afforded the maximum reasonable ability to
make their personal decisions. In cases where there are concerns regarding their ability to
do so, I am fine with society coming to an evidence based conclusion about where to draw the
line. This will, as always, lead to some inherent unfairness (our systems are
"one-size-fits-all" and this will inherently lead to some people being let down), but
hopefully we can make our society as fair as possible. And, continue to refine.
If you think I am being unreasonable, unnecessarily prurient, or am on a path which is
detrimental, I would certainly appreciate your pointing it out to me – I am always keen
to do better.
Here's a tip: if the overlapping part is based on excluding a minority from public
spaces, there's probably a reason it appeals to likbez.
Imbecilization of discussion of controversial issues like in case of your comment is a
normal development typical for the periods of intellectual declines which naturally follows
the economic decline of a given empire.
There's growing evidence the West is going through the same process as the USSR.
the history is pretty clear: the class-based movements cane first, and they failed to
make any progress toward (or even care about) the rights of these oppressed groups. [ ]
Also, many of these movements explicitly recognize the importance of intersectionality --
why else would you see feminists and gay rights groups so heavily involved in immigrant
rights?
Well, since you're all about fairness and avoiding double standards let's compare
contemporaneous movements. How much did abolitionists help alleviate the oppression of women?
How much did suffragettes fight segregation? Did the LGBTQ rights movement include BTQ for
most of its history? Did any of these historical movements fight against ablism? How much did
they achieve WRT immigrant rights, indigenous rights, and the rights of minority religions?
Or are you comparing very, VERY recent developments in these movements with historical class
identity movements? I'd point out, BTW, that it's very disputable whether gender/racial right
movements came after class identity movements – both are far older than their recent
(to say nothing of modern) forms. And throughout the history of all of these, there
have been not just unhelpful but actively repressive elements in all of them. Yet you're only
comparing contemporary intersectional essentialist identity politics to historical class
identity politics why is that? Especially when modern class identity politics are also
influenced by intersectional thinking and ally themselves with more than than just
class-based movements even if they prioritize class. Yet
here we have you telling us that socioeconomic status is not an identity – that the
idea of identity becomes meaningless if we consider it as such. That has a very particular
and somewhat suspicious look.
To pull this back more closely to the subject of OP, your pile of unexamined privilege
looks an awful lot like you're uncritically accepting the highly-educated/rich/socially &
professionally networked/managerial-professional-executive workers' (i.e., upper class)
"default" cultural perspective, and are insisting that failure to see it is deviant and
immoral (no more and no less than a cis het white Xian man insisting that a mythical 1950s
represents the objective reality of Americanism). The rich minority is dominate in that
epistomology, and the managerial-professional minority is deferred to. Among lower-class
conservative adherents, this translates to education being suspect, but wealth & social
status is taken as proof that these classes are reliably jus'folks who haven't been corrupted
by too much learning; among lower-class liberal adherents, wealth is suspect but the
education & social status proves our elites are woke egalitarians who haven't been
corrupted by greed and power but in both cases, the rich are dominant and the
managerial-professionals are deferred to. 100 years ago this would have been a harder sell,
as our culture was more disparate in terms of class identity, but mass media driven by
consumption (and advertising) homogenized our worldview and humanized the rich to a great
degree, with the result of aggressively encouraging the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"
mindset and belief in the myth of meritocracy.
The point of everything you TL;DR'd in order to lecture me about How Things REALLY Are
again was not that you're a hypocrite – it's instead how very telling it is that you
don't simply want to de-prioritize the idea of economically-oriented reform, but
de-legitimize the very idea of it. It's appalling to see you invoke intersectionality in this
context; are you so come-lately to it that you don't know its history before it was
housebroken? A common early criticism of intersectionality was that it placed too much focus
on just three intersecting identities: gender, race, and, yes, class. The subsequent trend to
view intersectionality as a thing distinct from class identity is a development that looks an
awful lot like institutional co-opting as former outsiders addressing an insurgent critique
of distorted elite analysis made peace with the academic hierarchy, got tenure, and
mysteriously lost their impetus to challenge privilege based on wealth, education,
profession, or social status. What you've done here has unintentionally been extremely
instructive in terms of what OP discusses; you're providing a case study of a privileged
minority arguing against perspectives that do not conform to the dominant default culture in
order to protect the deference you feel due, and the dominance of the hierarchy which
entitles you to that deference.
Seren Rose @ 67:
You write about a lot of things, and some of them I don't feel qualified to comment upon. But
at least this, seems pretty obvious:
Can we as a liberal society tolerate the miserliness of refusal to celebrate gay
marriages? And if we can't, what do we do with this blurring of public and private
The record here is pretty clear: gay marriage advocates fought for gay marriage not for
the private celebration, but because in ways big and small, myriad public and publicly
regulated institutions and organizations confer advantages upon the married. From family
health insurance policies to "who gets to visit you as you lie dying," to "who gets to pick
up your kids at school."
I think this is a good example of the way that demands by identity groups can get
misinterpreted, either inadvertently or intentionally. Nobody asked for Evangelical pastors
to be compelled to perform gay marriages. What they -did- ask, was that in any public
accommodation or regulated business of any sort, that prefers advantages to married couples,
this advantage be extended to gay couples who are married. And this is no different from the
"full faith and credit" clause that makes marriages in one state valid in another.
(One thing I'd add to tie the idea of class identity politics to the discussion here is that
contemporary upper class resistance to it vs. comparative upper class acceptance of
essentialist identity politics fits well into the zero-sum vs. positive-sum distinction made
by
Peter Dorman . Class identity movements seek to flatten the socio-economic hierarchy via
wealth redistribution, progessive taxation, increased democratization of political processes,
etc. Essentialist identity movements do not directly threaten the hierarchy that entrenches
the rich as dominant and professionals as deferred to – it changes the pool of
available candidates within the heirarchy, which may lead to individuals or sub-groups
resisting if they feel unable or unwilling to compete with individuals previously below them
on other hierarchies, but more diversity in the C-suites is not an existential threat
to the upper class.)
notGoodEnough @ 68:
Stephen: "I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not
exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two)."
notGoodEnough: "Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being
transgender?"
I have to laugh. We both know why he included that reference, don't we? It's the same
reason "Box Turtle Ben (Domenech)" included it in that speech that Texas Senator John Cornyn
was to deliver ("It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box
turtle. But that does not mean it is right Now you must raise your children up in a world
where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife"). It's
the same reason likbez pretends that pedophiles are an identity group like gay people.
Decent people must feel that bestiality and pedophilia are beyond the pale. By juxtaposing
them with LGBT, the goal is to subtly induce decent people to associate their feelings of
disgust toward (e.g.) sex with box turtles, and gay people and oh-so-icky ways.
It's a tell that Stephen hasn't got a tolerant bone in his body.
TBH, likbez seems to be regurgitating typical transphobic arguments. Linking to homophobic
hate groups does not enhance his position.
He/she clearly does not think that trans people have any rights that he is obligated to
honor.
On the other hand, seems to expect that we are obligated to respect his bigotry.
likbez, you've derailed the thread, and your comments are trolling at best. Nothing further
from you on this thread, please. Also, if I write further on identity politics, please
refrain from commenting.
Well, I wasn't going to bring it up, but now we're here
Rightwing trolls or troll-like posters like likbez don't focus on transgender activism by
accident. It's the ne plus ultra of identity politics gone wrong: it seems
superficially reasonable, by association with LGB liberation movements, but its claims are
irreconcilable with long-standing goals of other movements usually found on the left
(particularly many kinds of feminism); it demands the use of language that makes it difficult
or impossible to express disagreement and harrasses, threatens and deplatforms people who
refuse to submit; it is relentlessly, viciously misogynistic.
And when otherwise sympathetic people get a glimpse into the nastier side of trans
activism and who exactly it is protecting (the Dana Rivers, the Karen Whites, the Jessica
Yanivs, etc. etc.), and especially what its goals mean for women and girls – the stuff
that the activists try with all their might to stop feminists drawing attention to –
they tend to begin to regard it as completely bonkers.
Which is of course one reason why all dissent must be silenced before it can spread.
Here are my problems with your post at 60. I hope you will at least consider this, and
perhaps re-evaluate what you are saying and how you are saying it.
" With this quote I think we reached the point in this discussion when it might be
appropriate to discuss the appropriate scope of repression for deviant minority groups when
their demands conflict with the larger society or more powerful groups ethics and cultural
norms.
"deviant minority groups". OK, so Mormons? Or were they not the deviant minority group you
were thinking of? You see, that's one of the fundamental problems with your assertions
– you are unable or unwilling to offer any clear ideas as to how you come to decide the
term and who it applies to. You seem to operate on what you personally feel comfortable with
– which is not a particularly useful starting point.
The usual "woke" argumentation is very weak in issues outlined below and opposite
arguments have a real weight: I would ]suggest that the ]repression of the minority groups
starts with pedophiles and financial oligarchy especially vulture funds leadership such as
Romney, Paul Singer, etc. But this is just me.
(One thing I'd add to tie the idea of class identity politics to the discussion here is that
contemporary upper class resistance to it vs. comparative upper class acceptance of
essentialist identity politics fits well into the zero-sum vs. positive-sum distinction made
by
Peter Dorman .
Class identity movements seek to flatten the socio-economic hierarchy via wealth
redistribution, progessive taxation, increased democratization of political processes,
etc.
Essentialist identity movements do not directly threaten the hierarchy that
entrenches the rich as dominant and professionals as deferred to – it changes the
pool of available candidates within the heirarchy, which may lead to individuals or
sub-groups resisting if they feel unable or unwilling to compete with individuals
previously below them on other hierarchies, but more diversity in the C-suites is
not an existential threat to the upper class.)
notGoodEnough @ 68:
Stephen: "I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not
exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two)."
notGoodEnough: "Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being
transgender?"
I have to laugh. We both know why he included that reference, don't we? It's the same
reason "Box Turtle Ben (Domenech)" included it in that speech that Texas Senator John Cornyn
was to deliver ("It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box
turtle. But that does not mean it is right Now you must raise your children up in a world
where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife"). It's
the same reason likbez pretends that pedophiles are an identity group like gay people.
Decent people must feel that bestiality and pedophilia are beyond the pale. By juxtaposing
them with LGBT, the goal is to subtly induce decent people to associate their feelings of
disgust toward (e.g.) sex with box turtles, and gay people and oh-so-icky ways.
It's a tell that Stephen hasn't got a tolerant bone in his body.
Oy, it looks like you've made my point for me. Let me recap:
(1) Aubergine pointed out that some of these identity groups tend to absolutely privilege
pursuit of their group's goals over the pursuit of a broader class-based agenda
(2) I agreed that this was the case, and that it was only natural, because (a)
historically broad class-based movements have done zilch for oppressed minorities and
interest groups, and (b) indeed, to a great extent, for many of the kinds of physical
oppression faced by minorities, women, and LGBT folks, the oppressors are well-represented in
the proletariat also.
In short, the only way any of these groups got their very real concerns about the
conditions of their labor and life addressed, was by speaking up for themselves.
(3) To this your argument was first that these groups don't work toward a class-based
agenda, and now that there's no evidence in history that they have worked to support each
other, either. [As if the latter matters; I never argued that class-based movements -should-
support (e.g.) gay rights: I noted that they DID NOT, and hence it made sense that gay rights
groups FOCUSED on gay rights. Notwithstanding, in recent years these interest groups DO
support each other.]
(4) Throughout, you've focused on the economic issues, and denigrated the issues that
drove these groups into being:
To pull this back more closely to the subject of OP, your pile of unexamined privilege
looks an awful lot like you're uncritically accepting the highly-educated/rich/socially
& professionally networked/managerial-professional-executive workers' (i.e., upper
class) "default" cultural perspective, and are insisting that failure to see it is deviant
and immoral
What can I say? You're making my point for me. If you can't see that the goals #MeToo,
Black Lives Matter, ACT-UP and others are important, even though they're not economic, well,
is it any surprise they refuse to subordinate them to your goals?
... ... ...
And one last thing: again, it seems like you think that the right of a well-educated woman
or black man to have a good job on the same terms as a white man, is less important than
lifting up all the poor people. It is as if you're saying
Do you remember what LBJ said?
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he
won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll
empty his pockets for you."
Do you see the similarity with your rhetoric? You're arguing that the effect of these
interest groups is to aid entry of members of these minorities into the rich class, and per
se this is bad.
"the injustices and oppression suffered by these minority groups."
You are way too "woke" for your own good ;-)
The problem here is where lies the proper measure of redress, because overdone it turns into
its opposite. Converting bathrooms in schools into gender neutral is one example here.
Moreover some groups are anti-social and need to be severely oppressed. One example is
financial oligarchy, especially financial oligarchy under neoliberalism. The other is neocons
as asocial group. I would love both of those groups oppressed, humiliated and ostracized.
Yet another is pedophiles as a social group, especially pedophiles that abuse the position
of authority (gay catholic priests, teachers which seduce/coerce students, etc).
The idea that each minority group is somehow entitled to compensation for the injustices
they suffered in the past or are suffering currently is probably a delusion. Much depends on a
larger picture: what particular group gives to a larger society. If the group contribution is
negative and the group resort to anti-social behavior then why the oppression is unjust ? It is
just an immune reaction of the society. After all one view is that "Justice is the advantage of
the stronger" (debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus.)
Also in some cases those groups are a minority for a reason.
The globalist cabal controls the money, the promotions, the tenure, the continuance of
careers. God help anyone who disagrees.
Pequiste Just maybe this embracing (that will sound bad in this context ) of all things
LGBTQPIBN+, no matter how bizarrre or disgusting, is to usher into a position of great
importance in the government, the likes of Pete Buttgeek?
The United Church of Christ in Ames, Iowa, for reasons unknown flew a LGBTQ flag/banner of
sexual perversion. A 30 year old Hispanic immigrant took it down and burned it. For this
"crime" he was sentenced to 16 years in prison!
Almost every day I read that another person has been fired from their job because they
tweeted the fact that there are only two genders. One of the most recent is the firing in the
UK of Maya Forstater, "the charity worker who was sacked for her belief that there are two
sexes and that sex is immutable." This is more than a belief. It is a statement of fact, of
truth. There is no scientific evidence of a third gender, much less evidence of the hundreds of
genders that have been declared by utterly stupid people of no known intellectual capability or
accomplishment. Hermaphrodites are considered to be abnormalities, a failure of nature. When a
distinguisned author and a famous actor came to the defense of Maya Forstater, they were
shouted down by a multiple of subhuman excrement. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/20/the-witch-hunting-of-jk-rowling/
The Western World has lost its way. It was only a short time ago that a Google senior
engineer, a white male, was fired because he posted a tweet or an email that spoke a truth that
men and women are good at different things and excel in different areas. His statement of
scientific fact violated the feelings of feminists, who maintain that there is no difference
between the capabilities of men and women. If women aren't excelling in men's areas, it is ipso
facto proof that women are being discriminated against. This claim doesn't work for men who are
not excelling in women's areas. The men can't claim they are not doing as well in women's areas
because they are discriminated against.
By making the claim that men and women are equal in every respect, feminists have destroyed
women's sports. Men now have the transgendered right to self-declare themselves women and to
compete against women in sports. Many women sports stars, such as Maria Sharapova, winner of
five Grand Slam titles, have protested this absurdity, and have been denounced and forced to
apologize for doubting that the males are really females even though the self-declared females
have penises and testicles and the muscle strength of males.
The results of men competing as women in sports contests clearly show that the two genders
are not equal in all respects as the ignorant dumbshit radical feminists insist. The attack on
women does not come from men. It comes from feminists and the alleged transgendered.
What kind of society is the West in which absolutely ridiculous declarations take precedence
over all known science and anatomical fact? How is it possible in the US, UK, and Europe for a
person to be imprisoned for disbelieving that one's gender is independent of one's anatomical
body?
A people this insane don't deserve to exist. The End must be Nigh.
In all of this, it's worth remembering the observation of La Rouchefoucald that "hypocrisy
is the tribute vice pays to virtue". The accusation of virtue signalling represents the refusal
of vice to pay this tribute.
... in my experience the kind of people who talk about VS also talk about 'clicktivism' and
similar; in other words, a lack of effort or cost is particularly characteristic of VS (and,
in their eyes, particularly repugnant).
...And what's about all these people who wear these: "I'm a Deplorable" – T-shirts?
SusanC 12.05.19 at 12:37 pm (no link)
I thought the concept was supposed to be (a)not actually doing anything to reduce a problem;
while (b) making ostentatious signs that purport to show you care about it.
A better example might be attending an Extinction Rebellion protest without changing your
own consumption/pollution causing activities.
I wonder if it somehow relates to the Mary Douglas cultural theory of risk?
If so, we might tentatively include, e.g. Making a big noise about terrorism without
really considering yourself to be at risk from it
"Vice signaling" was a good joke; I think it captures a notion that the affiliation the
person is attempting to signal is not a universally shared one,
SusanC 12.05.19 at 12:45 pm (no link)
For that matter, terrorism itself, in its typical modern form, could be regarded as vice
signalling: ostentatiously commiting public acts of violence ostensibly in support of a
political cause, without regard to whether the political cause is in fact being advanced by
their actions.
cs 12.05.19 at 1:37 pm (no link)
... I would say the implication is about the ostentation and a kind of insincerity.
Insincerity in the sense that the person displaying the rainbow flag wants to be seen as the
kind of person who cares about gay rights, when maybe they don't actually care about it all
that much. That isn't quite the same as hypocrisy I think.
I'll try to give my economic based explanation for this, based on this paper from Piketty:
Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right:Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political
Conflict
This paper has been cited here various times, however I'll drop this line from the
abstract that summarizes the main finding:
Using post-electoral surveys from France, Britain and the US, this paper documents a
striking long-run evolution in the structure of political cleavages. In the 1950s-1960s,
the vote for left-wing (socialist-labour-democratic) parties was associated with lower
education and lower income voters. It has gradually become associated with higher education
voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party systemin the 2000s-2010s: high-education
elites now vote for the "left", while high-income/high-wealth elites still vote for the
"right"
I would add to Phil @2 a third option.
(a) You're a hypocrite.
(b) The thing you're signalling isn't actually a virtue.
(c) You're attacking me by reminding everyone of a virtue I don't have.
I think the old-fashioned term for virtue signalling is sanctimony, not hypocrisy. Notably,
sanctimony is also compatible with genuine belief and/or commitment. It does connote that the
committed person has a degree of self-love over their commitments, and that perhaps the
frequency or intensity of their display of their commitments is caused by an underlying
desire to experience that self-love whenever the opportunity arises.
Sanctimony–correct word, I think–puts me in mind of that old bumper sticker, "I
brake for animals" of which I once saw an example tidily shortened to: "I bake animals".
The problem I have with the whole concept is the stereotyping and bias implicit in it.
When I see the Rainbow I'm supposed to think open minded, inclusive and left-thinking and
that's fully o.k in the minds of liberals, but not in the minds of the Conservatives who see
something else (which I'm not inclined to list).
When I see the MAGA I'm supposed to think closed minded, racist and right-thinking, but
Conservatives would see hard-working Americans trying to make their country a better
place.
Displaying a rainbow flag or wearing a MAGA hat strikes me as visible tribal identification
more than virtue signaling. I think MrMister's mention of sanctimony is closer to the truth.
Another poster mentioned Pharisees and public prayer. Consider a meeting to discuss replacing
culverts to allow better passage of spawning salmon. The participants represent various
interested parties, private and government. The meeting is disrupted by a person who proceeds
to lecture all present about the history of racism, broken treaties and Native American
reverence for nature. This person is not Native American. The speaker assumes that his/her
information is unknown to the audience. The information does nothing to advance the goal of
culvert replacement nor does it do anything to right historic wrongs. The speaker gets to
feel superior. This is high-grade virtue signaling.
It has been my experience that virtue signalling is often practiced on behalf of
marginalized groups by people who do not belong to that group but presume to speak for
them.
I'll second several commenters above: "virtue signalling" isn't primarily an accusation of
hypocrisy. The related accusations targeted at the right are "sanctimony" and "prudishness"
more than hypocrisy. The accusation is that you care more about "being seen as the sort of
person who supports X" than about X.
I think it means making a political statement in order to look good, where good is understood
in a moral sense. That's a real phenomenon, especially in our age of online
narcissism/personal branding, and it probably does affect the liberal-left more than the
right because left-liberal politics tends to be more morally inspired.
I agree with SusanC at 7 and cs at 10 that the term is mostly intended to suggest that you
support some cause or other that you don't really care about, as a way to identify yourself,
or establish bona fides, with some group.
I'm so far behind I'm still bemused by the thought that a flag lapel pin, pledges of
allegiance and praying in public, are all virtue signalling. The tie-ins to libertarian
economics and evolutionary psychology are even more puzzling, but maybe that's because I
think they're just ideological scams/Vavilovian mimicry trying to pass off nonsense as real
ideas.
"... Robert Pfaller: Until the late 1970s, all "Western" (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970ies, stated, "We are all Keynesians"). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII, as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists. ..."
"... Whenever the social-democratic left came into power, for example with Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schroeder, they proved to be the even more radical neoliberal reformers. As a consequence, leftist parties did not have an economic alternative to what their conservative and liberal opponents offered. Thus they had to find another point of distinction. This is how the left became "cultural" (while, of course, ceasing to be a "left"): from now on the marks of distinction were produced by all kinds of concerns for minorities or subaltern groups. And instead of promoting economic equality and equal rights for all groups, the left now focused on symbolic "recognition" and "visibility" for these groups. ..."
"... Thus not only all economic and social concerns were sacrificed for the sake of sexual and ethnic minorities, but even the sake of these minorities itself. Since a good part of the problem of these groups was precisely economic, social and juridical, and not cultural or symbolic. And whenever you really solve a problem of a minority group, the visibility of this group decreases. But by insisting on the visibility of these groups, the policies of the new pseudo-left succeded at making the problems of these groups permanent – and, of course, at pissing off many other people who started to guess that the concern for minorities was actually just a pretext for pursuing a most brutal policy of increasing economic inequality. ..."
"... The connection to neoliberalism is the latter's totalitarian contention of reducing the entirety of human condition into a gender-neutral cosmopolitan self expressing nondescript market preferences in a conceptual vacuum, a contention celebrated by its ideologues as "liberation" and "humanism" despite its inherent repression and inhumanity. ..."
"... "..'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that is substantively political.." ..."
"... Agreed. And the truth is that the message is much clearer than that of the critics, below. So it ought to be for the world, sliding into fascism, in which we live in might have been baked by the neo-liberals but it was iced by 57 varieties of Blairites . The cowards who flinched led by the traitors who sneered. ..."
"... 'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that is substantively political, namely, the fight for an equitable production and distribution of goods, both material and cultural, ensuring a decent life for all. ..."
"... Why bother getting your hands dirty with an actual worker's struggle when you can write yet another glamorously "radical" critique of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (which in truth just ends up as another advert for it)? ..."
"... The One Per Cent saw an opportunity of unlimited exploitation and they ran with it. They're still running (albeit in jets and yachts) and us Proles are either struggling or crawling. Greed is neither Left or Right. It exists for its own self gratification. ..."
"... Actually, post-modernism doesn't include everybody -- just the 'marginalized' and 'disenfranchised' minorities whom Michel Foucault championed. The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the old capitalist strategy of playing off the Lumpenproletariat against the proletariat, to borrow the original Marxist terminology. ..."
"... if you don't mind me asking, exactly at what point do you feel capitalism was restored in the USSR? It was, I take it, with the first Five Year Plan, not the NEP? ..."
"... Also, the Socialist or, to use your nomenclature, "Stalinist" system, that was destroyed in the the USSR in the 1990s–it was, in truth, just one form of capitalism replaced by another form of capitalism? ..."
Robert Pfaller interviewed by Kamran Baradaran, via
ILNA
The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological embellishment
that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain
a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face.
Robert Pfaller is one of the most distinguished figures in today's radical Left. He teaches at the University of Art and Industrial
Design in Linz, Austria. He is a founding member of the Viennese psychoanalytic research group 'stuzzicadenti'.
Pfaller is the author of books such as On the Pleasure Principle in Culture: Illusions Without Owners , Interpassivity:
The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment , among others. Below is the ILNA's interview with this authoritative philosopher on
the Fall of Berlin Wall and "Idea of Communism".
ILNA: What is the role of "pleasure principle" in a world after the Berlin Wall? What role does the lack of ideological
dichotomy, which unveils itself as absent of a powerful left state, play in dismantling democracy?
Robert Pfaller: Until the late 1970s, all "Western" (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic
policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970ies, stated, "We are
all Keynesians"). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII,
as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to
appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists.
Ironically one could say that it was precisely Western workers who profited considerably of "real existing socialism" in the
Eastern European countries.
At the very moment when the "threat" of real existing socialism was not felt anymore, due to the Western economic and military
superiority in the 1980ies (that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall), the economic paradigm in the Western countries shifted.
All of a sudden, all governments, left or right, pursued a neoliberal economic policy (of privatization, austerity politics, the
subjection of education and health sectors under the rule of profitability, liberalization of regulations for the migration of
capital and cheap labour, limitation of democratic sovereignty, etc.).
Whenever the social-democratic left came into power, for example with Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schroeder, they proved to
be the even more radical neoliberal reformers. As a consequence, leftist parties did not have an economic alternative to what
their conservative and liberal opponents offered. Thus they had to find another point of distinction. This is how the left became
"cultural" (while, of course, ceasing to be a "left"): from now on the marks of distinction were produced by all kinds of concerns
for minorities or subaltern groups. And instead of promoting economic equality and equal rights for all groups, the left now focused
on symbolic "recognition" and "visibility" for these groups.
Thus not only all economic and social concerns were sacrificed for the sake of sexual and ethnic minorities, but even the
sake of these minorities itself. Since a good part of the problem of these groups was precisely economic, social and juridical,
and not cultural or symbolic. And whenever you really solve a problem of a minority group, the visibility of this group decreases.
But by insisting on the visibility of these groups, the policies of the new pseudo-left succeded at making the problems of these
groups permanent – and, of course, at pissing off many other people who started to guess that the concern for minorities was actually
just a pretext for pursuing a most brutal policy of increasing economic inequality.
ILNA: The world after the Berlin Wall is mainly considered as post-ideological. Does ideology has truly decamped from our
world or it has only taken more perverse forms? On the other hand, many liberals believe that our world today is based on the
promise of happiness. In this sense, how does capitalism promotes itself on the basis of this ideology?
Robert Pfaller: The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological
embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in
order to attain a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face. This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest
of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism".
It consists of neoliberalism, plus postmodernism as its ideological superstructure.
The ideology of postmodernism today has some of its most prominent symptoms in the omnipresent concern about "discrimination"
(for example, of "people of color") and in the resentment against "old, white men". This is particularly funny in countries like
Germany: since, of course, there has been massive racism and slavery in Germany in the 20th century – yet the victims of this
racism and slavery in Germany have in the first place been white men (Jews, communists, Gypsies, red army prisoners of war, etc.).
Here it is most obvious that a certain German pseudo-leftism does not care for the real problems of this society, but prefers
to import some of the problems that US-society has to deal with. As Louis Althusser has remarked, ideology always consists in
trading in your real problems for the imaginary problems that you would prefer to have.
The general ideological task of postmodernism is to present all existing injustice as an effect of discrimination. This is,
of course, funny again: Since every discrimination presupposes an already established class structure of inequality. If you do
not have unequal places, you cannot distribute individuals in a discriminating way, even if you want to do so. Thus progressive
neoliberalism massively increases social inequality, while distributing all minority groups in an "equal" way over the unequal
places.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Abbreviate & reduce to lowest common denominator which is hyperinflation by today's standards given that we are indeed all
Keynesians now that leveraged debt no longer suffices to prop Wall Street up.
Welcome to the New World Disorder. Screw 'postmodernism' & Chicago School 'neoliberalism'!
MOU
Danubium
There is no such thing as "post-modernism".
The derided fad is an organic evolution of the ideologies of "modernity" and the "Enlightenment", and represents the logical
conclusion of their core premise: the "enlightened self" as the source of truth instead of the pre-modern epistemologies of
divine revelation, tradition and reason.
It does not represent any "liberation" from restrictive thought, as the "self" can only ever be "enlightened" by cult-like
submission to dogma or groupthink that gives tangible meaning to the intangible buzzword, its apparent relativism is a product
of social detachment of the intellectual class and its complete and utter apathy towards the human condition.
The connection to neoliberalism is the latter's totalitarian contention of reducing the entirety of human condition into
a gender-neutral cosmopolitan self expressing nondescript market preferences in a conceptual vacuum, a contention celebrated
by its ideologues as "liberation" and "humanism" despite its inherent repression and inhumanity.
The trend is not to successor or opponent, but rather modernism itself in its degenerative, terminal stage.
Monobazeus
Well said
bevin
"..'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little
of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics'
that has been emptied of all that is substantively political.."
Agreed. And the truth is that the message is much clearer than that of the critics, below.
So it ought to be for the world, sliding into fascism, in which we live in might have been baked by the neo-liberals but it
was iced by 57 varieties of Blairites . The cowards who flinched led by the traitors who sneered.
So cutting through all of the verbiage, the upshot of Pfaller's contentions seems to be that 'identity politics,' which pretty
much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into
the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that
is substantively political, namely, the fight for an equitable production and distribution of goods, both material and cultural,
ensuring a decent life for all.
Difficult not to agree.
For indeed, "If you do not have unequal places, you cannot distribute individuals in a discriminating way, even if you want
to do so."
Capricornia Man
You've nailed it, Norman. In many countries, the left's obsession with identity politics has driven class politics to the periphery
of its concerns, which is exactly where the neoliberals want it to be. It's why the working class just isn't interested.
Martin Usher
It must be fun to sit on top of the heap watching the great unwashed squabbling over the crumbs.
Red Allover
The world needs another put down of postmodern philosophy like it needs a Bob Dylan album of Sinatra covers . . .
maxine chiu
I'm glad the article was short .I don't think I'm stupid but too much pseudo-intellectualism makes me fall asleep.
Tim Jenkins
Lol, especially when there are some galling glaring errors within " too much pseudo-intellectualism "
Thanks for the laugh, maxine,
Let them stew & chew (chiu) on our comments 🙂
Bootlyboob
As with any use of an -ism though, you need sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to using 'postmodernism'. Do you mean
Baudrillard and Delueze? or do you mean some dirty cunt like Bernard Henri-Levy. There is a bit of a difference.
Bootlyboob
Ok, so Levi is not really a postmodernist. But still, there are philosphers of postmodernism that were, and still are, worth
reading.
BigB
Postmodernism: what is it? I defy anyone to give a coherent and specific definition. Not least, because the one 'Classical
Liberal' philosopher who did – Stephen Hicks – used the term as a blanket commodification of all post-Enlightenment thought
starting with Rousseau's Romanticism. So PoMo has pre-Modern roots? When the left start playing broad and wide with political
philosophical categories too – grafting PoMo onto post-Classical roots as a seeming post-Berlin Wall emergence what actually
is being said? With such a depth and breadth of human inquiry being commodified as 'PoMo' – arguably, nothing useful.
Neoliberalism is Classic Liberalism writ large. The basic unit of Classicism is an individuated, independent, intentional,
individual identitarianism as an atom of the rational ('moral') market and its self-maximising agency. Only, the 'Rights of
Man' and the 'Social Contract' have been transfered from the Person (collectively: "We the People " as a the democratic sovereign
power) to the Corporation as the new 'Neo-Classicist' supranational sovereign. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.
As pointed out below: this was already well underway by November 1991 – as a structural-function of the burgeoning Euromarkets.
These were themselves on the rise as the largest source of global capital *before* the Nixon Shock in 1971. There is an argument
to be made that they actually caused the abandoning of Breton Woods and the Gold Standard. Nonetheless, 1991 is a somewhat
arbitrary date for the transition from 'High Modernity' to 'PostModernity'. Philosophers. political, and social scientists
– as Wittgenstein pointed out – perhaps are victims of their own commodification and naming crisis? Don't get me started on
'post-Humanism' but what does PoMo actually mean?
As the article hints at: the grafting of some subjectivist single rights issues to the ultra-objectivist core market rationality
of neoliberalism is an intentional character masking. Even the 'neoliberal CNS' (central nervous system) of the WEF admits
to four distinct phases of globalisation. The current 'Globalisation 4.0' – concurrent with the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution'
– is a further development of this quasi-subjectivist propagandic ploy. Globalisation is now humanist, sovereigntist, environmentalist,
and technologist (technocratic). Its ultimate *telos* is 'fully automated luxury communism' or the harmoniousness of man and
nature under an ecolological *Tianxia* the sustainable 'Ecological Civilisation'. Which, I would hope, absolutely nobody is
gullible enough to believe?
Who says the leopard cannot change its spots? It can, and indeed does. Neoliberalism is a big-data micromarketing driven
technocratic engine of reproduction tailored to the identitarian individual. PoMo – in one sense – is thus the logical extremisation
of Classical Liberalism which is happening within the Classical Liberal tradition. It is certainly not a successor state or
'Fourth Political Theory' which is one of the few things Aleksandr Dugin gets right.
This is why the term needs defintion and precisification or, preferably, abandoning. If both the left and right bandy the
term around as a eupehemism for what either does not like – the term can only be a noun of incoherence. Much like 'antisemitism':
it becomes a negative projection of all undesirable effects onto the 'Other'. Which, when either end of the political spectrum
nihilates the Other leaves us with the vicious dehumanisation of the 'traditional' identitarian fascist centre. All binary
arguments using shared synthetic terminology – that are plastic in meaning depending on who is using the term – cancel each
other out.
Of which, much of which is objectified and commodified as 'PoMo' was a reaction against. A reaction that anticipated the
breakdown of the identitarian and sectarian 'technological postmodern' society. So how can that logically be a 'reaction against'
and an 'embelishment to' neoliberalism'?
This is not a mere instance of pedantry: I/we are witnessing the decoherence of language due to an extremisation of generalisation
and abstraction of sense and meaning. That meaning is deferred is a post-structuralist tenet: but one that proceeds from the
extreme objectivisation of language (one to one mapping of meaning as the analytical signified/signifier relationship) and
the mathematicisation of logic (post-Fregian 'meta-ontology') not its subjectivisation.
If PoMo means anything: it is a rich and authentic vein of human inquiry that was/is a creative attempt to rescue us from
a pure objectivist Hell (David Ray Griffin's "positive postmodernism"). One that was/is not entirely satisfactory; merely because
it has not yet completed. In the midst: we have the morbid hybrid symptomatology of the old Classical Libertarian fascism trying
to recuperate the new Universal Humanism for which PoMo is a meaningless label. Especially if it is used to character masque
the perennial philosophy of Humanism that has been dehumanised and subjugated by successive identitarian regimes of knowledge
and power since forever in pre-Antiquity.
We are all human: only some humans are ideologically more human than others is the counter-history of humanity. When we
encounter such ideologically imprecise degenerative labels as 'PoMo' – that can mean anything to anyone (but favours the status
quo) this makes a nonsense of at least 5,000 years of thought. Is it any wonder that we are super-ordinated by those who can
better dictate who we are? Language is overpower and writing is supra-sovereign administration and bureaucracy over the 'owness'
of identity. Its co-option by the pseudoleft is a complete denigration and betrayal of the potential of a new Humanism. The
key to which is the spiritual recovery and embodiment of who we really are – proto-linguistically and pre-ontologically – before
all these meaningless labels get in the way.
Bootlyboob
You said it better than I ever could.
Stephen Hick's book is quite the laugh. I tried to read it but it made no sense. From memory, it starts at Kant and Hegel
and gets them completely wrong, (he even draws little charts with their ideas in tabulated form, WTF?) so I quickly deleted
the .pdf. Any book that begins with a summary of these two philosophers and then thinks they can hold my attention until they
get to their take on 'postmodernism' is sorely mistaken. Postmodernism is a made up label for about four or five French intellectuals
in the 1970's that somehow took over the world and completely fucked it up. Why do I somehow not follow this line of 'thought'?
Reg
No, Postmodernism is a real thing, it is the capitalist assimilation of situationism to overcome the crisis of profit in the
70s caused by overproduction and the attempt by the 1% to recapture a greater a greater % of GDP that they had lost due to
the post war settlement. This was an increasingly a zero sum game economy after Germany and Japan had rebuilt their manufacturing
capacity, with the US constrained by a widening trade deficit and the cost of the cold and Vietnam war increasing US debt.
The inflation spikes in the 70s is only reflective of these competing demands.
The problem of modernism is than peoples needs are easily saited, particularly in conditions of overproduction. Postmodern
production is all about creating virtual needs that are unsatisfied. The desire for status or belonging or identity are infinite,
and overcomes the dead time of 'valourisation' (time taken for investment to turn into profit) of capital by switching to virtual
production of weightless capitalism. The creation of 'intangible asset's such as trade marks, while off shoring production
is central. This is a form of rentier extraction, as the creation of a trade mark creates no real value if you have offshored
not only production but R&D to China. This is why fiance, and free movement of capital supported by monetary policy and independent
central banks are central to Postmodern neo-liberal production. The problem being that intangible assets are easy to replace
and require monopoly protection supported by a Imperial hegemon to maintain rentier extraction. Why does China need a US or
UK trade mark of products where both innovation and production increasingly come from China? How long can the US as a diminishing
empire maintain rentier extraction at the point of a military it increasingly cannot afford, particularly against a military
and economic superpower like China? It is no accident US companies that have managed to monetise internet technologies are
monopolies, google, microsoft, Apple. An operating system for example has a reproduction cost of zero, the same can be said
of films or music, so the natural price is zero, only a monopoly maintains profit.
The connection to situationism is the cry of May 68 'Make your dreams reality', which was marketised by making peoples dreams
very interesting ones about fitted kitchens, where even 'self actualisation was developed into a product, where even ones own
body identity became a product to be developed at a price. This is at the extreme end of Marxist alienation as not only work
or the home becomes alienated, but the body itself.
David Harvey covers some of this quite well in his "The condition of Postmodernity". Adam Curtis also covers quite well in
'The Trap' and the 'Century of the self'.
BigB
I'm inclined to agree with everything you write. It would fall into what I called 'precisification' and actual definition.
What you describe is pure Baudrillard: that capitalism reproduces as a holistic system of objects that we buy into without
ever satisfying the artificial advertorial need to buy. What we actually seek is a holism of self that cannot be replaced by
a holism of objects hence an encoded need for dissatisfaction articulated as dissatisfaction a Hyperrealism of the eternally
desiring capitalist subject. But Baudrillard rejected the label too.
What I was pointing out was the idea of 'contested concept'. Sure, if we define terms, let's use it. Without that pre-agreed
defintion: the term is meaningless. As are many of our grandiloquent ideas of 'Democracy', 'Freedom', 'Prosperity', and especially
'Peace'. Language is partisan and polarised. Plastic words like 'change' can mean anything and intentionally do. And the convention
of naming creates its own decoherence sequence. What follows 'postmodernism'? Post-humanism is an assault on sense and meaning.
As is the current idea that "reality is the greatest illusion of all".
We are having a real communication breakdown due to the limitations of the language and out proliferation of beliefs. Baudrillard
also anticipated the involution and implosion of the Code. He was speaking from a de Saussurian (semiologic) perspective. Cognitive
Linguistics makes this ever more clear. Language is maninly frames and metaphors. Over expand them over too many cognitive
domains: and the sense and meaning capability is diluted toward meaninglessnes – where reality is no longer real. This puts
us in the inferiorised position of having our terms – and thus our meaning – dictated by a cognitive elite a linguistic 'noocracy'
(which is homologous with the plutocracy – who can afford private education).
Capitalism itself is a purely linguistic phenomena: which is so far off the beaten track I'm not even going to expand on
it. Except to say: that a pre-existing system of objects giving rise to a separate system of thoughts – separate objectivity
and subjectivity – is becoming less tenable to defend. I'd prefer to think in terms of 'embodiment' and 'disembodiment' rather
than distinct historical phases. And open and closed cognitive cycles rather than discreet psycholgical phases. We cannot be
post-humans if we never embodied our humanism fully. And we cannot be be post-modern when we have never fully lived in the
present having invented a disembodied reality without us in it, which we proliferated trans-historically the so-called 'remembered
present'.
Language and our ideas of reality are close-correlates – I would argue very close correlates. They are breaking down because
language and realism are disembodied which, in itself is ludicrous to say. But we have inherited and formalised an idealism
that is exactly that. Meaning resides in an immaterial intellect in an intangible mind floating around in an abstract neo-Platonic
heaven waiting for Reason to concur with it. Which is metaphysical bullshit, but it is also the foundation of culture and 'Realism'.
Which makes my position 'anti-Realist'. Can you see my problem with socio-philosophical labels now!? They can carry sense if
used carefully, as you did. In general discourse they mean whatever they want to mean. Which generally means they will be used
against you.
Ramdan
"the SPIRITUAL RECOVERY and embodiment of who we really are – PROTO-LINGUISTICALLY and PRE-ONTOLOGICALLY – BEFORE all these
MEANINGLESS LABELS get in the way."
Thanks BigB. I just took the liberty to add emphasis.
Robbobbobin
Smarty pants (label).
Robert Laine
A reply to the article worthy of another Off-G article (or perhaps a book) which would include at a minimum the importance
of non-dualistic thinking, misuse of language in the creation of MSM and government narratives and the need to be conscious
of living life from time to time while we talk about it. Thankyou, BigB.
Don't you love how all these people discuss postmodernism without ever bothering to define what it is. How confused. Hicks
and Peterson see postmodernists as Neo-Marxists and this guy sees them as Neoliberals. None of the main theorists that have
been associated with Postmodernism and Post-Structuralism and I'm thinking Derrida, Baudrillard and Foucault here (not that
I see Foucault as really belonging in the group) would not even accept the term 'postmodernism' as they would see it as an
inappropriate form of stereo-typography with no coherent meaning or definition and that presupposing that one can simply trade
such signifiers in 'transparent' communication and for us all to think and understand the same thing that 'postmodernism' as
a body of texts and ideas might be 'constituted by' is a large part of the problem under discussion. I often think that a large
question that arises from Derrida's project is not to study communication as such but to study and understand miss-communication
and how and why it comes about and what is involved in our misunderstandings. If people don't get that about 'postmodern' and
post-structuralist theories then they've not understood any thing about it.
BigB
You are absolutely right: the way we think in commodities of identities – as huge generalizations and blanket abstractions
– tends toward grand narration and meaninglessness. Which is at once dehumanising, ethnocentric, exceptionalist, imperialist
in a way that favours dominion and overpower. All these tendencies are encoded in the hierarchical structures of the language
– as "vicious" binary constructivisms. In short, socio-linguistic culture is a regime of overpower and subjugation. One that
is "philosopho-political" and hyper-normalises our discrimination.
Deleuze went further when he said language is "univocal". We only have one equiprimordial concept of identity – Being. It
is our ontological primitive singularity of sense and meaning. Everything we identity – as "Difference" – is in terms of Being
(non-Being is it's binary mirror state) as an object with attributes (substances). Being is differentiated into hierarchies
(the more attributes, the more "substantial"- the 'greater' the being) which are made "real" by "Repetition" hence Difference
and Repetition. The language of Dominion, polarization, and overpower is a reified "grand ontological narrative" constructivism.
One dominated by absolutised conceptual Being. That's all.
[One in which we are naturally inferiorised in our unconscious relationship of being qua Being in which we are dominated
by a conceptual "Oedipal Father" – the singularity of the Known – but that's another primal 'onto-theocratic' narrative the
grandest of then all].
One that we are born and acculturated into. Which the majority accept and never question. How many people question not just
their processes of thought but the structure of their processes of thought? A thought cannot escape its own structure and that
structure is inherently dominative. If not in it's immediacy then deferred somewhere else via a coduit of systemic violence
structured as a "violent hierarchy" of opposition and Othering.
Which is the ultimate mis-communication of anything that can be said to be "real" non-dominative, egalitarian, empathic,
etc. Which, of course, if we realise the full implications we can change the way we think and the "naturalised" power structures
we collectively validate.
When people let their opinions be formed for them, and commodify Romanticism, German Idealism, Marxism, Phenomenology, Structuralism,
Post-Structuralism, Existentialism, etc as the pseudo-word "PoMo" – only to dismiss it they are unbeknowingly validating the
hegemony of power and false-knowledge over. Then paradoxically using those binary power structures to rail about being dominated!
Those linguistic power structures dominate politics too. The "political unconscious" is binary and oppositional which tends
toward negation and favours the status quo but how many people think in terms of the psychopolitical and psycholinguistic algorithms
of power and politics?
Derrida's project is now our project and it has hardly yet begun. Not least because cognitive linguistics were unkown to
Derrida. That's how knowledge works by contemporising and updating previous knowledge from Structuralism to Post-Structuralism
to
Nihilating anything that can be called "PoMo" (including that other pseudo-label "Cultural Marxism") condemns us to another
200 years of Classical Liberalism which should be enough impetus to compel everyone to embrace the positive aspects of PoMo!
Especially post-post-structuralism that stupid naming convention again
I think a lot of people forget that both Derrida and Baudrillard died before the financial crisis. I don't think either of
them like myself at that time paid much attention to economics and markets as they worked within very specific and focused
fields. Derrida spent his whole life analysing phonocentrism and logocentrism throughout the history of philosophy and Baudrillard
was more a cultural sociologist then anything else. They like most people assumed that neoliberalism was working and they enjoyed
well paid jobs and great celebrity so they didn't have much cause to pay that much attention to politics. Following the Invasion
of Iraq Derrida did come out very strongly against the US calling it the biggest and most dangerous rogue state in the world
and he cited and quoted Chomsky's excellent work. We should also include the UK as the second biggest rogue state.
Once the GFC happened I realized that my knowledge on those subjects was virtually zero and I have since spent years looking
at them all very closely. I think Derrida and Baudrillard would have become very political following the GFC and even more
so now given current events with the yellow vests in France. Shame those two great thinkers died before all the corruption
of neoliberalism was finally revealed. I believe that would have had a great deal to say about it Derrida at least was a very
moral and ethical man.
Bootlyboob
I think you would like this essay if you have not read it already.
If anyone wants a good overview of postmodernism and post-structuralism Cuck philosophy has has some excellent videos covering
the subject matter and ideas. He explains how postmodernism has nothing to do with identity politics and shows how Hick and
Peterson have fundamentally misunderstood postmodernism. He also has 3 videos covering postmodern basics and some others on
Derrida and Baudrillard. You will not find the concepts explained better though one can never give a comprehensive review as
such things are essentially beyond us.
He puts too much weight on Foucault for my liking but that's just the fact that my understanding of postmodernism is obviously
different to his because all of our largely chance encounters with different texts at different times, which mean that we all
come away with slightly different ideas about what these things might mean at any given time. Even in relation to differences
in our own ideas from day to day or year to year.
Bootlyboob
Yes, that's why I mentioned the article in relation to your earlier comment. I don't think any of these philosophers would
have changed their stances based on the events 20 or 30 post their deaths. They essentially predicted the course that society
has taken.
Judith Butler took part in the occupy wall street movement and she's a post-structuralist so she has clearly changed her mind
since the GFC. Deleuze may have to a certain extent have predicted such things but that doesn't necessarily mean they would
have been happy about them. Derrida always spoke of the 'democracy' to come. Instead what we are looking forward to is tech
based technocratic totalitarianism. I don't go along with Deleuze on that matter anyway. I don't see a discreet transition
from one to the other but rather see us having to endure the combined worst of both scenarios.
Bootlyboob
In relation to Peterson. I did write an email to him once and he wrote back to me saying he does indeed like the writings of
Deleuze and Baudrillard. But it was a one line response. I'm still assuming he merely uses a false reading of Derrida as a
prop to advance his own arguments.
Peterson doesn't understand that postmodernism is not the source of identity politics or cultural marxism. That source is Anglo
sociology. I was doing an MSc in sociology back in 1994/95 and they had been transitioning away from Marx and class conflict
to Nietzsche and power conflicts understood within a very simplistic definition of power as a simple binary opposition of forces
between and 'oppressor' and a 'resistor'.
They borrow a bit from Foucault but they cannot accept his postmodern conclusions as power is necessarily revealed as a
positive force that actually constructs us all: in which case one cannot really object to it on political grounds. Let's face
it, these cultural ex-Marxists (now actually an elitist Nietzschean ubermench) don't seem to object to power's miss-functioning
at all on any kind of institutional level but solely concentrate on supposed power relations at the personal level.
That's all if you buy into 'power'at all as such. Baudrillard wrote 'Forget Foucault' and that 'the more one sees power
everywhere the less one is able to speak thereof'. I try and stay clear of any theory that tries to account for everything
with a single concept or perspective as they end up over-determining and reductionist.
A major benefit (for the elites) of postmodernism is its epistemological relativism, which denies the fundamentally important
commitments to objectivity, to facts and evidence. This results in the absurd situation where all the matters is the narrative.
This obvious fact is partially obscured by the substitution of emotion for evidence and logic.
https://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/06/emotion-substitutes-for-evidence-and.html
Seamus Padraig
Yup. Among other things, po-mo 'theory' enables Orwell's doublethink .
BigB
This is exactly the misunderstanding of a mythical "po-mo 'theory'" – if such a thing exists – that I am getting at. 'Po-mo
theory' is in fact a modernity/postmodernity hybrid theory. Pomo theory is yet to emerge.
For instance: Derrida talked of the 'alterity' of language and consciousness that was neither subjectivist nor objectivist.
He also spoke of 'inversion/subversion' – where one bipolar oppositional term becomes the new dominant ie 'black over white'
or 'female over male'. This, he made specifically clear, was just as violent a domination as the old normal. How is this enabling
'doublethink'.
If you actually study where Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze; etc where taking their 'semiotics' it was to the 'Middle Way'
of language – much the same destination as Buddhism. This is the clear and precise non-domination of either extreme of language.
Only, they never supplied the praxis; and their followers and denigrators where not as prescient.
There is so much more to come from de Saussurian/Piercian semiotics and Bergsonian/Whiteheadian process philosophy. We have
barely scratched the surface. One possibility is the fabled East/West synthesis of thought that quantum physics and neuroscience
hint at.
What yo do not realise is that our true identity is lost in the language. Specifically: the Law of Identity and the Law
of the Excluded Middle of our current Theory of Mind prevent the understanding of consciousness. To understand why you actually
have to read and understand the linguistic foundations of the very theory you have just dismissed.
Robbobbobin
"Specifically: the Law of Identity and the Law of the Excluded Middle of our current Theory of Mind prevent the understanding
of consciousness."
Yes, but. What do you mean by " our current Theory of Mind"?
Tim Jenkins
Was that a promo for Po-mo theory, BigB ? (chuckle)
BigB
In fact: if followed through – PoMo leads to the point of decoherence of all narrative constructivism. Which is the same point
the Buddhist Yogacara/Madhyamaka synthesis leads to. Which is the same point quantum physics and contemporary cognitive neuroscience
leads to. The fact of a pre-existent, mind-independent, objective ground for reality is no longer tenable. Objectivism is dead.
But so is subjectivism.
What is yet to appear is a coherent narrative that accommodates this. Precisely because language does not allow this. It
is either subjectivism or objectivism tertium non datur – a third is not given. It is precisely within the excluded middle
of language that the understanding of consciouness lies. The reason we have an ontological cosmogony without consciousness
lies precisely in the objectification and commodification of language. All propositions and narratives are ultimately false
especially this one.
Crucially, just because we cannot create a narrative construction or identity for 'reality' – does not mean we cannot experience
'reality'. Which is what a propositional device like a Zen koan refers to
All linguistic constructivism – whether objective or subjective – acts as a covering of reality. We take the ontological
narrative imaginary for the real 'abhuta-parikalpa'. Both object and subject are pratitya-samutpada – co-evolutionary contingent
dependendencies. The disjunction of all dualities via ersatz spatio-temporality creates Samsara. The ending of Samsara is the
ending and re-uniting of all falsely dichotomised binary definitions. About which: we can say precisely nothing.
Does this mean language is dead? No way. Language is there for the reclamation by understanding its superimpositional qualitiy
(upacara). A metaphoric understanding that George Lakoff has reached with Mark Johnston totally independently of Buddhism.
I call it 'poetic objectivism' of 'critical realism' which is the non-nihilational, non-solipsistic, middle way. Which precisely
nihilates both elitism and capitalism: which is why there is so much confusion around the language. There is more at stake
than mere linguistics. The future of humanity will be determined by our relationship with our languages.
vexarb
@BigB: "The fact of a pre-existent, mind-independent, objective ground for reality is no longer tenable. Objectivism is dead."
Do you mean that there is more to life than just "atoms and empty space"? Plato, Dante and Blake (to name the first 3 who
popped into my head) would have agreed with that: the ground of objective reality is mind -- the mind of God.
"The atoms of Democritus, and Newton's particles of Light,
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore, Where Israel's tents do shine so bright".
Tim Jenkins
Funnily enough, I was only writing just yesterday on OffG's 'India's Tryst with Destiny' article, just what poor standards
we have in the Education of our children today, in urgent need of massive revisions, which I've highlighted and how the guilt
lays squarely on the shoulders of Scientists & Academia in our Universities, from Physics to History & Law & the 'Physiology
of Psychology' these guys really just don't 'cut it' anymore resting on Laurels, living in Fear and corrupted by capitalism
>>> wholly !
Somebody should be shot, I say for Terrorist Acts !
Corruption is the Destruction of Culture &
"The Destruction of Culture is a Terrorist Act", now officially,
in international Law @UNESCO (thanks, Irina Bokova)
Would the author of this piece like to review & correct some obviously glaring errors ?
George
Good article. On this topic, I read an essay by the late Ellen Meiksins Wood where she noted that our splendid "new Left" are
all at once too pessimistic and too optimistic. Too pessimistic because they blandly assume that socialism is dead and so all
struggles in that direction are futile. Too optimistic because they assume that this (up till now) bearable capitalism around
them can simply continue with its shopping sprees, pop celebrity culture, soap operas, scandal sheets, ineffectual though comfortable
tut-tutting over corrupt and stupid politicians and – best of all – its endless opportunity for writing postmodernist deconstructions
of all those phenomena.
Why bother getting your hands dirty with an actual worker's struggle when you can write yet another
glamorously "radical" critique of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (which in truth just ends up as another advert for it)?
Fair Dinkum
During the 50's and 60's most folks living in Western cultures were happy with their lot: One house, one car, one spouse, one
job, three or four kids and enough money to live the 'good life'
Then along came Vance Packard's 'Hidden Persuaders' and hell broke loose.
The One Per Cent saw an opportunity of unlimited exploitation and they ran with it.
They're still running (albeit in jets and yachts) and us Proles are either struggling or crawling.
Greed is neither Left or Right.
It exists for its own self gratification.
Seamus Padraig
Excellent article and very true. Just one minor quibble:
This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to
"include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism".
Actually, post-modernism doesn't include everybody -- just the 'marginalized' and 'disenfranchised' minorities whom
Michel Foucault championed. The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the old capitalist strategy of playing off the
Lumpenproletariat against the proletariat, to borrow the original Marxist terminology.
Stephen Morrell
The following facile claim doesn't bear scrutiny: "At the very moment when the "threat" of real existing socialism was not
felt anymore, due to the Western economic and military superiority in the 1980ies (that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall),
the economic paradigm in the Western countries shifted."
The economic paradigm shifted well before the 1980s and it had nothing to do with "Western economic and military superiority
in the 1980ies". The death knell of Keynesianism was sounded with the de-linking of the US dollar and the gold standard in
1971 and the first oil crisis of 1973. Subsequently, the 1970s were marked by a continuous and escalating campaign of capital
strikes which produced both high inflation and high unemployment ('stagflation') in the main imperial centres. These strikes
persisted until the bourgeoisie's servants were able to implement their desired 'free market' measures in the 1980s, the key
ones being smashing of trade union power and consequent devastation of working conditions and living standards, privatisation
of essential services, dissolution of social welfare and all the rest. All in the name of 'encouraging investment'.
The fear of 'existing socialism' (and of the military might of Eastern Europe and the USSR) persisted right up to the restoration
of capitalism in the USSR in 1991-92. The post-soviet triumphalism (to that moronic and ultimate post-modernist war cry, 'The
End of History') only opened the floodgates for the imposition of the neoliberal paradigm over the whole globe. The real essence
of the 'globalisation' ideology has been this imposition of imperial monopoly and hegemony on economically backward but resource-rich
countries that hitherto could gain some respite or succour from the USSR and Eastern Europe as an alternative to the tender
mercies of the World Bank and IMF whose terms correspondingly centred on the neoliberal paradigm.
The key class-war victories of the 1980s by the ruling class, especially in the main Anglophone imperial centres (exemplified
by the air traffic controllers strike in Reagan's US and the Great Coal Strike in Thatcher's England), were the necessary condition
to them getting their way domestically. However, the dissolution of the USSR not only allowed the imperialists to rampage internationally
(through the World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc) but gave great fillip to their initial class-war victories at home to impose with impunity
ever more grinding impoverishment and austerity on the working class and oppressed -- from the 1990s right up to fraught and
crisis-ridden present. The impunity was fuelled in many countries by that domestic accompaniment to the dissolution of the
USSR, the rapidly spiralling and terminal decline of the mass Stalinist Communist parties, the bourgeoisie's bogeyman.
Finally, productivity in the capitalist west was always higher than in post-capitalist countries. The latter universally
have been socialised economies built in economically backward countries and saddled with stultifying Stalinist bureaucracies,
including in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Capitalist productivity didn't suddenly exceed that in the USSR or Eastern Europe
in the 1980s.
So, overall, the 'triumph' of the neoliberal paradigm didn't really have much to do with the imperialist lie of "Western
economic and military superiority in the 1980ies". That fairytale might fit into some post-modernist relativist epistemology
of everything being equally 'true' or 'valid', but in the real world it doesn't hold up empirically or logically. In Anglophone
philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and hyper-objectivist
structuralism correspondingly was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism.
Seamus Padraig
The death knell of Keynesianism was sounded with the de-linking of the US dollar and the gold standard in 1971 and the
first oil crisis of 1973.
Not really, no. In fact, we still do have Keynesianism; but now, it's just a Keynsianism for the banks, the corporations
and the MIC rather than the rest of us. But check the stats: the governments of West are still heavily involved in deficit
spending–US deficits, in fact, haven't been this big since WW2! Wish I got some of that money
Tim Jenkins
I find this kind of a pointless discussion on Keynes & so on
"Capitalism has Failed." Christine Lagarde 27/5/2014 Mansion House
"Socialism for the Rich" (Stiglitz: Nobel Economic laureate, 2008/9)
More important is the structuring of Central Banks to discuss and
Richard A. Werner's sound observations in the link
Riddle me this Seamus: this year we just got a new statue of Woodrow Wilson in Plovdiv BG.
Last year we got a statue of John no-name McCain in Sofia Bulgaria
See the patterns in the most poverty stricken EU nation ?
Not difficult !
vexarb
Seamus, me too! At least, wish I could get some of my own money back.
Tim Jenkins
Whenever I think about some serious R.O.I. of time & money & family contributions to Tech. Designs, lost in the '80's, I have
to play some music or switch to Zen mode 🙂
vexarb
@Tim: "R.O.I (Return On Investment)". The first time I have come across that P.O.V (Point Of View) on this site. The essence
of Darwin's theory of evolutionary progress: to slowly build on an initial slight advantage. The 80s (I was there), Maggie
Snatcher, Baroness Muck, no such thing as Society, the years that the Locust has eaten. Little ROI despite a tsunami of fiat
money swirling around the electronic world. Where is the ROI from capital in the WC.Clinton / B.Liar / Brown regimes, that
were so boastful of their economic policies. Where are the snows of yesteryear?
Tim Jenkins
Well said, Stephen: this wholly weird wee article certainly begs the question, how old is & where was this tainted memory &
member of academia in the 'Winter of '79' ? and how could he have possibly missed all the denationalisation/privatisation,
beginning with NFC and onwards, throughout the '80's, under Thatcher ? Culminating in screwing UK societal futures, by failing
to rollout Fibre Optic Cable in the UK, (except for the Square Mile city interests of London) which Boris now promises to do
today, nationwide,
a mere 30 years too damn late, when it would have been so cheap, back then and production costs could have been tied to
contracts of sale of the elite British Tech. at that time
Worth reading both part one & two of that link, imo scandalous !
Nice wholly suitable reference to Althusser 😉 say no more.
Talk about 'Bonkers' 🙂 we shan't be buying the book, for sure 🙂
Your comment was way more valuable. Do people get paid for writing things like this, these days. I was just outside Linz
for 2 months, just before last Christmas and I found more knowledgeable people on the street, in & around Hitler's ole' 'patch',
during his formative years, on the streets of Linz: where the joke goes something along the lines of
"If a homeless unemployed artist can't make it in Austria, he has nothing to fear, knowing that he can be on the road to
becoming the Chancellor of Germany in just another year "
BigB
I was right with you to the end, Stephen. Althusser killed his wife for sure: but he was deemed insane and never stood trial.
He was almost certainly suffering from a combination of conditions, exacerbated by a severe form of PTSD, as we would call
it now.
Whether or not one has sympathy for this has become highly politicised. Classic Liberals, anti-communists, and radical feminists
always seem to portray the 'murder' as a rational act of the misogynistic male in the grips of a radical philosophy for which
wife murder is as natural a consequence as the Gulag. His supporters try to portray the 'mercy' killing of Helene as an 'act
of love'. It wasn't that simple though, was it? Nor that black and white.
I cannot imagine what life was like in a German concentration camp for someone who was already suffering from mental illness.
From what I have read: the 'treatment' available in the '50s was worse than the underlying condition. He was also 'self-medicating'.
I cannot imagine what the state of his mind was in 1980: but I am inclined to cut him some slack. A lot of slack.
I cannot agree with your last statement. Althusser's madness was not a global trigger event – proceeding as a natural consequence
from "hyper-subjectivist post-modernism". Which makes for a literary original, but highly inaccurate metaphor. Not least because
Althusser was generally considered as a Structuralist himself.
Other than that, great comment.
Stephen Morrell
I understand your sentiments toward Althusser, and am sorry if my remarks about him were insensitive or offensive. However,
I know from personal experience of hardline Althusserian academic philosophers who suddenly became post-modernists after the
unfortunate incident. The point I was trying to make was that his philosophy wasn't abandoned for philosophical reasons but
non-philosophical, moral ones. It wasn't a condemnation of Althusser. It was a condemnation of many of his followers.
I made no claim that this was some kind of 'global trigger event'. Philosophy departments, or ideas as such, don't bring
change. If post-modernism didn't become useful to at least some sectors of the ruling class at some point, then it would have
remained an academic backwater (as it should have). Nor that post-modernism was some kind of 'natural consequence' of structuralism
(which is what I think you meant). Philosophically, it was a certainly one reaction to structuralism, one among several. Other
more rational reactions to structuralism included EP Thompson's and Sebastiano Timpinaro's.
As Marx said, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" [German Ideology], and if the ruling class
finds some of them useful they'll adopt them. Or as Milton Friedman, one of the main proponents of neoliberalism, proclaimed:
"Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on
the ideas that are lying around." Post-modernism, as a philosophy 'lying around', serves as a nice philosophical/ideological
fit for the intelligentsia to rationalise the anti-science ideology the ruling class today is foisting on rest of the population.
Politically, Althusser was disowned by many French leftists for his support of the thoroughly counter-revolutionary role
of the Stalinist PCF in the 1968 May events. His authority lasted for over a decade longer in the Anglophone countries.
Lochearn
"In Anglophone philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and
hyper-objectivist structuralism correspondingly was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism."
Wonderful sentence. I'll keep that – if I may – for some imaginary dinner table with some imaginary academic friends.
Tim Jenkins
I was thinking exactly the same and imagining the window of opportunity to provoke some sound conversation, after some spluttering of red w(h)ine
Stephen Morrell
Thank you. I'll rephrase it to improve it slightly if you like:
In Anglophone philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and
in revenge hyper-objectivist structuralism was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism.
Red Allover
Mr. Morrell's use of the phrase "stultifying Stalinist bureaucracies," to describe the actually existing Socialist societies
of the Eastern bloc, indicates to me that he is very much of the bourgeois mind set that he purports to criticize. This "plague
on both your houses" attitude is very typical of the lower middle class intellectual in capitalist countries, c.f. Chomsky,
Zizek, etc.
Stephen Morrell
On the contrary, all the remaining workers states (China, North Korea, Viet Nam, Laos and Cuba) must be defended against imperialist
attack and internal counterrevolution despite the bureaucratic castes that hold political power in these countries. Political,
not social, revolutions are needed to sweep away these bureaucracies to establish organs of workers democracy and political
power (eg soviets) which never existed in these countries (unlike in the first years of the USSR).
To his last days, the dying Lenin fought the rising bureaucracy led by Stalin, but Russia's backwardness and the failure
of the revolution to spread to an advanced country (especially Germany, October 1923) drove its rise. Its ideological shell
was the profoundly reactionary outlook and program of 'Socialism in One Country' (and only one country). And while Stalin defeated
him and his followers, it was Trotsky who came to a Marxist, materialist understanding of what produced and drove the Soviet
Thermidor. Trotsky didn't go running off to the bourgeoisie of the world blubbering about a 'new class' the way Kautsky, Djilas,
Shachtman, Cliff, et al. did.
The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union was a profound defeat for the working class worldwide, as it would be
for the remaining workers states. Now if that's a 'bourgeois mindset' of a 'lower middle class intellectual', be my guest and
nominate the bourgeois or petty bourgeois layers that hold such views. Certainly Chomsky, Zizek et al. couldn't agree with
such an outlook, but it's only the bourgeoisie and the Stalinists who contend that the workers states are 'socialist' or 'communist'.
Only a true post-modernist could delude themselves into concurring, or claim that the political repression, censorship and
corrupting bureaucratism of the Stalinist regimes were indeed not stultifying.
Red Allover
Thanks for your intelligent response. I am very familiar with the Trotskyist positions you outline. I could give you the Leninist
rebuttal to each of them, but you are probably familiar with them as well. I don't want to waste your time, or mine. However,
if you don't mind me asking, exactly at what point do you feel capitalism was restored in the USSR? It was, I take it, with
the first Five Year Plan, not the NEP?
Also, the Socialist or, to use your nomenclature, "Stalinist" system, that was destroyed in the the USSR in the 1990s–it was,
in truth, just one form of capitalism replaced by another form of capitalism? Would this summarize your view accurately?
Stephen Morrell
Capitalism was restored in the USSR in 1991-92. Stalinism was not another form of capitalism, as the Third Campists would contend.
The Stalinist bureaucracy rested on exactly the same property relations a socialist system would which were destroyed with
Yeltsin's (and Bush's) counterrevolution. Last, I've never labelled the Stalinist bureaucracy as a 'system'.
Perhaps if you changed your moniker to: "Troll Allover" one could take you seriously, well, not really – 'seriously' – but
at least in a sort of weird, twisted & warped post-modern sense – eh?
Red Allover
I'm sorry, what is the argument you are making? I know name calling is beneath intelligent, educated people.
"This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said, to some laughs from the crowd.
"The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws." he
continued.
Obama cited college campuses and social media as a breeding ground for wokeness.
"One danger I see among young people particularly on college campuses," he said, "I do get
a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media,
there is this sense sometimes the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible
about other people and that's enough."
Obama then directly poked fun at 'woke' keyboard warriors:
"Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb
or then, I can sit back and feel good about myself: 'You see how woke I was? I called you
out.'" he mocked.
In a nutshell, Obama is saying we all need a little more aloha spirit -- being
respectful & caring for one another. Not being so quick to judge. Not seeing everything
as black/white. I hope you'll join me in bringing the spirit of aloha to the White House.
https://t.co/tYADx6Dzqs
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did an
about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the usual
suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a corporation.
I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
People are defending Warbama's helping DOW screw women who had breast cancer out of their
settlement. It's absolutely sickening to see people defending the indefensible. "She needed
the experience." WTAF does that even mean?
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did
an about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the
usual suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a
corporation. I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
of identity politics is bullshit. He's offended enough by irrationality that he's willing
to comment on that in public--now that he's out of the Presidency and doesn't have to win any
more elections.
However, none of that would stop him (or did stop him) using that kind of identity
politics to the hilt for his own political advantage.
#2 Go
on ahead and mock all you want. Those of us who see you for what you are will never stop
seeing it and calling you out on it. Boohoo mofo.
"... Trans ideology initially surfaced in mainstream culture as a pre-formed idea, with activists claiming that even to question it was hate speech. These ideologues successfully manipulated public compassion to convince people that the view that biological sex is mutable and gender is innate in the brain is correct, even if that doesn't make any biological or logical sense. ..."
"... Now the existence of trans adults is mandating the creation of trans children. The idea that grownups who were born male were actually always female only works if there are trans youth. The court system is allowing this delusion to be perpetrated simply so that the dogma of trans adults can make sense. If a child came forward and said he needed one leg removed, or an eyeball sewn onto his hand, or a nose job, the courts would undoubtedly say no. The fact that they say otherwise to drastic body modifications when trans is involved shows how powerful this perspective has become. ..."
"... Whether or not James believes he is female -- which is seriously in doubt -- there should be no medical professional who is willing to give a child life-altering drugs designed to deny his biological sex and development. If a parent speaks out against this, the court should do everything in its power to open the door to preventing the child from undergoing medical harm. Additionally, if this seven-year-old's idea that he is female turns out to be untrue, he'll need an adult in his life to whom he can turn, to whom he will not feel responsible to stay trans in order to earn their approval. The court is denying that the child will ever need a way out, yet detransitioners exist and are making their voices heard. ..."
When a Court Forces Your Boy to Become a Girl It's happening in Texas, showing just how far coercive trans ideology
has wormed into our culture.
The latest case to have every rational person in a state of horror is that of a Texas dad who has been forced by court order to
allow his seven-year-old son to undergo a medical gender transition at the hands of the child's mother. It's a massive judicial overreach
that destroys the bond between parent and child, and it exemplifies everything that opponents of trans ideology have been warning
about.
Dr. Anne Georgulas and Jeffrey Younger, parents to twin boys, are in stark disagreement as to the best treatment for their son.
Unable to come to an adequate solution, the dispute landed them in court. On one side was Georgulas, who believes that her seven-year-old,
James, wishes to live as a girl called Luna. Her answer to this delusion (which may, in fact, be her own, and not her son's) is to
drug the child with puberty blockers and estrogen. Younger, the boys' father, who until this point has had joint custody with Georgulas,
does not believe his healthy son should be altered in this way.
Judge and jury have now
found in Georgulas' favor. Under mother's care, James will be chemically castrated, put on drugs that will render him infertile,
and only allowed to interact with those who call him Luna, reinforcing the falsehood that he is a girl. While what's happening to
James is tragic, the most dangerous part of all is how this case could set a precedent for further social indoctrination and maltreatment.
Younger is being compelled by a court of law to lie to his own son.
Trans ideology initially surfaced in mainstream culture as a pre-formed idea, with activists claiming that even to question
it was hate speech. These ideologues successfully manipulated public compassion to convince people that the view that biological
sex is mutable and gender is innate in the brain is correct, even if that doesn't make any biological or logical sense.
Now the existence of trans adults is mandating the creation of trans children. The idea that grownups who were born male were
actually always female only works if there are trans youth. The court system is allowing this delusion to be perpetrated simply so
that the dogma of trans adults can make sense. If a child came forward and said he needed one leg removed, or an eyeball sewn onto
his hand, or a nose job, the courts would undoubtedly say no. The fact that they say otherwise to drastic body modifications when
trans is involved shows how powerful this perspective has become.
The idea of trans is that gender dysphoric youth need to be affirmed in their delusions because otherwise they will commit suicide.
But this is the only area where risk of self-harm has led to the upholding of a sick person's self-deception. Similar reinforcement
is never attempted with anorexia, depression, or any other mental condition. What makes trans so special is the advocates behind
it, who are
pushing at every level for recognition, even if it means depriving a parent of his rights.
This court case makes clear that if parents do not go along with trans ideology, their rights to properly raise their children
will be taken from them. Custody disputes are always a mess. But there should never be be a case in which a parent is removed from
joint custody because he or she objects to a healthy child undergoing unnecessary, experimental medical treatment.
Whether or not James believes he is female -- which is seriously in
doubt
-- there should be no medical professional who is willing to give a child life-altering drugs designed to deny his biological sex
and development. If a parent speaks out against this, the court should do everything in its power to open the door to preventing
the child from undergoing medical harm. Additionally, if this seven-year-old's idea that he is female turns out to be untrue, he'll
need an adult in his life to whom he can turn, to whom he will not feel responsible to stay trans in order to earn their approval.
The court is denying that the child will ever need a way out, yet detransitioners exist and are making their voices heard.
When we are seven, we believe what we are told, not only about the world around us but about our own bodies. It's easy to convince
children that lies are truth, because they have nothing to base their understanding on. This is why it's so essential to give kids
accurate information. Just as it would be cruel to tell a child that red is blue, or cats are dogs, it is similarly horrible to tell
them that boys can become girls. They will believe it, and it is a lie.
Fortunately, some in the medical establishment are starting to
sound the alarm about the dangers of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones being administered to young children. The risks
of these drugs include bone loss, brain dysfunction, and permanent sterility. There may be other side effects, too, but since these
drugs are not tested, no one knows what those might be. Yet trans advocates insist that affirming their ideology is more important
than watchful waiting.
The practice of affirmation is actually confirmation. Compelling those around the child to use a new language and new name, to
support the delusion instead of insisting that the child's body is fine as it was made, reinforces that the child is trans. No parent
should be compelled by a court of law to lie in this way, and that it's happened shows how insidious trans ideology has wormed into
our culture.
Libby Emmons is a playwright living in Brooklyn, New York. She has written for The Federalist, Quillette, and Arc Digital,
among other publications. You can follow her on Twitter @li88yinc .
Supporting neoliberalism is the key treason of contemporary intellectuals eeho were instrumental in decimating the New Deal capitalism,
to say nothing about neocon, who downgraded themselves into intellectual prostitutes of MIC mad try to destroy post WWII order.
Notable quotes:
"... More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. ..."
"... "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration. ..."
"... In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates' devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles sounds! ..."
"... In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other 'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time." ..."
"... In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him. ..."
"... His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ." ..."
"... From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm is erupting in every corner of cultural life today. ..."
"... Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned by the court of diversity." ..."
"... Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit." ..."
"... Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason ..."
"... In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity." ..."
"... The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. ..."
"... In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things, this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual divisions ..."
"... Granted, the belief that there is "Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science": these are among today's talismanic fetishes. ..."
"... Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism." The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational animus in the mid-1940s. ..."
"... Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce, anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity." ..."
"... The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. ..."
"... There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group ..."
"... To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection of culture to anthropology. ..."
"... In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than Shakespeare." ..."
"... The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? ..."
"... . Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference: Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value ..."
"... The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim." ..."
"... "'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children and of the detractors of the West. ..."
"... There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. ..."
"... As the impassioned proponents of "diversity" meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom. ..."
"... Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but the idea of a world common to all men." ..."
On the abandonment of Enlightenment intellectualism, and the emergence of a new form of Volksgeist.
When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning. -- Alain Finkielkraut,
The Undoing of Thought
Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities
for re-establishing our former ignorance? -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
I n 1927, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison
des clercs. I said "famous," but perhaps "once famous" would have been more accurate. For today, in the United States anyway,
only the title of the book, not its argument, enjoys much currency. "La trahison des clercs": it is one of those memorable phrases
that bristles with hints and associations without stating anything definite. Benda tells us that he uses the term "clerc" in "the
medieval sense," i.e., to mean "scribe," someone we would now call a member of the intelligentsia. Academics and journalists, pundits,
moralists, and pontificators of all varieties are in this sense clercs . The English translation, The Treason of the Intellectuals
,
1 sums it up neatly.
The "treason" in question was the betrayal by the "clerks" of their vocation as intellectuals. From the time of the pre-Socratics,
intellectuals, considered in their role as intellectuals, had been a breed apart. In Benda's terms, they were understood to
be "all those whose activity essentially is not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice
of an art or a science or a metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages." Thanks to such men,
Benda wrote, "humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and
formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world."
According to Benda, however, this situation was changing. More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to
the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal
of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. The attack on the universal went forward
in social and political life as well as in the refined precincts of epistemology and metaphysics: "Those who for centuries had exhorted
men, at least theoretically, to deaden the feeling of their differences have now come to praise them, according to where the sermon
is given, for their 'fidelity to the French soul,' 'the immutability of their German consciousness,' for the 'fervor of their Italian
hearts.'" In short, intellectuals began to immerse themselves in the unsettlingly practical and material world of political passions:
precisely those passions, Benda observed, "owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions,
class passions and national passions." The "rift" into which civilization had been wont to slip narrowed and threatened to close
altogether.
Writing at a moment when ethnic and nationalistic hatreds were beginning to tear Europe asunder, Benda's diagnosis assumed the
lineaments of a prophecy -- a prophecy that continues to have deep resonance today. "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual
organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in
the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little
more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the
greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration.
J ulien Benda was not so naïve as to believe that intellectuals as a class had ever entirely abstained from political involvement,
or, indeed, from involvement in the realm of practical affairs. Nor did he believe that intellectuals, as citizens, necessarily
should abstain from political commitment or practical affairs. The "treason" or betrayal he sought to publish concerned the
way that intellectuals had lately allowed political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation
as such. Increasingly, Benda claimed, politics was "mingled with their work as artists, as men of learning, as philosophers." The
ideal of disinterestedness, the universality of truth: such guiding principles were contemptuously deployed as masks when they were
not jettisoned altogether. It was in this sense that he castigated the " desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values
of action ."
In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed "the cult of success."
It is summed up, he writes, in "the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas
the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt." In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek
sophists on down reminds us. In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates'
devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts
Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully
pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles
sounds!
In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles
espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism
by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other
'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things
were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time."
In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him.
To appreciate the force of Benda's thesis one need only think of that most influential modern Callicles, Friedrich Nietzsche.
His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and
evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real
problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all
values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated
but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ."
Benda understood that the stakes were high: the treason of the intellectuals signaled not simply the corruption of a bunch of
scribblers but a fundamental betrayal of culture. By embracing the ethic of Callicles, intellectuals had, Benda reckoned, precipitated
"one of the most remarkable turning points in the moral history of the human species. It is impossible," he continued,
to exaggerate the importance of a movement whereby those who for twenty centuries taught Man that the criterion of the morality
of an act is its disinterestedness, that good is a decree of his reason insofar as it is universal, that his will is only moral
if it seeks its law outside its objects, should begin to teach him that the moral act is the act whereby he secures his existence
against an environment which disputes it, that his will is moral insofar as it is a will "to power," that the part of his soul
which determines what is good is its "will to live" wherein it is most "hostile to all reason," that the morality of an act is
measured by its adaptation to its end, and that the only morality is the morality of circumstances. The educators of the human
mind now take sides with Callicles against Socrates, a revolution which I dare to say seems to me more important than all political
upheavals.
The Treason of the Intellectuals is an energetic hodgepodge of a book. The philosopher Jean-François Revel recently
described it as "one of the fussiest pleas on behalf of the necessary independence of intellectuals." Certainly it is rich, quirky,
erudite, digressive, and polemical: more an exclamation than an analysis. Partisan in its claims for disinterestedness, it is ruthless
in its defense of intellectual high-mindedness. Yet given the horrific events that unfolded in the decades following its publication,
Benda's unremitting attack on the politicization of the intellect and ethnic separatism cannot but strike us as prescient. And given
the continuing echo in our own time of the problems he anatomized, the relevance of his observations to our situation can hardly
be doubted. From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands
for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues
to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm
is erupting in every corner of cultural life today.
In 1988, the young French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut took up where Benda left off, producing a brief
but searching inventory of our contemporary cataclysms. Entitled La Défaite de la pensée
2 ("The 'Defeat' or 'Undoing' of Thought"), his essay is in part an updated taxonomy of intellectual betrayals. In this
sense, the book is a trahison des clercs for the post-Communist world, a world dominated as much by the leveling imperatives
of pop culture as by resurgent nationalism and ethnic separatism. Beginning with Benda, Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent
strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century
German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that
of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned
by the court of diversity."
Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit."
Quoting the French historian Joseph Renan, he describes the idea as "the most dangerous explosive of modern times." "Nothing," he
writes, "can stop a state that has become prey to the Volksgeist ." It is one of Finkielkraut's leitmotifs that today's multiculturalists
are in many respects Herder's (generally unwitting) heirs.
True, Herder's emphasis on history and language did much to temper the tendency to abstraction that one finds in some expressions
of the Enlightenment. Ernst Cassirer even remarked that "Herder's achievement is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of the
philosophy of the Enlightenment."
Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction
of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason. Finkielkraut opposes this just as the
mature Goethe once took issue with Herder's adoration of the Volksgeist. Finkielkraut concedes that we all "relate to a particular
tradition" and are "shaped by our national identity." But, unlike the multiculturalists, he soberly insists that "this reality merit[s]
some recognition, not idolatry."
In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes
the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive
worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity."
The Undoing of Thought resembles The Treason of the Intellectuals stylistically as well as thematically. Both
books are sometimes breathless congeries of sources and aperçus. And Finkielkraut, like Benda (and, indeed, like Montaigne), tends
to proceed more by collage than by demonstration. But he does not simply recapitulate Benda's argument.
The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still
had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much
attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. Finkielkraut's distinctive contribution is to have taken the
measure of the cultural swamp that surrounds us, to have delineated the links joining the politicization of the intellect and its
current forms of debasement.
In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things,
this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual
divisions.
The humanizing "reason" that Enlightenment champions is a universal reason, sharable, in principle, by all. Such ideals have not
fared well in the twentieth century: Herder's progeny have labored hard to discredit them. Granted, the belief that there is
"Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular
chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science":
these are among today's talismanic fetishes.
Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism."
The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason
and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other
absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer
and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational
animus in the mid-1940s.
Safely ensconced in Los Angeles, these refugees from Hitler's Reich published an influential essay on the concept of Enlightenment.
Among much else, they assured readers that "Enlightenment is totalitarian." Never mind that at that very moment the Nazi war machine
-- what one might be forgiven for calling real totalitarianism -- was busy liquidating millions of people in order to fulfill
another set of anti-Enlightenment fantasies inspired by devotion to the Volksgeist .
The diatribe that Horkheimer and Adorno mounted against the concept of Enlightenment reminds us of an important peculiarity about
the history of Enlightenment: namely, that it is a movement of thought that began as a reaction against tradition and has now emerged
as one of tradition's most important safeguards. Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce,
anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity."
The chief enemy of Enlightenment was "superstition," an omnibus term that included all manner of religious, philosophical, and
moral ideas. But as the sociologist Edward Shils has noted, although the Enlightenment was in important respects "antithetical to
tradition" in its origins, its success was due in large part "to the fact that it was promulgated and pursued in a society in which
substantive traditions were rather strong." "It was successful against its enemies," Shils notes in his book Tradition (1981),
because the enemies were strong enough to resist its complete victory over them. Living on a soil of substantive traditionality,
the ideas of the Enlightenment advanced without undoing themselves. As long as respect for authority on the one side and self-confidence
in those exercising authority on the other persisted, the Enlightenment's ideal of emancipation through the exercise of reason
went forward. It did not ravage society as it would have done had society lost all legitimacy.
It is this mature form of Enlightenment, championing reason but respectful of tradition, that Finkielkraut holds up as an ideal.
W hat Finkielkraut calls "the undoing of thought" flows from the widespread disintegration of a faith. At the center of that faith
is the assumption that the life of thought is "the higher life" and that culture -- what the Germans call Bildung -- is its
end or goal.
The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many
anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed
with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. "It
is," he writes, "the first time in European history that non-thought has donned the same label and enjoyed the same status as thought
itself, and the first time that those who, in the name of 'high culture,' dare to call this non-thought by its name, are dismissed
as racists and reactionaries." The attack is perpetrated not from outside, by uncomprehending barbarians, but chiefly from inside,
by a new class of barbarians, the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia. This is the undoing of thought. This is the new "treason
of the intellectuals."
There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's
scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual
in favor of the group . "Their most extraordinary feat," he observes, "is to have put forward as the ultimate individual liberty
the unconditional primacy of the collective." Western rationalism and individualism are rejected in the name of a more "authentic"
cult.
One example: Finkielkraut quotes a champion of multiculturalism who maintains that "to help immigrants means first of all respecting
them for what they are, respecting whatever they aspire to in their national life, in their distinctive culture and in their attachment
to their spiritual and religious roots." Would this, Finkielkraut asks, include "respecting" those religious codes which demanded
that the barren woman be cast out and the adulteress be punished with death?
What about those cultures in which the testimony of one man counts for that of two women? In which female circumcision is practiced?
In which slavery flourishes? In which mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy encouraged? Multiculturalism, as Finkielkraut points
out, requires that we respect such practices. To criticize them is to be dismissed as "racist" and "ethnocentric." In this secular
age, "cultural identity" steps in where the transcendent once was: "Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond
reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness."
To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection
of culture to anthropology. Finkielkraut speaks in this context of a "cheerful confusion which raises everyday anthropological
practices to the pinnacle of the human race's greatest achievements." This process began in the nineteenth century, but it has been
greatly accelerated in our own age. One thinks, for example, of the tireless campaigning of that great anthropological leveler, Claude
Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss is assuredly a brilliant writer, but he has also been an extraordinarily baneful influence. Already in
the early 1950s, when he was pontificating for UNESCO , he was urging all and sundry to "fight against ranking cultural differences
hierarchically." In La Pensée sauvage (1961), he warned against the "false antinomy between logical and prelogical mentality"
and was careful in his descriptions of natives to refer to "so-called primitive thought." "So-called" indeed. In a famous article
on race and history, Lévi-Strauss maintained that the barbarian was not the opposite of the civilized man but "first of all the man
who believes there is such a thing as barbarism." That of course is good to know. It helps one to appreciate Lévi-Strauss's claim,
in Tristes Tropiques (1955), that the "true purpose of civilization" is to produce "inertia." As one ruminates on the proposition
that cultures should not be ranked hierarchically, it is also well to consider what Lévi-Strauss coyly refers to as "the positive
forms of cannibalism." For Lévi-Strauss, cannibalism has been unfairly stigmatized in the "so-called" civilized West. In fact, he
explains, cannibalism was "often observed with great discretion, the vital mouthful being made up of a small quantity of organic
matter mixed, on occasion, with other forms of food." What, merely a "vital mouthful"? Not to worry! Only an ignoramus who believed
that there were important distinctions, qualitative distinctions, between the barbarian and the civilized man could possibly
think of objecting.
Of course, the attack on distinctions that Finkielkraut castigates takes place not only among cultures but also within a given
culture. Here again, the anthropological imperative has played a major role. "Under the equalizing eye of social science," he writes,
hierarchies are abolished, and all the criteria of taste are exposed as arbitrary. From now on no rigid division separates masterpieces
from run-of-the mill works. The same fundamental structure, the same general and elemental traits are common to the "great" novels
(whose excellence will henceforth be demystified by the accompanying quotation marks) and plebian types of narrative activity.
F or confirmation of this, one need only glance at the pronouncements of our critics. Whether working in the academy or other
cultural institutions, they bring us the same news: there is "no such thing" as intrinsic merit, "quality" is an only ideological
construction, aesthetic value is a distillation of social power, etc., etc.
In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the
name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and
say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than
Shakespeare."
Those whom Finkielkraut calls "postmodernists," waving the standard of radical chic, declare that Shakespeare is no better than
the latest fashion -- no better, say, than the newest item offered by Calvin Klein. The litany that Finkielkraut recites is familiar:
A comic which combines exciting intrigue and some pretty pictures is just as good as a Nabokov novel. What little Lolitas read
is as good as Lolita . An effective publicity slogan counts for as much as a poem by Apollinaire or Francis Ponge . The
footballer and the choreographer, the painter and the couturier, the writer and the ad-man, the musician and the rock-and-roller,
are all the same: creators. We must scrap the prejudice which restricts that title to certain people and regards others as sub-cultural.
The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high
culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? Anyone
who thinks so should take a moment to recall the major exhibition called "High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" that the Museum
of Modern Art mounted a few years ago: it might have been called "Krazy Kat Meets Picasso." Few events can have so consummately summed
up the corrosive trivialization of culture now perpetrated by those entrusted with preserving it. Among other things, that exhibition
demonstrated the extent to which the apotheosis of popular culture undermines the very possibility of appreciating high art on its
own terms.
When the distinction between culture and entertainment is obliterated, high art is orphaned, exiled from the only context in which
its distinctive meaning can manifest itself: Picasso becomes a kind of cartoon. This, more than any elitism or obscurity,
is the real threat to culture today. As Hannah Arendt once observed, "there are many great authors of the past who have survived
centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version
of what they have to say."
And this brings us to the question of freedom. Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar
to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference:
Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of
the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value.
For the postmodernist, then, "culture is no longer seen as a means of emancipation, but as one of the élitist obstacles to this."
The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism
promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is
a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change
one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim."
What Finkielkraut has understood with admirable clarity is that modern attacks on elitism represent not the extension but the
destruction of culture. "Democracy," he writes, "once implied access to culture for everybody. From now on it is going to mean everyone's
right to the culture of his choice." This may sound marvelous -- it is after all the slogan one hears shouted in academic and cultural
institutions across the country -- but the result is precisely the opposite of what was intended.
"'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children
and of the detractors of the West." The irony, alas, is that by removing standards and declaring that "anything goes," one does
not get more culture, one gets more and more debased imitations of culture. This fraud is the dirty secret that our cultural commissars
refuse to acknowledge.
There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common
humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "A careless indifference to grand
causes," Finkielkraut warns, "has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force." As the impassioned proponents of "diversity"
meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom.
Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but
the idea of a world common to all men."
Julien Benda took his epigraph for La Trahison des clercs from the nineteenth-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier:
Le monde souffre du manque de foi en une vérité transcendante : "The world suffers from lack of faith in a transcendent truth."
Without some such faith, we are powerless against the depredations of intellectuals who have embraced the nihilism of Callicles as
their truth.
1The Treason of the Intellectuals, by Julien Benda, translated by Richard Aldington, was first published in 1928.
This translation is still in print from Norton.
2La Défaite de la pensée , by Alain Finkielkraut; Gallimard, 162 pages, 72 FF . It is available in English, in
a translation by Dennis O'Keeffe, as The Undoing of Thought (The Claridge Press [London], 133 pages, £6.95 paper).
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. His latest book
is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press)
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the
state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special
privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell
"discrimination"
Maybe the fastest way to reduce STDs is to stop promoting homosexuality in our schools.
Since HIV inhibitors were created and HIV virtually cured, the gay community has been in
overdrive on the sexual practices that causes most of the STDs on the report. Just like the
80's the doctors in these studies suggest a massive increase in spending across everyone when
in fact, you can reduce the rate of these diseases massively by targeting this subsector of
society that continues these filthy practices.
"In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary
and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and
gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human
papillomavirus) , the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal
warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other
men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men.
Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal
cancer."
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
On the other hand, as someone over 40 who isn't a dramatic, hysterical weirdo like at
least 30% of those under 35 are, I'm liking my job prospects over the next 15 years as
employers get sick of this shit and notice a pattern. Wonder if they'll make "reverse age
discrimination" a thing.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
I'm no fan of Google (anymore) but to be fair, Google employs 103,459 people as of Q1
2019. 45 people throwing a fit is an acceptable margin considering their overall size.
I agree their is an issue with ageism but I disagree with the idea that it would reduce
the number of people throwing a fit because nutcases come in all ages.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
OTOH, consider that Google has over 100K employees, and in a few months 45 such stories
were collected... and the stories themselves cover a period of a couple of years. I don't
want to minimize the issues suffered by any mistreated employee, but I find it hard to
believe that any company could be so perfectly well-managed as to not have a couple dozen
cases per year where employees were pretty badly treated. Or, as you imply, that a couple
dozen employees might feel mistreated even when they aren't. I prefer to give the benefit of
the doubt to the individuals.
As a Google employee myself I do have some concern about the alleged retaliation against
the organizers of the walkout. That sort of thing could have a chilling effect on future
protests (though I've seen no evidence of it so far), and I think that's a potential problem.
It's important that employees feel free to protest actions by the company if a large enough
percentage of them are bothered by it. Personally, I didn't join the walkout, but some others
on my team did and I supported their action even though I didn't agree with their
complaint.
On the other hand, as someone over 40 who isn't a dramatic, hysterical weirdo like at
least 30% of those under 35 are, I'm liking my job prospects over the next 15 years as
employers get sick of this shit and notice a pattern. Wonder if they'll make "reverse age
discrimination" a thing.
FWIW, in my nearly 10 years with Google I've seen no evidence of age discrimination. A
large percentage of new hires are straight out of college (mostly grad school), which does
skew the employee population young, but I'm in my 50s and I've worked with guys in their 60s
and one in his mid-70s. Of course, my experience is anecdotal.
Please keep doing this. People without a sense of humor are the worst, especially when
they're cunts who report everybody whenever they don't get the job
I'm a straight white guy, and I have worked with a guy who was a never-ending source of
sexual and racist "jokes." I never reported him, but after a couple of months, I wished every
time I worked with him that he'd just shut the fuck up and do his job. Any tactful suggestion
that he do just that was met with more laughing, sneering, "it was only a joke" or "no, you
don't get it." Yes, I got it, man. Your shitty old boomer joke about how you hate your ugly
wife but want to fuck her anyway just wasn't funny. God, it was like a goddamn clown show you
couldn't turn off. It wasn't even so much that I was offended by his shit; it was that he
seemed to genuinely believe he was hilarious, and if you didn't think so, too, you had to
endure his constant, pathetic attempts to make you feel somehow inferior for not appreciating
his humor.
Anyway. People who mistakenly think they have a sense of humor are, indeed, the worst.
No. Consider the words "latino" and "latina." These are gender specific. The fact that
they specify gender is a great harm. A great deal of mental gymnastics are necessary to
perceive that harm, but it is possible.
Yet in the same sentence they mention "female". You can't make this shit up.
While gaslighting does indeed have a useful definition -- one that you can trivially learn
for yourself and I won't repeat here -- that meaning won't be helpful in understanding the
most common use of the word. Gaslighting is a term frequently used to blame someone else for
the difficulty one suffers reconciling reality with the ones own cognitive dissonance.
It's a form of psychological abuse where the abuser acts as if something is true when it
clearly isn't.
It's from a book where a character is driven mad by the people around her claiming the the
gaslights are lit when she can clearly see that they are not. She starts to think that she
must be losing her grip on reality if everyone else can see the gaslights but she can't.
It's not uncommon in abusive relationships, unfortunately.
That's not going to stop a PR disaster unless they do fire them. That's what being a
social justice warrior is all about: Mass shaming.
Point and shame. That's how you destroy careers and the standards of excellence that makes
a nation. No evidence required, don't bother reading the deposition, the personal is the
political, ad hominem attacks from beginning to end for defending someone (Minsky) that
wasn't accused of anything .
With metoo backfiring so that men don't trust being alone in an office with a woman,
feminism is looking a lot like a hate movement with the way they throw accusations of sex
crime around in order to get their hit of indignation to maintain their moral
superiority. Guilt by association, career destroyed, court of opinion adjourned.
Considering what RMS contributed not only to freedom but economic wealth you can see these
people don't care who they destroy and it doesn't matter if you are innocent of all charges
once your reputation is destroyed. Getting even isn't equality.
If they piss off men long enough, they're going to hit back with real patriarchy.
I mean just look at MGTOW... Instead of just being careful when choosing a mate, as they
should have been taught to be anyway, they're just going in the opposite extreme. A
considerable pool of men deciding to be bachelors is neither good for those men
psychologically, nor is it good for the species.
The backlash will be just as dumb as what we're seeing right now. This is a social
equivalent of England and France laying the groundwork for the second world war in
Versailles.
The eradication of accountability is going to come back to haunt us for decades to
come.
Last time I looked more than half the US population is female and President is elected, so
how is that a sign of the patriarchy?
the vast majority of corporate management is male
Studies have shown that men are more willing to put career ahead of family in an effort to
move up the ranks. What is stopping women from doing the same thing?
women are paid less for equal work
This has been debunked in numerous studies. Women are not paid less for equal work but are
paid less in general precisely because they don't do equal work and because during salary
negotiations at hiring time they are, on average, less forceful in demanding a higher
starting salary.
These reports claiming otherwise are looking solely at titles - oh Jane the Jr. Java
Developer makes less than Joe the Jr. Java Developer, obviously the company is paying women
less.
Let's not consider, however, that Jane only works 9-4 so she can be home with her kids,
won't pull weekend duties or be on call late night, whereas Joe is in at 7, leaves at 6,
works on weekends to meet deadlines and carries a pager 1 week out of 4. Also, let's not
consider that when being hired Joe negotiated up from the offered $68k start to a starting
salary of $75k as a base and Jane simply accepted the offered $68k.
Both were given the exact same opportunities, but Joe works harder, more hours and was
willing to negotiate a hgher starting wage.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good attack narrative shall we?
they cannot be priests
Yes they can in many denominations, maybe not yours but others.
huge percentages of them have been raped
huge is an overstatement, studies show it around 20%. Also if you look at the statistics [wikipedia.org]
not all rapes are against women and not all rapes of women are by men.
If you approach any authority as a man and claim you were raped, not only will they likely
laugh in your face, but probably harass you as well. Women are afraid of not being believed.
Who really cares which gender is raped more often, is it too much to ask that the claims be
taken seriously regardless of gender?
If you want a female president, try nominating a decent female candidate. That criminal
narcissist the Democrats came up with last time couldn't even beat Trump, for fuck's
sake.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
Doug Casey : The PC types say there are supposed to be 30 or 40 or 50 different genders --
it's a fluid number. It shows that wide swathes of the country no longer have a grip on actual
physical, scientific reality. That's more than a sign of decline; it's a sign of mass
psychosis.
There's no question that some males are wired to act like females and some females are wired
to act like males. It's certainly a psychological aberration but probably has some basis in
biology.
The problem is when these people politicize their psychological peculiarities, try to turn
it into law, and force the rest of the society to grant them specially protected status.
Thousands of people every year go to doctors to have themselves mutilated so that they can
become something else. Today they can often get the government or insurers to pay for it.
If you want to self-mutilate, that's fine; that's your business even if it's insane. To make
other people pay for it is criminal. But it's now accepted as normal by most of society.
The acceptance of politically correct values -- "diversity," "inclusiveness" -- trigger
warnings, safe spaces, gender fluidity, multiculturalism, and a whole suite of similar things
that show how degraded society has become. Adversaries of Western civilization like the
Mohammedan world and the Chinese justifiably see it as weak, even contemptible.
As with Rome, collapse really comes from internal rot.
Look at who people are voting for. It's not that Americans elected Obama once -- a mob can
be swayed easily enough into making a mistake -- but they reelected him. It's not that New
Yorkers elected Bill de Blasio once, but they reelected him by a landslide. All of the
Democratic candidates out there are saying things that are actually clinically insane and are
being applauded.
International Man : In fact, in the recent Democratic debate, candidate Julián
Castro even mentioned giving government-funded abortions to transgender women -- biological
men. It received one of the loudest bouts of applause from the audience.
That's not to mention that two other candidates spoke in broken Spanish when responding to
the moderator's questions.
A while back we were discussing the merits of a liberal arts education and the sad state of
our current education system. As part of that discussion, I looked at the current curriculum of
my old prep school to see if it changed much from when I was there. To my surprise and joy, it
changed very little. Students are still required to take four years of theology good Jesuit
theology. I was struck by the entry for the current theology department at Fairfield Prep and
now present it below.
In light of the current discussion about the rise of the new bolsheviki in the Democratic
Party, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the Ignatian approach to Roman Catholicism. I'm
pretty sure many of you will consider the black robes to be quite red. I, on the other hand,
find the teachings and example of Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be far more profound and worthy
of emulation than anything Marx or Lenin ever dreamed of.
-- -- -- -- -- --
What is theology? Fundamentally, it's about conversation.
The Greek word Theós (God) combined with logos (word, or reason) describes what
happens in theology classes at Fairfield Prep. Talking about God, discovering God in the person
of Jesus Christ, asking questions, having discussions and debates, and exploring the truths of
other world religions are some of the many things that happen in theology. Through exegetical
analysis of Scripture, learning the philosophies of the Saints (in particular, St. Ignatius of
Loyola), contemplation, and reflection, theology students at Fairfield Prep are drawn to a more
intimate experience of the Divine in their own lives.
In the classroom, students are exposed to the teachings of Christ regarding the Gospel
imperative – the care of the poor. Theology students are inspired to work for equality
and social justice in their local and global communities.
In the spirit of Christ, through Ignatian practices, students are encouraged to grow
spiritually and religiously by orienting themselves towards others. Practically speaking,
students are called to "Find God in All Things." By recognizing the presence of the Divine
within others and the universe we live in, students may be inspired to develop a deeper
appreciation and love for Creation – in particular, care for our environment.
Morality, ethics, philosophy, history, science – they are all present within
discussions of theology. Regardless of faith background (or lack thereof) all students are
encouraged to express their beliefs and share their life experiences in their own ways. In
theology, we are constantly working towards discovering Truth in our lives. Through science,
history, literature, Scripture, and the Sacraments, we understand that God can be found in all
things and in all ways here at Fairfield Prep. Join us as we continue the discussions, the
questions, the reflections, and the actions that will make this world a more loving place for
all.
- Mr. Corey J. Milazzo
Chair of the Theology Department
-- -- -- -- -- --
It's still there, the call to find God in all things and to be a man for others. I graduated
a few years before Father Pedro Arrupe presented his dissertation and made his presentation
which became known as his "Men for Others" thesis. But his ideas already ran through the halls
and faculty of Fairfield Prep by the end of the 60s. Community service was an integral part of
the curriculum back then as were frequent retreats based on the Ignatian spiritual exercises.
They still are. The Jesuits molded us into men for others, social justice warriors, but with a
keen sense of self-examination (the examen). When we graduated in the rose garden of Bellarmine
Hall under a beautiful June sun, we were charged with the familiar Jesuit call "ite inflammate
omnia" (go forth and set the world on fire).
That phrase in itself is provocative. It goes back to Saint Ignatius of Loyola himself. It
may go back much further, back to Saint Catherine of Siena. One of her most repeated quotes is
"Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire." Setting the world on fire must
have a different meaning back then. It sounds down right revolutionary these days.
In more recent times, Jesuits participated in the development of liberation theology, a
blending of the Church's professed preference for the poor and Marxism that is unsettling to
many both in and outside the Church. This expression of strident social justice was never
supported by the Vatican, especially when liberation theologists aligned themselves with armed
Marxist revolutions. Even Pope Francis was not a fan although as Father Bergoglio he said,
"The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It's the
Gospel itself. If you were to read one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church,
from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor, you'd say it was
Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the
poor."
Pope Francis seeks reconciliation with rather than expulsion of the liberation
theologists. This doesn't surprise me considering the Jesuits' firmly held faith in the primacy
of conscience, the belief that an informed conscience is the ultimate and final authority on
what is morally permissible, and it is the obligation of the individual to follow their
conscience even if it contradicts or acts against Church teaching. I believe that, but I also
believe the liberation theologists could benefit from a more rigorous examen to reach a higher
sense of discernment and a truly informed conscience.
I think the 1986 film "The Mission" captured some of these ideas and struggles very well with
the interplay of Father Gabriel, Roderigo Mendoza and both the secular and religious authorities
of that time. As a product of a Jesuit and Special Forces education, this film resonated with
me.
"... I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it. I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump. ..."
"... On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign ..."
"... And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite! ..."
"... Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives. ..."
"... However, the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class" onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today. ..."
"... It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit they were wrong. ..."
"... It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs, not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either. ..."
"... Rights are important, but identity politics contain too much whimsy and focus on the self. ..."
"... Yes, but they're politically and economically cheap, don't require much thought, and you get to hang out with pop-stars. ..."
That ship has sailed. Bernie was the opportunity and it wasn't grasped. The moment for a 'left' alternative has been lost
for a long time. The whole globalised liberal paradigm - allied to the metropolitan elite's obsession with identity politics
at the expense of bottom-line issues - has been broken up by people who now realise centre-left politicians (Clinton/Obama)
have presided over whole communities being gutted in the name of 'free' trade (for 'free' trade read labour arbitrage). I felt
it in my bones that Trump would be elected - 55% of US households are worse off than they were in 2000, how on earth could anyone
possibly think that that would result or a vote for the status quo.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street
and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order
to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive
Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and
its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage
that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and
bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever
for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American
car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars
coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat
bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up
to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of
millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those
43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat
bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president
whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia.
Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.
Great article. I think there needs to be a lot of soul searching in certain sections of the media and amongst the left wing
political parties too. They don't have the correct approach to a rapidly changing ground swell of opinion. They are fast becoming
out of touch - leaving a huge void for more conservative rhetoric (euphemism) to take over.
The failure to tackle immigration
concerns across the west is the greatest example of comfy left wing elites being so far away from general consensus imo. The
assumption that if you are concerned about immigration then you are a racist, xenophobic half wit appears rife amongst elites
and the highly educated.
I agree that this is a great article. And I agree that there is a coming migration crisis that we need to be very worried
about, as the refugees from the Middle East try desperately for a better life away from conflict zones and poverty. However,
the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class"
onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today.
The evidence for this is that in the EU referendum, the
areas that were most strongly Leave were generally speaking those with few or no immigrants. I campaigned for Remain here in
Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over
again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned
about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated.
"Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried
deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push. I grew
up in Northern Ireland so I saw this at first hand. My grandfather was a highly intelligent technocrat, but he was also an Orangeman.
He did not seem able to understand that the Catholics he knew and were his friends were the same "them" that he demonised. All
progressive people need now to find a way, as Naomi's article says, to repoint this anger to where it belongs. Sorry if this
makes me a comfy left wing elite!
It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit
they were wrong. Look at the past year here ATL and then BTL. Witness the absolute, unchanging and frankly extreme editorial
line, in the face of massive discourse and well argued opposition BTL. Even now there are no alarm bells ringing in the back
of their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong. No attempt to understand, such is their unwavering belief in the
echo chamber. You will only find an attempted programme of re-education in these pages. They will be still be doing it as Europe
falls into the hands of the far-right.
I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation
in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't
think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated. "Fear the stranger"
is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button
for the right wing to push.
It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs,
not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places
where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation,
privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They
have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Yes. But, in the meantime, the system has become so right-wing that it only permits a right-wing outburst - a Social-Democratic
one is instantly discredited by the totalitarian media outlets.
There is no way to articulate an effective response to this attack within the system.
This article is spot on except that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on the Clinton neoliberal train for reasons
of political expediency. From now on, anything either of them say should be critically examined before being supported.
In order to justify the unjustifiable (a corporate elite exploiting the world as their own
private estate), they constructed an artificial equivalence to make it seem that their
self-interested economic system was part and parcel of a package of 'democracy',
'multi-racial tolerance', 'LGBT tolerance' etc, so that people would be fooled into thinking
that rejecting the economics meant rejecting all the other things too.
George Soros' "Open
Society Foundation'" is a key offender here. The false consciousness thus engendered does
indeed set the scene for fascism, but a genuine left opposition can and needs to be built and
we can only hope that we can succeed in so doing.
"... Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an African-American. ..."
Kamala
Harris's Hillaryesque tweet re Trump meeting Kim at DMZ:
"This President should take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against
humanity seriously. This is not a photo-op. Our security and our values are at stake."
Comments on the thread are telling, and she's not fooling anyone.
Thank goodness that there is one place where Globalism, Boeing, and Kamala Harris can be
discussed. From the bottom, looking up, they are intertwined. Corporate media strictly
ignores the restoration of the robber baron aristocracy, the supremacy of trade treaties, the
endless wars for profit, the free flow of capital, and corrupted governments. The sole
purpose is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.
There are many tell-tale signs that this is an apt description of the world. With
deregulation and outsourcing, there is no incentive to design and build safe airplanes. That
costs money. Two 737 Max(s) crash killing 346. Workplaces are toxic. The life expectancy in
the UK and USA is declining. The US dollar is used as a military weapon. Monopolies buy up
innovation. Corporate law breaking is punished by fines which are added to the cost of doing
business. There is no jail time for chief executives. The cost of storm damage is increasing.
Families are migrating to survive. Nationalist and globalist oligarchs are fighting over the
spoils. Last week the global economy was 10 minutes away from collapse by an American air
attack on Iran.
Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the
USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an
African-American. Neo-Populism and France's Yellow Vests are the direct response to
global capitalism that is supported by Corporate Democrats, New Labour Party, and Emmanuel
Macron. The rise of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in response is no coincidence.
especially read this by Helen Hanna in the comments section:
kamala looked aside while wells fargo bank established 3 million fraudulent accounts while
she was attorney general of california. she did nothing to punish them. she might as well be
wearing a hillary mask. as someone who lived in the bay area for 31 years, i remember her on
the 'matier and ross' interview program--her performance was juvenile and silly--- and i
remember her being willing to join the parade of willie brown's cocaine addicted mistresses,.
as number 21 and as a woman of color, she was a relief---not white, not skanky, no silver
cocaine spoon around her neck while pretending to eat dinner at chez michel with willie, but
why on earth would you want to join this parade and go out with this sleazy man whose kiton
suits do not improve his image one bit, a politician who offended the san francisco public by
his obnoxious habit of publicly flaunting his many skanky female hangers on, and reveling in
their 'whiteness.' what a bad choice kamala made. remember that pelosi and feinstein wouldn't
let willie brown anywhere near the inauguration podium of barack obama because these women
did not want willie's offensive background to sully obama. willie had had an illegitimate
child while 'serving as' mayor of san francisco, a city of 500 churches, mostly catholic. the
catholic church continued to retain him in the role --'of counsel.' that was astounding to
me, absolutely astounding.... willie also laundered drug money in a sutter street garage with
his haberdasher, wilkes bashford, but dianne feinstein prevented him from being jailed. i can
just see the sisterhood at temple emanuel where dianne feinstein worships--i can just see
them admonishing her for even suggesting one of serial adulterer willie's former mistresses
be the first woman president....is that why senator feinstein is keeping such a low profile
lately? what i don't understand is why pelosi and feinstein keep bringing us these
puppet-like women----hillary will always be bill's puppet and kamala will be willie's puppet.
you cannot possibly choose two more sleazy, obnoxious men to be your superior.
Those emotions erupted in the Thursday debate when Kamala Harris took on Biden for his earlier
remarks about the old days of the Senate when he could work collaboratively with Southern
segregationists such as Alabama's James Eastland. Harris said it was "very hurtful" to hear
Biden "talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputation and
career on the segregation of race in this country." She scored Biden also for working with such
senators in opposition to busing for racial balance in schools during the 1970s.
"Do you agree today, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America
then? Do you agree?" she asked with considerable emotion in her voice. She added it was a
personal matter with her given that she had benefited from busing policies as a young girl.
Biden retorted: "A mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise
racists." He added that he never opposed busing as a local policy arrived at through local
politics, but didn't think it should be imposed by the federal government. "That's what I
opposed," he said.
The exchange accentuated the extent to which racial issues are gaining intensity in America
and roiling the nation's politics to a greater extent than in the recent past. Biden's point,
as he sought to explain, was that there was a day when senators of all stripes could work
together on matters of common concern even when they disliked and opposed each other's
fundamental political outlook. That kind of approach could point the way, he implied, to a
greater cooperative spirit in Washington and to breaking the current political deadlock
suffused with such stark animosities. But that merely stirred further animosities, raising
questions about whether today's political rancor in Washington can be easily or soon
ameliorated.
"... a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month: ..."
"... Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride? ..."
"... A "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable. ..."
I long thought the sexualization of little girls in beauty pageants had become gross, and until recently there seemed to be
a growing consensus about that. Now the sexualization of little boys dressed as girls is a cause of great celebration. Count me
out. https://t.co/j7nVQkRJEX
Meanwhile, a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage
girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month:
1. Latest leak from our source in the affirming parents Facebook group: Dr. Beverly Fischer in Baltimore, MD is offering a
$750 discount on double mastectomies if booked during Pride month, according to this mother.
pic.twitter.com/Od9w0TFXPp
Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one
radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride?
We are a sick civilization that deserves to be punished.
A "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable.
Welcome to the brave new world, where the neoliberal obsession with consumerism (and the reduction of all human experience to
markets) meets prog-left social chaos. What an unholy union.
What one side believes is preserving the God-given right to life for the unborn, the other
regards as an assault on the rights of women.
The clash raises questions that go beyond our culture war to what America should stand for
in the world.
"American interests and American values are inseparable," Pete Buttigieg told Rachel
Maddow.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Claremont Institute:
"We have had too little courage to confront regimes squarely opposed to our interests and
our values."
Are Pompeo and Mayor Pete talking about the same values?
The mayor is proudly gay and in a same-sex marriage. Yet the right to same-sex marriage did
not even exist in this country until the Supreme Court discovered it a few years ago.
In a 2011 speech to the U.N., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Gay rights are human
rights," and she approved of U.S. embassies flying the rainbow flag during Pride Month.
This year, Mike Pompeo told the U.S. embassy in Brazil not to fly the rainbow flag. He
explained his concept of his moral duty to the Christian Broadcasting Network, "The task I have
is informed by my understanding of my faith, my belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior."
The Christian values Pompeo espouses on abortion and gay rights are in conflict with what
progressives now call human rights.
And the world mirrors the American divide.
There are gay pride parades in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, but none in Riyadh and Mecca. In
Brunei, homosexuality can get you killed.
To many Americans, diversity -- racial, ethnic, cultural, religious -- is our greatest
strength.
Yet Poland and Hungary are proudly ethnonationalist. South Korea and Japan fiercely resist
the racial and ethnic diversity immigration would bring. Catalans and Scots in this century,
like Quebecois in the last, seek to secede from nations to which they have belonged for
centuries.
Are ethnonationalist nations less righteous than diverse nations likes ours? And if
diversity is an American value, is it really a universal value?
Consider the treasured rights of our First Amendment -- freedom of speech, religion and the
press.
Saudi Arabia does not permit Christian preachers. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, converts to
Christianity face savage reprisals. In Buddhist Myanmar, Muslims are ethnically cleansed.
These nations reject an equality of all faiths, believing instead in the primacy of their
own majority faith. They reject our wall of separation between religion and state. Our values
and their values conflict.
What makes ours right and theirs wrong? Why should our views and values prevail in what are,
after all, their countries?
Under our Constitution, many practices are protected - abortion, blasphemy, pornography,
flag-burning, trashing religious beliefs - that other nations regard as symptoms of a
disintegrating society.
When Hillary Clinton said half of all Trump supporters could be put into a "basket of
deplorables" for being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic," she was
conceding that many Trump's supporters detest many progressive values.
True, but in the era of Trump, why should her liberal values be the values America champions
abroad?
With secularism's triumph, we Americans have no common religion, no common faith, no common
font of moral truth. We disagree on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Without an
agreed-upon higher authority, values become matters of opinion. And ours are in conflict and
irreconcilable.
Understood. But how, then, do we remain one nation and one people?
"... This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference) can and do end conversations before they begin ..."
"... Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future, the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning. ..."
"... A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas. ..."
"... A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them. ..."
This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference)
can and do end conversations before they begin .
Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go
down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future,
the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning.
I became interested in this book after watching Megyn Kelly's interview with Benson (Google it), where he gave his thoughts
on the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. He made a heartfelt and reasoned plea for tolerance and
grace on BOTH sides. He hit it out of the park with this and set himself apart from some of his gay peers who are determined that
tolerance is NOT a two-way street.
We are seeing a vindictive campaign of lawsuits and intimidation against Christian business
people who choose not to provide flowers and cakes for same-sex weddings. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thumbing your nose at this core American freedom should alarm us all. Personally,
I'm for traditional marriage and I think the better solution would be to give civil unions the same legal rights and obligations
as marriage, but that's another discussion.
So what about the book? It exceeded my expectations. Ham and Benson are smart and articulate. Their ideas are clearly presented,
supported by hard evidence and they are fair and balanced. The book is a pleasure to read - - unless you are a die-hard Lefty.
In that case, it may anger you, but anger can be the first step to enlightenment.
A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as
a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas.
A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement
arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this
shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them.
The
Left lays claim to being the "party of tolerance", unless you happen to "think outside THEIR box", which, to the Left is INtolerable
and must not only be silenced, but exterminated... A great book!
The brilliant American physicist, Nobel prize winner, Richard Feynham was also descended
from LIthuanian Jews.He had no time for any religion, and refused all aspects of Jewishness.
He was a brilliant mant who contributed much to American Science.
Don't make generalisations based on race.
Every race has demons and devil, and brilliant angels, and all points in between.
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism
on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia
Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially
conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on
the Right by Fox News's
Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's
Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less,
rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas
stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the
workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively
bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more
breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of
keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was
roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000,
those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to
maintain adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's
title. Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully
drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to
labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that
women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their
potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or
lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found,
women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their
labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical
backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just
5.8
percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of
mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which
they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and
professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily
looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time
work for pay, despite consistently
telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this
massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as
many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include
giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered
the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as
Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd
like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent
tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating
for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to
make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic
development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed
it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the
value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely
ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living
in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not?
It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to
emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of
third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the
author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then
– the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in
places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban
California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this
even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because
it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit
$) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of
course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?
"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
Neuroticism is characterized by "feeling negative feelings strongly," with the opposite of
Neuroticism being "Emotional Stability." Such "Negative Feelings" include sadness, anger and
jealousy. But females score particularly strongly on "anxiety" -- possibly because, in
prehistory, the children of anxious, protective mothers were less likely to get seriously
injured. But the key point is that the stereotype is correct.
And people are also correct to think that women -- that is, those who, on average, score
higher in Neuroticism -- will be less able to cope in the brutal world of power-politics.
Successful politicians -- the ones who get into their country's legislature but don't make
it to the very top -- score significantly lower than the general public in Neuroticism,
according to research published in the leading psychology journal Personality and Individual
Differences . [ The personalities of
politicians: A big five survey of American legislators , by Richard Hanania ,
2017]
And this research reveals something very interesting indeed. These "successful politicians,"
while being more emotionally stable than most voters, score higher in the personality
traits Extraversion ("feeling positive feelings strongly"), Conscientiousness ("rule-following
and impulse control") and Agreeableness ("altruism and empathy").
But this does not tend to be true of those who reach the very top of politics -- and
especially not of those who are perceived as great, world-changing statesmen. They tend to be
highly intelligent but above average on quite the opposite personality traits –
psychopathology and Narcissism [ Creativity and psychopathology , by F. Post British
Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. However, high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and
Extraversion are true of successful politicians in general.
In much the same way, run-of-the-mill scientists are above average in Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness but genius
scientists combine being relatively low in these traits with stratospheric
intelligence. This gives them creativity, drive and fearless to be original. [ At Our Wits'
End , by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Ch. 6]
This is important, because these are typically female traits: women score higher than
men in Agreeableness, Consciousness and Extraversion. This means that, in general, we would
expect the relatively few females who do reach high political office to be fairly atypical
women: low in mental instability and certainly moderately low in altruism, empathy or both --
think
Margaret Thatcher , who according to Keith Patching in his 2006 book Leadership,
Character and Strategy, was organizing her impending Bar Finals from her hospital bed
having just had twins; or even Theresa May. Neither of these British Prime Ministers have (or
had) neither of whom have particularly "feminine" personalities, though they may reflect (or
have reflected) very pronounced Conscientiousness, a trait associated with social conservatism.
[
Resolving the "Conscientiousness Paradox" , by Scott A. McGreal, Psychology
Today , July 27, 2015]
But, sometimes, a female politician's typically anxiety will apparently be " compensated " for
i.e. overwhelmed by her having massively high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This likely
occurred in the case of Jacinda Ardern, who suffers from
intense anxiety to the point of having being hospitalized.
This will become a problem in a time of crisis when, as happened with Ardern, such a
politician will become over-emotional. This, combined with very high empathy, would seem to
partly explain Ardern's self-identification with New Zealand's Muslims to the extent of donning
a head scarf and breaking down in public.
But it also explains why females, on average, tend to be more left-wing than males and more
open to refugees. They feel empathy and even sadness for the plight of the refugees more
strongly than do men [ Young
women are more left wing than men, study reveals, by Rosalind Shorrocks, The
Conversation, May 3, 2018
This means that there will be a tendency for females to push politics Leftwards and make it
more about empathy and other such "feelings." It also means that, in a serious crisis, they may
well even empathize with the enemy.
In that gay men are generally feminized males, this problem help would to explain why people
are skeptical of the suitability of homosexual men for supposedly "masculine" professions (such
as politics) [ The
extreme male brain theory of autism, by Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 2002], sometimes including political office. [ The Hidden Psychology
of Voting, by Zaria Gorvett, BBC News , May 6, 2015]
What about Science and Technology? Are they suited for that? Maybe science could use a little
more wisdom and conscientiousness.
J Robert Oppenheimer, the genius Physics professor, was known to be "temperamental" and
not suited for high stress assignment. So, along with several other genius's, some who came
over from Germany, he presided over the making of the A-bomb. Hallelujah just kidding.
There's an excellent book that covers J Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the A-bomb
called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer".
The guy was totally volatile and emotionally unstable. While in school he left a knife in an
apple on his teacher's desk that he did not like.
After the bomb was dropped on JAPAN, in a documentary much later, he is shown with tears
in his eyes quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds".
A couple decades or so later there were interviews of some of these guys who were part of
the project and they were crying. They had the GENIUS to build such a monstrosity, but seemed
to have failed to understand the impact it would make on the world; breaking down in tears
when talking about it. They had no clue or ability of Foreknowledge. What would have happened
if more women were on the team? Would we all be annihilated by now? Or maybe no a-bomb would
have been made? Who knows .
Interesting. And I appreciate the citations to sources. But I find that interpretation of
psychiatric traits is a bit like reading tea leaves: there is a temptation to cherry-pick
one's preferred quotes and conclusions. For me, this article would have been stronger if it
had followed a recognized authority's path through the Big Five personality traits.
It seems rather unfair to pick a moron like Jacinda Ardern to represent all female
politicians. And even though when it comes to foreign policy, I'll take a Tulsi Gabbard over
any male politician like Rubio, Graham, Schumer, Pence, Trump, Pompeo, Bolton any day, I will
have to say, in general, you're right, the crop of female politicians we've seen today do not
inspire confidence in women as politicians, not just in the US but Merkel, May yikes. But
women had been good heads of states in the past, like Margaret Thatcher and Queen Victoria.
But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Also agree that gays make for bad politicians. Even though their moral degeneracy and
drama queen antics make politics look like a natural fit, their extreme narcissism means they
will always get sidetracked and can't stay focused. The only thing any gay man cares about is
his gayness. Plus no one outside the western world will ever give them an ounce of respect.
Picture Buttplug showing up in a muslim country as POTUS, with his husband! Either they'll
get stoned to death which will get us into war or the US will be the laughing stock of the
world. And then of course he'd have to go bomb some country just to prove his manhood,
getting us into more unnecessary wars. No gays for politics, ever.
There has been a very successful effort to paint Oppenheimer as a secular saint. But
Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler stated that he never trusted Oppenheimer. So what? Because
JAW was notorious for otherwise saying nice things about almost everyone else, especially his
academic rivals. Also JAW happily and productively worked on the US H-bomb project which was
embargoed by Oppenheimer and his many disciples.
I agree with the point made above, that, in our nuclear age, behavior in a crisis is the most
important personality trait. I think that men's crisis-calmness can suffer from macho/ego,
and with women, from anxiety and panic. Democratic candidate Amy K reportedly throws things
when angry, and to me, this is disqualifying. Assuming no nuclear destruction, the analysis
is this: We have devolved into a gigantic banana republic/soft dictatorship; whose
personality constellation is best suited to politics in a banana republic?
No female leader of any country, ever, has been particularly good, except one.
And that one was only because she was fortunate enough to be the PM of the UK at the same
time as Ronald Reagan was President of the US. He was handholding every single decision of
hers. Reagan was effectively running two countries (the #1 and #4 largest GDPs in the world
at that time). At least she was smart enough to let him tell her exactly what to do.
Given this dataset, no, women are not suitable for very high political office.
Is Ardern still wearing that hijab in order to cynically manipulate her insipid voters?
Anyway
I have come to realize that women, on the whole, tend to be poorly suited to many
traditionally male-doninated activities. Politics, for sure. Very few good, dependable female
politicians come to mind. But the list at my immediate recall that are emotional, vapid,
destructive slobs -- Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Eva Perón,
Michelle Bachelet, Isabel Allende Bussi, Annie Lööf, Anne Hidalgo, Ursula von der
Leyen, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaïb, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, et al --
seems practically limitless. Not only is the fairer sex not adept at political leadership,
but they are ill-suited to even vote rationally. The weakness of Anglo-American men's resolve
against the suffragettes was the beginning of the end.
Preeminent excellence seems to elude the grasp of women in a number of other careers. For
whatever reason, there are few women writers of prose fiction that can equal the heights men
have reached in that field. This despite the fact that the contemporary literary industry is
overwhelmingly dominated by women. True, there are the rare instances of female literary
transcendence in the guise of a Clarice Lispector, Hilda Hilst, Okamoto Kanoko, Murasaki
Shikibu, Unica Zürn, and so on. But they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
(On the other hand, women seem naturally gifted at lyric expression, with great female poets
existing since at least Sappho.)
Orchestral conducting, too, is a field wherein women cannot produce an equal or better of,
say, a Furtwängler, Mengelberg, or Beecham. There are plenty of them around today -- all
lousy. (To be fair, though, nearly all living conductors today -- male or female --
are lousy.)
I'm a university degree holding woman, of the traditional type with XX chromosomes, and since
I was a teen some forty years ago, I've thought that men are better suited for politics. Not
that a few women can't do it successfully (Thatcher and British Queens for examples) but that
it's a profession far more suited to men, being as many are more naturally mentally strong,
steady and rational, and not as given to bursts of emotion and utopian fancies as women can
often be. In fact, I'd be delighted if only U.S. born citizen male property owners over the
age of 25 were allowed to vote. How's that for being a Dissident?
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
"... Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm. ..."
"... Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough . Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples. ..."
"... Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic. He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. ..."
"... One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked inside. ..."
In March 2017, young people armed with baseball
bats prowled the parking lots of Evergreen State College. They hoped to find Bret Weinstein, a biology professor, and presumably
bash his brains in. Bret had caught the ire of the student body after he refused to participate in an unofficial "Day of Absence,"
in which white students and faculty were told to stay home, away from the campus, while teachers and students of color attended as
they normally would. In prior years, people of color voluntarily absented themselves to highlight their presence and importance on
campus. In 2017, the event's organizers decided to flip the event, and white people were pressured to stay away from the school.
In a letter to the school's administration, Bret explained why he opposed
the idea:
There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order
to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away. The first
is a forceful call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force,
and an act of oppression in and of itself
On a college campus, one's right to speak -- or to be -- must never be based on skin color.
When word of Professor Weinstein's objection got out, enraged student activists began a hostile takeover of the school, and the
college president ordered the campus police force not to intervene. Professor Weinstein was told, in essence, that nobody would protect
him from young people with baseball bats. The police warned Professor Weinstein that their hands were tied and that he should stay
off campus for his own safety.
Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal
with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he
blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black
strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically
earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm.
And its core, the story of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen State College is about a college's descent into total chaos after someone
presented mild resistance to a political demonstration.
Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough
. Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples.
Before discussing what the Wilfrid Laurier University did to a woman named Lindsay Shepherd, it's important to know about Jordan
Peterson.
Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic.
He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity
to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Dr. Peterson objected to the bill because it set a new precedent -- requiring citizens to use certain pronouns to address people
with non-traditional gender identities. Dr. Peterson calls transexual
people by whatever gender they project , as long as he feels like they're asking him to do so in good faith, but he's wary of
people playing power games with him, and he saw something dangerous about the government mandating which words he must use. He believed
that under C-16, misgendering a person could be classified as hate speech, even it was just an accident.
Having spent much of his life considering the dangers that exist at the furthest ends of the political spectrum -- Nazi Germany
on the far right, the Soviet Union on the far left -- Dr. Peterson has developed a tendency to see things in apocalyptic terms.
In bill C-16, he saw what he considered the seeds of a serious threat to the freedom of expression -- a list of government-approved
words -- and decided it was a hill worth dying on.
He's controversial, verbose, discursive, sometimes grouchy, and almost incapable of speaking the language of television sound-bites.
He makes it easy for critics to attack and misrepresent him -- and ever since he took a stance against C-16, he's been subjected
to student protests and journalistic hit-pieces.
One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown
him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked
inside.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his opinions, Dr. Peterson should have the right to express them without other
people suggesting that he be murdered with fire. Furthermore, people should be able to talk about what he says.
Enter the case of Lindsay Shepherd.
While working as a teacher's aid at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsay Shepherd showed students two clips from public access
television featuring Jordan Peterson debating someone over bill C-16. After showing the clips, she asked her students to share their
thoughts.
Days later, the school called her into a meeting with a panel of three superiors. They said that they had gotten a number of complaints
from students. Lindsay asked how many complaints they had received, and was told that the number was confidential.
The panel claimed that she had created a toxic environment by showing the clips and facilitating a discussion without taking a
side against Dr. Peterson's view. They said it was as if she had been completely neutral while showing one of Hitler's speeches.
The panel thought the clip probably violated the Human Rights Code, and they demanded Shepherd to submit all of her future lesson
plans ahead of time so that they could be vetted.
Although one student expressed some concern about the class, the number of formal complaints that the administrators had received
was actually zero.
During their discussion, Lindsay said:
The thing is, can you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away
from this? Is that what the point of this is? Because to me that is against what a university is about.
Lindsay found herself at the mercy of school administrators whose brittle spirits couldn't bear to present students with opinions
that they might have found offensive. She had believed that universities were places where people could explore ideas. On that day,
the panel showed her just how wrong she'd been.
And she caught it all on tape.
Over the past few years, the news has become littered with stories of schools overrun by children while hand-wringing professors
and administrators do everything possible to placate them. Recently, a group called "The Diaspora Coalition"
staged a sit-in at Sarah Lawrence.
Their demands
included, among other things, that they get free fabric-softener. The origin of their grievance was an
op-ed published in the
New York Times about the imbalance between left-leaning and right-leaning school administrators.
Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business,
sums the phenomenon up tidily :
You get kids who are much more anxious and fragile, much more depressed, coming onto campus at a time of much greater political
activism -- and now these grievance studies ideas about, 'America's a matrix of oppression,' and, 'look at the world in terms
of good versus evil.' it's much more appealing to them, and it's that minority of students, they're the ones who are initiating
a lot of the movements
Every day, or at least every week, I get an email from a professor saying, 'you know, I used a metaphor
in class and somebody reported me.' and once this happens to you, you pull back. You change your teaching style
What we're seeing
on campus is a spectacular collapse of trust between students and professors. And once we can't trust each other, we can't do
our job.
We can't risk being provocative, raising uncomfortable ideas. We have to play it safe, and then everybody suffers.
To understate it, President Donald Trump is a deeply troubling human being. However, he may have done a good thing on Thursday,
March 21st, when he signed an
executive order that requires public schools to "foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse
debate."
Schools that don't comply may lose government-funded research grants.
In theory, the order will compel colleges to prevent scenes like those at Evergreen State and Sarah Lawrence. Schools will have
serious financial incentives to protect their professors from mobs of unruly children. If all goes well, students will learn to engage
with controversial opinions without resorting to baseball bats or demanding Snuggle Plus fabric softener.
One would be remiss if they didn't consider the hidden or unintended consequences of the new policy, though. The executive order
is vague, and it gives no criteria for judging whether an institution complies with its requirements. Instead, the specific implementation
is left for structures lower on the hierarchy to decide. Hopefully, nobody decides that Young Earth theories must be taught alongside
evolution.
The policy could very well become a tool by which the dominant political party punishes schools that lean in the opposite direction.
Since there is a 12-to-1 imbalance between liberals and conservative college administrators right now, it would be a Republican administration
punishing liberal colleges.
This is hardly a perfect solution -- but at least it's an effort to address the problem. The stability of our society depends
on an endless balancing act between the left and the right. The political landscape of academia has tilted too far left, and it's
clearly becoming insular and unstable. Now it's necessary to push things back toward the center.
Hopefully, this recent executive order does more good than harm.
Postscript
After the events at Evergreen State College, the school was forced to settle with Bret Weinstein and his wife, who was also a
professor there. The college paid the couple $500,000. Enrollment at the college is said to have dropped "catastrophically."
After the events at Wilfrid Laurier University, the school released several letters of apology. It is being sued for millions
of dollars by Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson.
Forty professors endorsed the demands made by the Diaspora Coalition at Sarah Lawrence, and several others endorsed challenging
Samuel Abrams's tenure -- Abrams being the person who wrote the op-ed that appeared in the New York Times.
As the narrative of a 'racist, homophobic
attack' on actor Jussie Smollett in Chicago continues to collapse, politicians and celebrities
who fueled the outrage over the incident are quietly backing away and hoping no one
notices.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation on Thursday mandating that every school in
the state teach students about "the political, economic, and social contributions" of LGBTQ
people and people with disabilities.
The legislation, which will apply
starting in the 2020-21 school year, requires that the boards of education for middle and high
schools ensure that instructional materials, such as text books, include accurate portrayals of
the contributions made by LGBTQ people and those with disabilities.
The University of Michigan Has At Least 82 Full-Time Diversity Officers at a Total Annual
Payroll Cost of $10.6M.
so applying some crude arithmetic, 8 cost $1M meaning they are paid upward of 100k apiece?
Or if it's differently apportioned the Chief Executive Officer of Diversity makes some
unimaginably astronomical salary and the others are in the 60-80k range?
Maybe they are including a travel allowance as part of "payroll"? I know much of what they
do is recruitment since back in the 90s my then-bf was one of only two -- count 'em, TWO --
Blacks in the entire graduate physical sciences division at the University of Chicago. He was
in Computer Science (machine learning) and the other was in Chemistry. They would send him
back to Atlanta where he gone to school at Morehouse and the University of GA.
From time immemorial, it was understood that women, especially young women, needed to be
shielded from the sexual predations of men. Camille Paglia, the radical/conservative cultural
critic, has been arguing for decades that key institutions in society, often derided as
"patriarchal" -- from marriage to single-sex education to exemption from military service --
were mostly the result of a desire to protect women, not to pinion them.
Not surprisingly, legends and parables reinforced this cultural wisdom. For instance,
there's Little Red Riding Hood. After many centuries of telling and retelling, the origins of
the story are obscure. Yet it doesn't take a Freudian genius to see that there could be more
than one meaning to the scene in which Red Riding Hood is tempted into bed with the Big Bad
Wolf.
The fact that the story has a happy ending doesn't mitigate its cautionary nature.
(Interestingly, a pop song from the '60s, "Little Red Riding Hood," includes lyrics
that restate the warning message: "What full lips you have/ They're sure to lure someone
bad.")
With these dangers in mind, societies all over the world came up with rituals of courtship,
aimed at circumscribing -- if not proscribing altogether -- impulsive romantic love. The bottom
line was that parents, matchmakers, chaperones, clergy, and community were involved. Were these
social systems confining to women? Perhaps. But they were also confining to men .
Suppression was also protection. The overriding goal was for a vulnerable woman not to
end up in the lair of a wolf.
Then came modernity, when most of the guardrails were trampled. Or, as Marx said of modern
times, "All that is solid melts into air."
We might think of this change, beginning in Europe in the 18th century, as the Great
Unleashing, when young people left the farm and mostly ended up in mills and factories, there
to meet a new kind of fate.
In 1731, the English artist William Hogarth issued his own form of warning. A Harlot's
Progress consists of six engravings showing the descent of a young woman, from
innocence to prostitution to death at age 23. Four years later, Hogarth published a companion
set of warnings to men, A Rake's Progress .
Two centuries later, on this side of the Atlantic, several novels by Theodore Dreiser also
described the new times. Perhaps Dreiser's most famous work, An American Tragedy
(1925), began with a look back at the old ways, shaped by family and faith. Describing a stern
matriarch, Dreiser writes, "The mother alone stood out as having that force and determination
which, however blind or erroneous, makes for self-preservation." And then the family sings a
hymn: "The love of Jesus saves me whole/ The love of God my steps control."
The sorrowful message of the book, of course, is that once those restraining strings are
untuned -- as when boys and girls end up on their own in the big city -- then hark, what
discord comes. (The novel was made into a Hollywood movie twice, once in 1931 and again in 1951 -- the second
starring Elizabeth Taylor.)
In this modern vein, it's interesting to note that while "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is
closely associated with the Christmas holiday, there's no mention of Christmas, or any holiday,
in the lyrics. In these secular times, it seems, "Christmas" is little different from
"winter."
In the '50s, '60s, and '70s, the Great Unleashing gained momentum. Indeed, "Baby It's Cold
Outside" was sometimes interpreted as a song of
women's liberation , a lyric of empowerment -- she being free to make her own choices.
Yet as Dreiser would have predicted, some of those choices were mistakes. Recently, The
New York Timespublished an
oral history of Andy Warhol's "Factory," a not-so-homey home for pretty vagabonds:
One day a drug dealer came up. He shot up this girl, and she for some reason passed out.
It was in the bathtub. She went under water. We thought she was dead. We panicked because she
was not waking up. Finally someone said, "We should send her down the mail chute." We wrote
little notes on her body and puts stamps on her forehead. Then we realized she wasn't dead. I
don't think she would have fit in the mail chute. But we would have tried.
That nameless girl, of course, was a daughter, and it seems reasonable to assert that
society could have done a better job of protecting her -- including, if at all possible, from
her own careless impulses. That is, after all, a basic reason that civilization exists.
By the 1980s, sexually transmitted diseases had slowed the pace of the sexual revolution.
Many feminists turned more conservative on at least some sexual matters, led by law
professor-turned-anti-pornography crusader Catharine MacKinnon .
Today, we can draw a line from MacKinnon's neo-Victorianism to the #MeToo movement, and from
there to the monologues of comedian Hannah Gadsby, avatar of a new kind of vengeful anti-humor,
perhaps better described as dire sermons against heterosexual men. (Some would say, to be sure,
that many males have it coming -- that scorn is the price to be paid for the wolfish life that
many have chosen.)
So perhaps now is the right time to put "Baby, It's Cold Outside" in its most socially
useful framework: it's a cautionary tale, right up there with Little Red Riding Hood ,
Hogarth, and Dreiser. Sure, the song is fun and sexy, yet it describes a path that most young
women probably don't wish to be on -- at least not in retrospect. And almost certainly, few
actively wish that path for their daughters or other female relatives.
Some will insist, of course, that prudential safeguards -- whether as matters of law or just
custom -- are inhibiting, even stifling. Others will say there's something dubious about those
who dwell too much on the dangers that might befall others. Still others will say that to focus
on the harm done to unlucky individuals is to "blame the victim."
Even so, cautionary tales are valuable because, after all, caution is valuable. Society can
and should do its part to serve and protect, yet there's no substitute for informed common
sense. Oh, and let's not forget: common sense and virtue are good for men as well.
So sure, people will continue to listen to "Baby, It's Cold Outside." Yet at the same time,
they should realize that it can be perilous inside.
That's a good synthesis of hard-earned wisdom for the holiday season -- and any other.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at. He served as a
White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Christine Blasey Ford Thanks America For $650,000 Payday, Hopes Life "Will Return To
Normal"
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/27/2018 - 17:30 171 SHARES
Amid the sound and fury of the disgusting antics of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination
process, one of the main defenses of Christine Balsey Ford's sudden recollection of an '80s
sexual assault was simply "...why would she lie... what's in it for her?"
Certainly, the forced publicity by Dianne Feinstein and public questioning guaranteed her 15
minutes of fame (and perhaps even more infamy if Kavanaugh's nomination had failed) but now, in
a statement thanking everyone who had supported her, Ford is "hopeful that our lives will
return to normal."
The full statement was posted to her GoFundMe page :
Words are not adequate to thank all of you who supported me since I came forward to tell
the Senate that I had been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Your tremendous outpouring
of support and kind letters have made it possible for us to cope with the immeasurable
stress, particularly the disruption to our safety and privacy. Because of your support, I
feel hopeful that our lives will return to normal.
The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed
us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including
physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our
home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on
September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and
security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been
displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence
generously loaned to us.
With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds
unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that
support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best
be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete.
Although coming forward was terrifying, and caused disruption to our lives, I am grateful
to have had the opportunity to fulfill my civic duty. Having done so, I am in awe of the many
women and men who have written me to share similar life experiences, and now have bravely
shared their experience with friends and family, many for the first time. I send you my
heartfelt love and support.
I wish I could thank each and every one of you individually. Thank you.
Christine
Well one thing is for sure - she has almost 650 thousand reasons why life since
the accusations could be more comfortable...
Here's an interesting fact: Her immediate family (siblings and parents) wants nothing to
do with her. They refused to sign a petition of support created by "close family and
friends", they refused to make any supporting statements and they refused to show up to the
hearings.
Sorry doesn't seem like much money to me at all. Put family through all that for that
amount? Risk ones families welfare and safety for that amount and a bad name? One would have
to be a total idiot or crazy for that.
Wanders in, belches out a pack of lies, destroys an entire family's lives, tears a big
chunk out of the social fabric of the country, collects a huge payday and hits the beach for
the rest of her life, or at least the portion not dedicated to indoctrinating yound
minds.
She is at least as much of a Democrat as Obama ever was.
Disgusting female. Brett Kavanaugh and his family donated the gomfund me set up for his
family, to a charity for abused women.
Ford has a second go fund me which raised more, to,pay for legals, she has made a fortune,
has a 3 million plus home, and whatever she was given for this charade. And the abortion drug
company interest. Plus the google renting illegally events thru the second fromt door.
Kavanaugh has an ordinary car, a simple home worth 1.3 million and a debt of 860,000.
Always been an employee so never the big paycheck like Avenatti got.
volunteers for homeless. Plus the sports coaching for school, kids and lecturing...both no
more.
"... Well, if the objective of having many women on board is to keep all the occupants occupied full-time on a one-to-one basis instead of letting them get busy at shooting at people, then I am all for that, they should adopt it for the whole of NATO, especially the US. ..."
"... Sounds like a good Scandinavian way of addressing NATO policy deficiencies. But when through your distraction you end up crashing into oil tankers, just don't blame it on the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
From the article this gem: "It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a
natural thing and a completely different environment, which I look at as positive,"
Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge
Ingstad, according to Defense Forum.
Well, if the objective of having many women on board is to keep all the occupants
occupied full-time on a one-to-one basis instead of letting them get busy at shooting at
people, then I am all for that, they should adopt it for the whole of NATO, especially the
US.
Sounds like a good Scandinavian way of addressing NATO policy deficiencies. But when
through your distraction you end up crashing into oil tankers, just don't blame it on the
Russians or the Chinese.
Also in the article a very nice picture of the frigate (not the one at the top, the one a
little further down the page) which makes for an excellent picture of a George-Soros-frigate.
It should be renamed KNM George Soros. Anyone for an HMS George Soros Aircraft carrier?
"... With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect most Democrat leaders now realize that their attempt to take out Judge Brent Kavanaugh with false charges that he sexually assaulted someone in High School was a disaster. Their heavy handed, Bolshevik tactics backfired and galvanized a broad spectrum of Americans who were sickened by the spectacle of a verbal lynch mob being led by the decrepit Diane Feinstein. ..."
"... that he dated Dr. Ford for six years. He said that she never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or misconduct. He also stated that Dr. Ford did not mention any fear of close quarters or flying, and that the two traveled together, including on a small propeller plane. also said that he witnessed Dr. Ford, drawing from her background in psychology, help prepare her roommate, Ms. Monica McLean, for a potential polygraph examination when Ms. McLean wasinterviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. He stated that Dr. Ford helped Ms. McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. ..."
"... No! Let's see her tried for perjury with full discovery I will be glad to be a pro bone consultant on that trial and i have a lot of experience. ..."
"... The Dems COULD have made Kavanaugh's support for torture a principled reason for opposing him. ..."
"... The Dems could've raised all kinds of principled objections to Kavanaugh; but tellingly, they chose not to. They chose to take the low road instead. ..."
"... They are complicit. Especially Feinstein. SHe's AOK with torture and 24-7 surveillance. WHat do you expect from an ardent cannabis prohibitionist? ..."
"... Indeed. That would have been a principle worth highlighting. And the question put forward - "Should a torture supporter serve on the Supreme Court?" But..Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer were never interested in that. All they were interested in was creating a media spectacle and that's exactly what they did by holding on to Ford's letter for 2 months and unleashing it the day before the vote. ..."
"... Christine Ford, Monica McLean and the others should testify to a grand jury. Isn't perjury what they indicted & convicted Gen. Flynn & George Papadopolous for? ..."
"... Why is it that Christine Ford can get away with blatantly and repeatedly lying to Congress about a federal judge but Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos were dragged through court (no doubt at great expense to them) for so-called minor lies to FBI interrogators? ..."
"... Launching 18 USC 1001 prosecutions like so many torpedoes might look expeditious in the short term but in the long term, it will be bad for both the working agent on the street and for justice in the bigger picture. ..."
"... Ford lied to the senate judiciary committee under oath. In your scheme of things people like Avenatti and his female tools can slander and libel at will in conformations even if they are interviewed by the FBI? OK, then the FBI should interview them under oath. ..."
"... If at least one Democrat is going to be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of the midterm election realignment, I nominate 'Spartacus' as the guy. ..."
"... Kavanaugh's real crime was he went after Bill Clinton and now he paid the price for it. It's too bad in Yale they don't teach them how to watch their backs in Washington. ..."
"... Brian Merrick has been revealed as the boyfriend. He is a realtor in Malibu. His letter states: " Despite trying to maintain a long distance relationship, I ended the relationship once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful while living in Hawaii. After the breakup, I took her off the credit card we shared. But nearly 1 year later, I noticed Dr. Ford had been charging the card and charged about $600 worth of merchandise. When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card but later admitted the use after I threatened to involve fraud prevention." 'Revealed: The Man Accusing Blasey Ford of Lying About Polygraphs.' The Daily Caller, October 3, 2018. https://dailycaller.com/201... ..."
"... A woman who said that she attended UNC with Dr. Ford, identified a third woman, name blotted out, and stated that the three of them "used to purchase drugs" from a male whose name also has been blotted out. The three of them "regularly attended parties with members of his fraternity." The witness said "that she was present at --a blotted out name of an apartment--"one night in April 1987 when Dr. Ford and --someone again blotted out--"arrived to consume drugs." This witness "said that the Dr. Ford she knew had an active and robust social life in college." (Sept.25) ..."
With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect most Democrat leaders now realize
that their attempt to take out Judge Brent Kavanaugh with false charges that he sexually assaulted someone in High School was a disaster.
Their heavy handed, Bolshevik tactics backfired and galvanized a broad spectrum of Americans who were sickened by the spectacle of
a verbal lynch mob being led by the decrepit Diane Feinstein. The truth about the sex-fraud, Dr. Chrissie Ford, is now exposed
by the voluminous report issued by Senator Grassley's Judiciary Committee staff. Read it
here . (
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf
). Here are the highlights:
The Committee was informed that Dr. Ford had a fear of flying caused by Justice Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault on her
more than 35 years before. That was a lie and the committee staffers discovered subsequently that Dr. Ford had racked up a ton
of frequent flyer miles. When asked about her fear of flying and about whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph
examination, Dr. Ford acknowledged that she flew to the hearing and traveled by plane for work and leisure. Indeed, Dr. Ford listed
on her CV that one of her hobbies includes international surf travel.
The Judiciary staffers interviewed 17 people who had information about Dr. Ford's allegations. No one could corroborate her
claims about Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, two men testified that they had a contact with Dr. Ford as teen-agers that was in line
with the account provided by Dr. Ford except that it was consensual.
A long time boyfriend of Chrissie testified:
that he dated Dr. Ford for six years. He said that she never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or misconduct. He also
stated that Dr. Ford did not mention any fear of close quarters or flying, and that the two traveled together, including on a small
propeller plane. also said that he witnessed Dr. Ford, drawing from her background in psychology, help prepare her roommate, Ms.
Monica McLean, for a potential polygraph examination when Ms. McLean wasinterviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
Office. He stated that Dr. Ford helped Ms. McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. The Judiciary Committee report
also details the allegations and findings from others who alleged sexual misconduct by the Judge. It was all a pack of lies. A contrived
hit job intended to destroy the man's reputation and try to cow him into backing away from the nomination. That bullying tactic failed
spectacularly. It ended up rallying a broad swath of the American public, especially women, who understand fairness and justice.
The injustice on display by the Democrats ended up helping the Republicans nail down a bigger majority in the Senate. Look for fewer
Democrat seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Absolutely agree. With Nadler now openly talking about impeaching Kavanaugh, there is no alternative. The truth must be brought
out. The alternative is to leave him exposed permanently and keep this whole plan viable for use against future nominees. With
RBG approaching retirement this is critical.
Getting to the actual facts would be a great good. But we know that will not happen. The administration and the senate have already
shown their attitude toward professional quality investigation. That appears to be the last thing they want. If they actually
believed any of what they said, they would follow your advice. We will see.
On second thought that is probably an unfair standard. Opening up discovery for a trial would have negative effects even for
a very solid case.
"The administration and the senate have already shown their attitude toward professional quality investigation."
You mean the Mueller "Russia" investigation? That is beyond a joke at this point. Dr. Ford should be charged. She's got $1 million
or more from the go bribe fund me accounts. She should lawyer up. So should Ms. Mclean.
I think the lesson to be learned is that getting all the facts simply cannot be done, which is why we have a statute of limitations,
and why Dr. Ford's accusation should not ever have seen the light of day 30 years after the purported event.
Most liberals seem to think the statute of limitations has to do with the purported offender "living with guilt," but the law
does not acknowledge the "sensation of guilt." The statute is because after a period of time the offense cannot be fairly prosecuted
because witnesses die or move away, memories fade, evidence degrades or disappears, and so forth, and this shoddy exhibition is
proof of the validity of that principle.
I do not see how you can fault Grassley's efforts to get the facts. He bent over backward to accommodate the Democrats lies about
Kavanaugh and the WH authorized the the additional FBI investigation.
The Dems COULD have made Kavanaugh's support for torture a principled reason for opposing him. Then if they lost, which they were
likely going to do anyway, it would have at least been considered fair politics and it would have placed the spotlight on a very
ugly chapter in the country's recent history that needs to be addressed.
Shaming, shunning, bullying, threats of violence, and violence are all now accepted as methods by the left. They are totally consumed
in a political tribalism. Rather than raising the moral standards of the group they are using the most primitive instincts and
you can see this in many of the tweets from the left that use gross sexual imagery to demean their "enemies".
The more I read on group psychology such as Freud, Le Bon, etc. the more concerned I become whether the age of reason, principles,
and science will survive group psychosis given the powerful tools like social media enabling it. Social media is one of the most
dangerous technologies we have developed.
"In order to make a correct judgment upon the morals of groups, one must take into consideration the fact that when individuals
come together in a group all their individual inhibitions fall away and all the cruel, brutal and destructive
instincts, which lie dormant in individuals as relics of a primitive epoch, are stirred up to find free gratification. But under
the influence of suggestion groups are also capable of high achievements in the shape of abnegation, unselfishness, and devotion
to an ideal.
While with isolated individuals personal interest is almost the only motive force, with groups it is very rarely
prominent.
It is possible to speak of an individual having his moral standards raised by a group. Whereas the intellectual capacity
of a group is always far below that of an individual, its ethical conduct may rise as
high above his as it may sink deep below it." - Gustave Le Bon
Indeed. That would have been a principle worth highlighting. And the question put forward - "Should a torture supporter serve
on the Supreme Court?" But..Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer were never interested in that. All they were interested in was
creating a media spectacle and that's exactly what they did by holding on to Ford's letter for 2 months and unleashing it the
day before the vote.
Christine Ford, Monica McLean and the others should testify to a grand jury. Isn't perjury what they indicted & convicted Gen.
Flynn & George Papadopolous for?
The recent accident that RBG experienced has probably caused both Democrats and Republicans some concern that there may soon be
another Supreme Court seat to fill under a Trump administration.
Why is it that Christine Ford can get away with blatantly and repeatedly lying to Congress about a federal judge but Michael Flynn
and George Papadopoulos were dragged through court (no doubt at great expense to them) for so-called minor lies to FBI interrogators?
Off topic: I'd love to read PT's take on the mid-term election with attention paid to the boxes of suddenly-discovered ballots
in AZ that have put (wouldn't you know!) Democratic Senate candidate Sinema in the lead. And in light of the FL recount, I'd also
be interested in what he has to say about the flagrant disregard for chain of custody of [the infamous] Broward Co. boxes of ballots.
Why is it that ballots discovered post-election day always seem to help Democrats? I don't recall ever reading or hearing about
newly-discovered ballots that benefited Republican candidates.
In my experience lying to the FBI, 18 USC 1001, was used very, very infrequently. It was used as an add on charge in the prosecution
of some of the Watergate subjects and they had been placed under oath. It was used to my knowledge to prosecute an individual
who had made a false accusatory statement in the Ray Donavan investigation in the early 80's, another debacle instigated by Senate
Democrats. Otherwise it was rarely used, and it shouldn't be used in my opinion unless the person has been given a
separate warning
and waiver, or placed under oath.
Once Big Government has opened the floodgates on prosecuting people for lying to the FBI, especially when it becomes obvious that
it is being used selectively, and in isolation in order to hang a charge on somebody in pursuit of manifestly political ends,
cooperation with FBI Agents trying to do their job will, and should, dry up. Who needs to take a chance on some partisan operation,
such as Bob Mueller, parsing their adverbs and adjectives for signs of deceit when the option is to take advantage of your right
to silence.
Launching 18 USC 1001 prosecutions like so many torpedoes might look expeditious in the short term but in the long term, it will
be bad for both the working agent on the street and for justice in the bigger picture.
Ford lied to the senate judiciary committee under oath. In your scheme of things people like Avenatti and his female tools can
slander and libel at will in conformations even if they are interviewed by the FBI? OK, then the FBI should interview them under
oath.
If at least one Democrat is going to be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of the midterm election realignment,
I nominate 'Spartacus' as the guy.
Now that there's a new AG in town--one who isn't either cowed, incompetent, or possibly blackmailed--Mrs.Ford may get her just
deserts.
Kavanaugh's real crime was he went after Bill Clinton and now he paid the price for it. It's too bad in Yale they don't teach
them how to watch their backs in Washington.
"The injustice on display by the Democrats ended up helping the Republicans nail down a bigger majority in the Senate. Look
for fewer Democrat seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee."
While this may have held true for the Senate, it didn't in the House.
I agree with you in the sense that many of the Democrat candidates did not take the ultra progressive (socialist?) path. Many
seemed more centrist.
That was the result of state and country Democratic parties.
I think this because I definitely see a difference in the different county Republican parties in my state.
Unfortunately in my state (CO) what happens in Boulder and Denver usually carries. And as we say in CO, Boulder is about 40
square miles surrounded by reality. Denver is becoming a similar alternate reality.
Thus, I am ashamed to say, our current Governor is a person from a quite alternate reality from the one in which I live.
Brian Merrick has been revealed as the boyfriend. He is a realtor in Malibu. His letter states: " Despite trying to maintain a
long distance relationship, I ended the relationship once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful while living in Hawaii. After
the breakup, I took her off the credit card we shared. But nearly 1 year later, I noticed Dr. Ford had been charging the card
and charged about $600 worth of merchandise. When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card but later admitted the use
after I threatened to involve fraud prevention."
'Revealed: The Man Accusing Blasey Ford of Lying About Polygraphs.' The Daily Caller, October 3, 2018.
https://dailycaller.com/201...
A male witness "(Sept. 26): stated that when he was a 19-year-old college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed
a girl he believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to- 20 minute walk
from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped
on them as a joke. The witness said that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself on her. "
A woman who said that she attended UNC with Dr. Ford, identified a third woman, name blotted out, and stated that the three
of them "used to purchase drugs" from a male whose name also has been blotted out. The three of them "regularly attended parties
with members of his fraternity." The witness said "that she was present at --a blotted out name of an apartment--"one night in
April 1987 when Dr. Ford and --someone again blotted out--"arrived to consume drugs." This witness "said that the Dr. Ford she
knew had an active and robust social life in college." (Sept.25)
PT, thanks very much for posting this.
I cannot find any mention of this Judiciary Committee report at the Washington Post web site.
They had a ton of coverage of Ford's allegation before the vote, including a lengthy interview with her current husband.
It says a lot about them that they have, unless I have missed something, ignored this report.
Could the reason they are ignoring it be that they don't want to publicize anything which contradicts the line that "Women tell
the truth"?
A line that they have used to great political effect, in particular in the sinking of the Senate candidacy of Judge Roy Moore
of Alabama.
Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or
used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly
drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house,
location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form
letter), Klobuchar (trying to expolit fradulent Swtnick testomy for political purposes),
Kavanuch (unability to take punches camly, low quality of some regulations (this supplosed to
be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible
agressive behvious when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high scool and colledge,
possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left
her, not vise versa), using questional methods to rent part of her house, and even more
qurestionable method to justify this, etc)
Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's
credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her
friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii,
and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.
The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a
partisan attack. Give me a break.
Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36
years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly
being nearly raped and killed.
The longer this Freak Show continues, more and more of Ford's bones will be pulled from
the closet. Time to vote, time to move on. If Democrats want to pick judges, they need to win
elections.
"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans"
This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend
who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.
I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence,
that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility?
Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial
board?
I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth?
The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is
credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.
I still find Dr. Ford's testimony believable and far more consistent with what else we
know about her and her attacker.
And (here comes one of those dreaded "even if" arguments): Even if Mr. Merrick's account
is factual, it elides a crucial distinction. When I read the senate question, the only
relevant reason I can see why Republican senators would ask it (through their proxy) is to
ferret out if Dr. Ford had any experience "beating" a polygraph, which might undercut the
value ascribed to her taking that test.
The old boyfriend seems to be describing something different. He writes that Dr. Ford
"explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar
and less nervous about the exam." This seems to describe something along the lines of
reassuring a friend nervous about her interviews, including anxiety about the experience of
taking a polygraph. It seems much more along the lines of something explaining to a nervous
patient what to expect during an MRI scan to reduce their anxiety, not some sort of movie
scene where the the evil mastermind explains how to beat the cops' interrogation.
Were I in Dr. Ford's place, I'm very sure that an episode in which I'd calmed down an
anxious friend before a job interview would be unlikely to come to mind if asked if I'd "ever
given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test," and I'd feel
confident and honest answering "never".
Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are
unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the
test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she
probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?
How is investigating the allegations attacking her? SHe made statements in her testimony
that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should
this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be
investigated? She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be
looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only
investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no
witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is
being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the
NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I
believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts
are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You
are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like
this.
Why shouldn't her credibility be established?
She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years.
Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no
corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said".
To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative
veracity of the two people involved.
It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side.
It's strictly about the outcome going their way.
@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a
psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a
psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"
I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid
and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a
quick summary from the American Psych Association.
Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience,
akin to phrenology.
People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are
psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.
Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and
finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass
because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as
much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this
except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed
it with her beach friends.
I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately
come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest
court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.
Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.
I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I?
Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of
the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman.
That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught
that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to
someone I was simply dating?
Finally we get some information about Kavanaugh's main accuser. For a while it seemed as
if she had just sprung into existence and had no history beyond her claims of sexual
assault.
"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at
last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone
about taking a polygraph test."
So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to
withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem
a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.
Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test
and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the
credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.
One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely
he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he
says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).
Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any
intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and
intellectually).
I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him
and his programs.
Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to
give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market.
Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.
P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much
better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.
This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the
Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the
foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's
withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be
deliberately destructive.
So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college
"friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of
Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.
People who use others credit cards are liars. Selective honesty is not possible. She is
dishonest. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh is honest but she is a pawn and loves the attention.
Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an
official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have
a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have
just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists,
having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.
Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating
when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to
online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people
emotionally have more to lose.
I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he
approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite
claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job
around it.
Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her
anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the
testimony.
From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr.
Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her
testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her
married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to
somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
Someone correct me here as I thought the question was had she ever been given tips or advice
by someone on how to take a polygraph test.
Quite a different meaning than asking if she had ever coached someone on how to take a
polygraph test.
Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.)
Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on
speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).
Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people
about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate
Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she
wanted she knew nothing about it.
Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't
advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!
You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr.
Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being
a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you
accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or
waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.
Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They
should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck,
doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from
established).
We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal
Gayle Mangum--to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When
they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and
frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual
assault.
What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing
of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the
proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government
and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like
men, thank you very much.
The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school
and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't
matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and
done.
Charles Grassley knew about this lie and fed it to Rachel Mitchell to entrap Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford. Who can't see through the blatant partisan desperation?
I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I
believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying
around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.
This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without
objective evidence.
In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with
Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were
replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous
child.
"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to
relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve
poitical interests. It does not serve interest in truth.
Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party
wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.
But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford
indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she
knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident
desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee.
But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience,
evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.
That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.
So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second
door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an
entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex
threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back
up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her
friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would
that make any difference?
The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was
hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the
press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is
absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are
other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for
the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a
500 square foot apartment with ONE door.
@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed
his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability
to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these
extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr.
Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us
know what he's made of.
Until this week, I often wondered whether the Me Too movement had gone too far- publicly
shaming men, rather than going through official HR or legal channels. I thought perhaps some
of us women could benefit from pulling out our high school copies of "The Scarlet Letter."
But frankly... now I'm fed up.
Just 30 minutes ago, my pleasant afternoon walk was interrupted by some nasty, lascivious
cat-calling--directed at me from some men painting a neighbor's house.
Still feeling hurt, objectified and dirty, I sat down to catch up on today's news. Well,
that was a mistake. I believe Dr. Ford, 100%. But at the beginning of this whole Kavanaugh
controversy, I could still understand why some men might feel uncomfortable with the idea
that a tweet, a news story, or even a rumor could turn into a full blown scandal within
minutes. But no more!
Kavanaugh is not on trial! He's an applicant for a job! Anyone who has ever had to work at
finding a job knows that it is UP TO THE APPLICANT to show (yes, to prove) that they are the
BEST person for that job! And you better be double sure that you're squeaky clean before you
aim for even a moderately high profile job, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.
So I'm not wondering anymore... I'm fed up with comments like, "I guess now it's guilty
until proven innocent" or how men should be "scared" in this Me Too era. Too bad we can't
just magic the GOP all into a woman's body for a day, and send them on a walk down a busy
city street.
I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations
baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were
refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by
her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations
into the process.
A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's
testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for
sure, barring further investigstion.
The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that
this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted
undiciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in
money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.
Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters.
From wikipedia:
"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may
delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful
effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past
sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound
familiar??
I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's
allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any
support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by
everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly
told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. I thought Ford's description of the
assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had
offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she
doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed
to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are
free.
I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care
about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's
testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly
veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing
in real estate in Canada.
Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You
know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the
reason for his well-documented vomiting.
Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it
you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?
My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did
many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were
'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to
the WaPo story.
Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with
a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.
In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the
'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in
2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who
rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now
refusing to discuss it further.
I was clear in my earlier posts that as a psychologist, especially a teaching psychologist,
Ford would have to know about polygraphs and how they work. https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
And how to evade them:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/25/nsa-whi...
Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the
FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom
she supported is a liar and perjurer.
When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my
first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he
contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.
@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and
evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.
When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is
outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation
and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.
This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything
regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote.
"Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of
knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific
stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in
Merrick's letter.
Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just
guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If
you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that
makes you more confident about your opinion.
If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is
going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax,
be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.
If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my
roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I
responded "no."
He also alleges she committed credit card fraud in grad school. But nobody should have
their character judged by something that happened so long ago, right?
@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing
straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell
someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer
when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at
other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.
I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country
deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides
that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's
divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way.
Put someone else on the table already folks.
As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace
Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views
consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy
Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you;
never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.
@al Ford is not the one accused of running rape gangs despite having an impeccable much
commended judicial service record for 23+ years. He is understandably upset.
Also "innocent holes"? There is no such thing in law. Either you are lying or you are
not.
Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes
she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But
the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe
that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of
false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the
kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when,
exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who
apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a
common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's
life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And
for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on
Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any
better on abortion anyway.
The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man
scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my
lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our
dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt,
Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.
Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too
divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along
partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.
It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe
either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the
other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical
evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are
not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot
get to the truth and never will.
I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of
division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so
divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.
@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the
defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the
basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.
"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and
that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the
account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the
use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."
Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd
venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third
person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at
the guy who's in the WH.
They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the
account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it.
He had no basis for a fraud case.
He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where
space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.
@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for
taking a bus seat before a white person."
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti
rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must
apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.
@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection?
Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google
interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not
have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having
discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph
the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that
stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your
loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But
I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media
isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his
family. This isn't fair.
feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it
if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to
the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.
sounds like muldar from x-files, "I want to believe". so I will believe, regardless of any
additional information which should perhaps cast a shred of doubt.
There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.
First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if
material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support
for the court, impeach him if he is on it.
Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is
unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing
now.
Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a
matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a
mandatory improvement in every election, period.
@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the
hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and
if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process,
he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way
it was handled.
His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There
was nothing more to be said.
1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of
running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos -
and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?
2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.
how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he
drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the
time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.
I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff
immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a
game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.
So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will
be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have
established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that
she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in
which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood
pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to
truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your
vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not
statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone
how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the
case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years
later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke
about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I
realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and
wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports
Trump (and we are divorced).
@Joan In California
"manly individuals who think this issue will go away after the dust settles better hope their
behavior has always been above reproach."
and how many women have lives that are "beyond reproach"? Notice the goal post moving. Now
its not only men who have sexually assaulted women who are the enemy its all men if the don't
adhere to every single accusation made by any and every woman on the planet. How can any sane
person think a gender war is the answer?
and will you only carry female babies to full term? because if one day your son doesn't
believe just one woman on the planet (or think that she is mistaken) will you stand in line
to scorch his earth too and betray your own motherhood?
They were in a relationship for 6 years and lived together. That doesn't make the
boyfriend's account true, but it does explain how selectively the NYT chooses to inform its
readers these days. The death of the media is a suicide.
@rosa Stalin's Russia also sent and punished without any regard for evidence or proof
which is the exactly what the left is doing to Kavanaugh right now. Ford's claim has no
corroboration, is convieniently dropped 2 days before senate vote, Fienstein recommended
lawyers, now exposed lies about fear of flying, polygraph etc...yet Kavanaugh can not demand
the basic courtesy of being treated "innocent until proven guilty" from the public and the
media? Stalin would be proud right now of this pitch fork mob culture we got going I tell you
that much.
@Henry She lied about fear of flying, lied about polygraph, no corroboration, she was with
merrick for 5+ years yet never mentioned this "assault", allegations 2 days before senate
vote?
@JenD My mother, my wife, my sister and my daughter's rage boiled over last week too...but
at the thought that their father, brother, son and husband could face an uncorroborated
charge and have his life ruined without due process.
"... What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like? ..."
"... "You stupid Wap, you just scratched my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." ..."
"... That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned Democrat libtards. ..."
LP: You've recently highlighted that this is a
tricky time for historians and those who want to examine the past, like filmmakers.
Well-intentioned people who want to confront the injustices of history may end up replacing one
set of myths for another. You point out the distortion of history in films like "Selma" which
offer uplifting narratives about black experiences but tend to leave out or alter meaningful
facts, such as the ways in which blacks and whites have worked together. This is ostensibly
done to avoid a "white savior" narrative but you indicate that it may serve to support other
ideas that are also troubling.
AR: Exactly, and in ways that are completely compatible with neoliberalism as a style of
contemporary governance. It boils down to the extent to which the notion that group disparities
have come to exhaust the ways that people think and talk about inequality and injustice in
America now.
It's entirely possible to resolve disparities without challenging the fundamental structures
that reproduce inequalities more broadly. As my friend Walter Benn Michaels and I have been
saying for at least a decade, by the standard of disparity as the norm or the ideal of social
justice, a society in which 1% of the population controls more than 90% of the resources would
be just, so long as the 1% is made up non-whites, non-straight people, women, and so on in
proportions that roughly match their representation in the general population.
It completely rationalizes neoliberalism. You see this in contemporary discussions about
gentrification, for example. What ends up being called for is something like showing respect
for the aboriginal habitus and practices and involving the community in the process. But what
does it mean to involve the community in the process? It means opening up spaces for
contractors, black and Latino in particular, in the gentrified areas who purport to represent
the interests of the populations that are being displaced. But that has no impact on the logic
of displacement. It just expands access to the trough, basically.
I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in the
revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted. The argument is that it's bad because there
are disparities that it doesn't address. In the first place, that's not as true as they think
it might be, but there's also the fact that they can't or won't see how a struggle for
universal health care could be the most effective context for trying to struggle against
structural disparities. It's just mind-boggling.
LP: If politicians continue to focus on issues like race, xenophobia, and homophobia without
delivering practical solutions to the economic problems working people face, from health care
costs to the retirement crisis to student debt, could we end up continuing to move in the
direction of fascism? I don't use the word lightly.
AR: I don't either. And I really agree with you. I was a kid in a basically red household in
the McCarthy era. I have no illusions about what the right is capable of, what the bourgeoisie
is capable of, and what the liberals are capable of. In the heyday of the New Left, when people
were inclined to throw the fascist label around, I couldn't get into it. But for the first time
in my life, I think it's not crazy to talk about it. You have to wonder if Obama, who never
really offered us a thing in the way of a new politics except his race, after having done that
twice, had set the stage for Trump and whatever else might be coming.
Thanks, Yves. For decades now Reed has set the standard for integrating class-based
politics with anti-racism. I only wish Barbara Fields, whom he mentions, could get as much
air time.
Those who argue for identity-based tests of fairness (e.g. all categories of folks are
proportionately represented in the 1%) fail to think through means and ends. They advocate
the ends of such proportionality. They don't get that broad measures to seriously reduce
income and wealth inequality (that is, a class approach) are powerful means to the very end
they wish for. If, e.g., the bottom 50% actually had half (heck, even 30 to 40%) of income
and wealth, the proportionality of different groups in any socioeconomic tier would be much
higher than it is today.
There are other means as well. But the point is that identity-driven folks strip their own
objective of it's most useful tools for it's own accomplishment.
In reading this, my mind was drawn back to an article that was in links recently about a
Tea Party politician that ended up being sent to the slammer. He was outraged to learn that
at the prison that he was at, the blacks and the whites were deliberately set against each
other in order to make it easier for the guards to rule the prison.
It is a bit like this in this article when you see people being unable to get past the
black/white thing and realize that the real struggle is against the elite class that rules
them all. I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole
Trump-supporters-are-racists meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote
the way that they did, then they would find common cause with people that others would write
off as deplorable and therefore unsalvageable.
Howard Zinn, in " A Peoples' History of the United States" makes a similar argument about
the origins of racism in southern colonial America. The plantation owners and slave owners
promoted racism among the working class whites towards blacks to prevent them ( the working
class blacks and whites) from making common cause against the aristocratic economic system
that oppressed both whites and blacks who did not own property.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation owners
from slave revolts.
The entire book is an eye-opening story of class struggle throughout US history.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation
owners from slave revolts.
The militias were the bulk of the military, if the not the military, for large periods of
time for all of the British American Colonies for centuries. The colonists were in fairly
isolated, often backwater, places for much of the time. Between the constant small scale
warfare with the natives and the various threats from the French and Spanish military, there
was a need for some form of local (semi) organized military. It was the British government's
understandable belief that the colonists should pay at least some of the expensive costs of
the soldiers and forts that were put in place to protect them during and after the Seven
Years War that was the starting step to the revolution; the origins of modern American
policing especially in the South has its genesis in the Slave Patrols although there was some
form of police from the start throughout the Colonies form the very beginning even if it was
just a local sheriff. The constant theme of the police's murderous brutality is a legacy of
that. The Second Amendment is a result of both the colonists/revolutionarie's loathing, even
hatred, of a potentially dictatorial standing army of any size and the slave holders'
essential need to control the slaves and to a lesser degree the poor whites.
people gang up (in racial groups – maybe that's just easiest though it seems to have
systematic encouragement) in prison for protection I think. The protection is not purely from
guards. There are riots in which one could get seriously injured (stabbed), one could get
attacked otherwise etc.. Because basic physical safety of one's person is not something they
provide in prison, maybe quite deliberately so.
"I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole Trump-supporters-are-racists
meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote the way that they did, then
they would find common cause with people that others would write off as deplorable and
therefore unsalvageable."
In those for whom poverty caused them to vote for Trump. But some voted for Trump due to
wealth. And whites overall have more wealth than blacks and so overall (not every individual)
are the beneficiaries of unearned wealth and privilege and that too influences their view of
the world (it causes them to side more with the status quo). Blacks are the most economically
liberal group in America. The thing is can one really try simultaneously to understand even
some of say the black experience in America and try hard to understand the Trump voter at the
same time? Because if a minority perceives those who voted for Trump as a personal threat to
them are they wrong? If they perceive Republican economic policies (and many have not changed
under Trump such as cutting government) as a personal threat to them are they wrong? So some
whites find it easier to sympathize with Trump voters, well they would wouldn't they, as the
problems of poor whites more directly relate to problems they can understand. But so
what?
I am glad that Reed mentioned the quasi-religious nature of identity politics, especially
in its liberal form. Michael Lind made a similar observation:
As a lapsed Methodist myself, I think there is also a strong undercurrent of
Protestantism in American identity politics, particularly where questions of how to promote
social justice in a post-racist society are concerned. Brazil and the United States are
both former slave societies, with large black populations that have been frozen out of
wealth and economic opportunity. In the United States, much of the discussion about how to
repair the damage done by slavery and white supremacy involves calls on whites to examine
themselves and confess their moral flaws -- a very Protestant approach, which assumes that
the way to establish a good society is to ensure that everybody has the right moral
attitude. It is my impression that the left in Brazil, lacking the Protestant puritan
tradition, is concerned more with practical programs, like the bolsa familia -- a cash
grant to poor families -- than with attitudinal reforms among the privileged.
Many white liberals are mainline Protestants or former Protestants and I think they bring
their religious sensibilities to their particular brand of liberalism. You can see it in the
way that many liberals claim that we cannot have economic justice until we eliminate racist
attitudes as when Hillary Clinton stated that breaking up the big banks won't end racism. Of
course, if we define racism as a sinful attitude it is almost impossible to know if we have
eliminated it or if we can even eliminate it at all.
Clinton and liberals like her make essentially the same argument that conservatives make
when they say that we cannot have big economic reforms because the problem is really greed.
Once you define the problem as one of sin then you can't really do anything to legislate
against it. Framing political problems as attitudinal is a useful way to protect powerful
interests. How do you regulate attitudes? How do you break up a sinful mind? How can you even
know if a person has racism on the brain but not economic anxiety? Can you even separate the
two? Politicians need to take voters as they are and not insist that they justify themselves
before voting for them.
I thought this reference to the Protestant way of self-justification or absolving oneself
without talking about class in the US is true but was perhaps the weakest point. The
financial elites justify their position and excuse current inequalities and injustices
visiting on the 99% by whatever is the current dominate culturally approved steps in whatever
country. In the US – Protestant heritage; in India – not Protestant heritage; in
Italy – Catholic heritage, etc. Well, of course they do. This isn't surprising in the
least. Each country's elites excuse themselves in a way that prevents change by whatever
excuses are culturally accepted.
I think talking about the Protestant heritage in the US is a culturing interesting artifact
of this time and this place, but runs the danger of creating another "identity" issue in
place of class and financial issues if the wider world's elite and similar self excuse by
non-Protestant cultures aren't included in the example. Think of all the ways the various
religions have been and are used to justify economic inequality. Without the wider scope the
religious/cultural point risks becoming reduced to another "identity" argument; whereas, his
overall argument is that "identity" is a distraction from class and economic inequality
issues. my 2 cents.
Chris Hedges has been warning about the rise of American Fascism for years, and his
warnings are coming to fruition- and still, the general population fails to recognize the
danger. The evils and violence that are the hallmarks of fascist rule are for other people,
not Americans. The terms America and Freedom are so ingrained in the minds of citizens that
the terms are synonymous. Reality is understood and interpreted through this distorted lens.
People want and need to believe this falsehood and resist any messenger trying to enlighten
them to a different interpretation of reality- the true view is just to painful to
contemplate.
The horrors of racism offer a nugget of truth that can misdirect any effort to bring about
systemic change. Like the flow of water finding the path of least resistance, racist
explanations for current social problems creates a channel of thought that is difficult to
alter. This simple single mindedness prevents a more holistic and complicated interpretation
to take hold in the public mind. It is the easy solution for all sides- the tragedy is that
violence, in the end, sorts out the "winners". The world becomes a place where competing
cultures are constantly at each others throats.
Falling in the racism/ identity politics trap offers the elite many avenues to leverage
their power, not the least of which is that when all else fails, extreme violence can be
resorted to. The left/progressives have become powerless because they fail to understand this
use of ultimate force and have not prepared their followers to deal with it. Compromise has
been the strategy for decades and as time has proven, only leads to more exploitation. Life
becomes a personal choice between exploiting others, or being exploited. The whole system
reeks of hypocrisy because the real class divisions are never discussed or understood for
what they are. This seems to be a cyclical process, where the real leaders of revolutionary
change are exterminated or compromised, then the dissatisfaction in the working classes is
left to build until the next crisis point is reached.
WWIII is already under way and the only thing left is to see if the imperialist ideology
will survive or not. True class struggle should lead to world peace- not world domination.
Fascists are those that seek war as a means of violent expansion and extermination to suit
their own ends. Hope for humanity rests in the idea of a multipolar world- the end of
imperialism.
Agressive war is the problem, both on the small social scale and the larger stage between
nations. The main question is if citizens will allow themselves to be swept up into the
deceptions that make war possible, or defend themselves and whatever community they can form
to ensure that mass destruction can be brought under control.
The real crisis point for America will be brought about by the loss of foreign wars- which
seem inevitable. The citizenry will be forced to accept a doubling down on the existing
failures or will show the fortitude to accept failure and defeat and rebuild our country.
Seeking a mythic greatness is not the answer- only a true and sober evaluation will suffice-
it must be a broader accommodation that accepts responsibility for past wrongs but does not
get caught up in narrow, petty solutions that racist recriminations are hallmark. What is
needed is a framework for a truth and reconciliation process- but such a process is only
possible by a free people, not a conquered one. It is only on this foundation that an
American culture can survive.
This will take a new enlightenment that seems questionable, at least in the heart of
American Empire. It entails a reexamination of what freedom means and the will to dedicate
oneself to building something worth defending with ones life. It has nothing to do with
wanting to kill others or making others accept a particular view.
It is finding ones place in the world, and defending it, and cultivating it. It is the
opposite of conquest. It is the resistance to hostility. In a word, Peace.
I don't disagree with many of your assertions and their warrants but I am growing
disturbed by the many uses of the word 'Fascism'. What does the word mean exactly beyond its
pejorative uses? Searching the web I am only confused by the proliferation of meanings. I
believe it's time for some political or sociological analyst to cast off the words 'fascism'
and 'totalitarianism' and further the work that Hannah Arendt started. We need a richer
vocabulary and a deeper analysis of the political, social, philosophical, and human contents
of the concepts of fascism and of totalitarianism. World War II was half-a-century ago. We
have many more examples called fascism and totalitarianism to study and must study to further
refine exactly what kinds of Evil we are discussing and hope to fight. What purpose is served
sparring with the ghosts as new more virulent Evils proliferate.
You have brought up a very important point. The meaning of words and their common usage.
But I have to disagree that "new more virulent Evils" require a new terminology. To my mind,
that plays right into the hand of Evil. The first step in the advancement of evil is the
debasement of language- the spreading of lies and obfuscating true meaning. George Orwell's
doublespeak.
I don't think its a matter of casting off the usage of words, or the creative search to
coin new ones, but to reclaim words. Now the argument can be made that once a word is
debased, it looses its descriptive force- its moral force- and that is what I take as your
concern, however, words are used by people to communicate meaning, and this is where the easy
abandonment of words to their true meaning becomes a danger for the common good. You cannot
let someone hijack your language. A communities strength depends on its common use and
understanding of language.
Where to find that common meaning? Without the perspective of class struggle taken into
account- to orientate the view- this search will be fruitless. Without a true grounding,
words can mean anything. I believe, in America, this is where the citizenry is currently, in
a state of disorientation that has been building for decades. This disorientation is caused
by DoubleSpeak undermining common understanding that is brought about by class consciousness/
solidarity/ community. In a consumerist society, citizens take for granted that they are lied
to constantly- words and images have no real meaning- or multiple meanings playing on the
persons sensibilities at any given moment- all communication becomes fundamentally marketing
and advertising BS.
This sloppiness is then transferred into the political realm of social communication which
then transforms the social dialog into a meaningless exercise because there is really no
communication going on- only posturing and manipulation. Public figures have both private and
public views. They are illegitimate public servants not because they withhold certain
information, but because they hold contradictory positions expressed in each realm. They are
liars and deceivers in the true sense of the word, and don't deserve to be followed or
believed- let alone given any elevated social standing or privilege.
Your oppressor describes himself as your benefactor- or savior- and you believe them, only
to realize later that you have been duped. Repeat the cycle down through the ages.
DoubleSpeak and controlling the interpretation of History are the tools of exercising
power. It allows this cycle to continue.
Breaking this cycle will require an honesty and sense of empathy that directs action.
Fighting evil directly is a loosing game. You more often than not become that which you
fight against. Directly confronting evil requires a person to perform evil deeds.
Perpetuation of War is the perfect example. It must be done indirectly by not performing evil
actions or deeds. Your society takes on a defensive posture, not an aggressive one. Defense
and preservation are the motivating principles.
Speaking the truth, and working toward peace is the only way forward. A new language and
modes of communication can build themselves up around those principles.
Protecting oneself against evil seems to be the human condition. How evil is defined
determines the class structure of any given society.
So much energy is wasted on trying to convince evil people not to act maliciously, which
will never happen. It is what makes them evil- it is who they are. And too much time is
wasted listening to evil people trying to convince others that they are not evil- or their
true intensions are beneficent- which is a lie.
"Sparing with ghosts", is a good way of describing the reclaiming of historical fact. Of
belief in the study of history as a means to improve society and all of humankind thru
reflection and reevaluation. The exact opposite desire of an elite class- hell bent on self
preservation as their key motivating factor in life. If you never spar with ghosts, you have
no reference to evaluate the person standing before you- which can prove deadly- as must be
constantly relearned by generations of people exploited by the strong and powerful.
The breaking point of any society is how much falsehood is tolerated- and in the West
today- that is an awful lot.
"I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in
the revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted "
Check to see how their parents or other relatives made or make their money.
This is quite the challenge. I know a large number of upper middle class young people who
are amenable to the socialist message but don't really get (or don't get at all) what it
means. (I'm convinced they make up a large portion of that percentage that identifies as
socialist or has a positive image of socialism.) But it would be wrong to write them off.
A related point that I make here from time to time: all these UMC kids have been
inculcated with a hyper-competitive world view. We need a systemic re-education program to
break them free.
as a complementary anecdote, i know of economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life.
To them, the academic/ivory tower/abstract idea of equality in class, equality in income
is an idealistic pipe dream versus the dog-eat-dog reality of the world.
Interesting that you mention "economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of [low income?] free-riders,
cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life."
I read a lot of their snarling against alleged low income "moochers" in the local media.
What I find disturbing is their near total blindness to the for-profit businesses,
millionaires and billionaires who raid public treasuries and other resources on a regular
basis.
Just recently, I read a news story about the local baseball franchise that got $135
million dollars (they asked for $180 million) and the local tourism industry complaining
about their reduction in public subsidies because money had to be diverted to homeless
services.
No one seems to ever question why profitable, private businesses are on the dole. The fact
that these private entities complain about reductions in handouts shows how entitled they
feel to feed from the public trough. Moreover, they do so at a time of a locally declared
"homeless emergency".
Yet, it is the middle class precariat that condemn those below them as 'moochers and
cheaters', while ignoring the free-riders, cheaters and grand larceny above them.
There is no class consciousness. The working stiffs admire their owners so the only people
left to blame for their difficult life conditions are the poor below them on the social
hierarchy. Or they blame themselves, which is just as destructive. In the interim, they enjoy
the camaraderie that sporting events provide, so give the owners a pass. Bread and
Circuses.
A capitalist critique is the only way to change this situation, but that would require
learning Marxist arguments and discussing their validity.
There is that, or Charity for the poor, which only aggravates the class conflict that
plagues our society.
The third way is actually building community that functions on a less abusive manner,
which takes effort, time, and will power.
I homed in on your phrase "they deal with 'micro-triggers' of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life" and it landed on fertile [I claim!] ground in my imagination. I
have often argued with my sister about this. She used to handle claims for welfare, and now
found more hospitable areas of civil service employment. I am gratified that her attitudes
seem to have changed over time. Many of the people she worked with in social services shared
the common attitudes of disparagement toward their suppliants -- and enjoyed the positions of
power it offered them.
I think the turning point came when my sister did the math and saw that the direct costs
for placing a homeless person or family into appallingly substandard 'housing' in her area
ran in the area of $90K per year. Someone not one of the "free-riders, cheaters, [or villains
of] petty theft in their everyday life" was clearly benefiting. I am very lazy but I might
try to find out who and advertise their 'excellence' in helping the poor.
A "re-education" program? That usage resurrects some very most unhappy recollections from
the past. Couldn't you coin a more happy phrase? Our young are not entirely without the
ability to learn without what is called a "re-education" program.
The comments in this post are all over the map. I'll focus on the comments regarding
statues commemorating Confederate heroes.
I recall the way the issue of Confederate statues created a schism in the NC
commentarient. I still believe in retaining 'art' in whatever form it takes since there is so
little art in our lives. BUT I also believe that rather than tear down the Confederate
statues of Confederate 'heroes' it were far better to add a plaque comemorating just what
sorts of heroism these 'heroes' performed for this country. That too serves Art.
Tearing the statues down only serves forgetting something which should never be
forgotten.
This was intended as a separate comment to stand alone. I believe Art should not forget
but should remember the horrors of our past lest we not forget.
It occurred to me that centrists demonize the left as unelectable based entirely on tokens
of identity. Long haired hippies. The other. It works because the political debate in America
is structured entirely around identity politics. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal so
of course white people in Mississippi will never vote for the Democrats. Someone like Bernie
Sanders has a message that will appeal to them but he is presented as to the left of even
Pelosi or alternately a traitor to the liberal identity siding with racists and sexists.
Actually, all of these oppressions are rooted in working class oppression. But that is
inconsistent with the framing of ascriptive identity.
This was a great post. Didn't know about Adolph Reed. He gets straight to the point
– we have only 2 options. Either change neoliberal capitalism structurally or modify
its structure to achieve equality. Identity politics is a distraction. There will always be
differences between us and so what? As long as society itself is equitable. As far as the
fear of fascism goes, I think maybe fascism is in the goal of fascism. If it is oppressive
then its bad. If it is in the service of democracy and equality the its good. If our bloated
corporatism could see its clear, using AR's option #2, to adjusting their turbo neoliberal
capitalism, then fine. More power to them. It isn't racism preventing them from doing this
– it is the system. It is structural. Unfortunately we face far greater dangers,
existential dangers, today than in 1940. We not only have an overpopulated planet of human
inequality, but also environmental inequality. Big mess. And neither capitalism nor socialism
has the answer – because the answer is eclectic. We need all hands on deck and every
practical measure we can conjure. And FWIW I'd like to compare our present delusions to all
the others – denial. The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret. The acceptance is visible and powerful. What will the postmortem
statue of neoliberalism look like?
Do you really want 'equality' however you might define it? We are not born equal. Each of
us is different and I believe each of us is therefore very special. [I suppose I echo the
retort of the French regarding the equality of the sexes: "Vive la Difference!".] I believe
we should celebrate our inequalities -- while we maintain vigilance in maintaining the equal
chance to try and succeed or fail. The problem isn't inequality but the extreme inequalities
in life and sustenance our society has built -- here and more abroad. I don't mind being
beaten in a fair race. An unfair race lightens my laurels when I win. But our societies run
an unfair competition and the laurels far too heavily grace the brows of those who win. And
worse still, 'inequality' -- the word I'll use for the completely disproportionate rewards to
the winners to the undeserving in-excellent 'winners' is not a matter solved by a quest for
'equality'. The race for laurels has no meaning when the winners are chosen before the race
and the 'laurels' cost the welfare and sustenance for the losers and their unrelated kin who
never ran in the race. And 'laurels' were once but honors and there is too far little honor
in this world.
Nothing denotes a naive idealistic "progressive" than the demand for near absolute
equality in terms of money and status in their future society.all or nothing i guess.
I have read and appreciated many comments by 'Susan the other'. I would not ever
characterize her comments as those of a naive idealistic "progressive" demanding absolute
equality I should and must apologize if that is how you read my comment. I intended to
suggest equality is not something truly desirable in-itself. But re-reading her comment I
find much greater depth than I commented to --
'Susan the other' notes: "The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret." In answer to her question: "What will the postmortem statue of
neoliberalism look like?" I very much doubt that the post mortem statue of Neoliberalism will
show regret for anything save that all the profits were not accrued before those holding the
reins, the Elite of Neoliberalism, might gracefully die without care for any children they
may have had.
Thanks for this post. I am really surprised these days by black "liberal" media folks who
insist that racism be addressed before inequality/class issues. They are almost vehement in
their discussions about this. Are they protecting neoliberalism because it benefits them
.???
My previous admittedly overlong reply has yet to show. Darn.
But this question is an important one.
Yes, they do very much.
One of the reasons the Civil Rights struggle died was the co-option of the Black elites,
especially of the Civil Rights Movement, by the American elites. After Martin Luther King's
assassination, his Poor People's Campaign slowly died. A quiet quid pro quo was offered.
Ignore all the various social, economic, political and legal wrongs done to all Americans,
and yes blacks in particular, and just focusing on black identity and social "equality" or at
least the illusion of campaigning for it, and in you will be given a guaranteed, albeit
constrained, place at the money trough. Thus the Black Misleadership Class was born.
All the great movements in past hundred plus years have had their inclusivity removed.
Suffragism/Feminism, the Union Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, even the Environmental
Movement all had strong cross cultural, class, and racial membership and concerns. Every
single of these movements had the usually white upper class strip out everyone else and
focusing only on very narrow concerns. Aside from the Civil Rights Movement, black
participation was removed, sometimes forcefully. They all dropped any focus on poor people of
any race.
A lot of money, time, and effort by the powerful went into doing this. Often just by
financially supporting the appropriate leaders which gave them the ability to push aside the
less financially secure ones.
Reading this post in its entirety I feel the author must become more direct in critique.
Old jargon of class or race or a "struggle against structural disparities" should be replaced
by the languages of such assertions as: " the larger objective was to eliminate the threat
that the insurgency had posed to planter-merchant class rule" or "It just expands access to
the trough, basically". Why mince words when there are such horrors as are poised against the
common humanity of all?
Your comment is too brief and too enigmatic. If by Adolf you mean Adolf H. -- he is dead.
New potentially more dangerous creatures roam the Earth these days beware.
I consider currently one of our great intellectuals in that he understands and can use
language to make his case in a layman not necessarily friendly but accessible .
and as a southern born white male I think maybe I should watch Glory I remember a '67 show
and tell when a black classmate had a civil war sword come up in their sugar cane field, and
when I and a friend found a (disinterred yuck) civil war grave just out in the woods in north
florida. People seem to have forgotten that times were chaotic in our country's checkered
past I was in massive race riots and massive anti war protests as a child of the '60s, but
since I was in the single digits at the time no one payed me any mind as a for instance my
dad somehow got the counselors apartment in a dorm at florida state in 68′ and I
remember people in the the dorms throwing eggs at the protesters. It was nuts.
Ferguson's INET paper got me thinking about what triggers racism in us. As a kid, ethnic
pejoratives were usually a reaction to some injury. "You stupid Wap, you just scratched
my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." I tend to agree with the
premise that bailing out Wall Street and letting Main Street lose out offers a powerful
trigger for a racist reaction. People might have been softening on their lifelong covert
racism when they succumbed to Obama's charm. But when you lose your job, then your house, and
wind up earning a third of what you did before the GR, that is the sort of thing that
triggers pejorative/racist reactions. That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy
globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned
Democrat libtards. Then, when a MAGA-hatted Trump echoes those sentiments over a PA
system, the ghost of Goebbels is beaming.
"... Upon investigation, the Judiciary Committee investigators found that Munro-Leighton was a left wing activist who is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh , who lives in Kentucky. When Committee investigators contacted her, she backpedaled on her claim of being the original Jane Doe - and said she emailed the committee "as a way to grab attention." ..."
"... Grassley has also asked the DOJ to investigate Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, who claimed through her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that Kavanaguh orchestrated a date-rape gang-bang scheme in the early 1980s. ..."
"... She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she "just wanted to get attention"; (2) "it was a tactic"; and (3) "that was just a ploy." She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford's allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: "I was angry, and I sent it out." When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: "Oh Lord, no." ..."
A Kentucky woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of rape has been referred
to the Department of Justice after she admitted that she lied .
The woman, Judy Munro-Leighton, took credit for contacting the office of Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-CA) as "Jane Doe" from Oceanside, California. Jane Doe claimed - without naming a time or
place - that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her "several times each" in the backseat of a car.
Harris referred the letter to the committee for investigation.
"They forced me to go into the backseat and took 2 turns raping me several times each. They
dropped me off 3 two blocks from my home," wrote Munro-Leighton, claiming that the pair told
her "No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl."
Kavanaugh was questioned on September 26 about the allegation, to which he unequivocally
stated: "[T]he whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever -- anything like that, nothing... [T]he
whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn't happen, not anything close ."
The next week, Munro-Leighton sent an email to the Judiciary committee claiming to be Jane
Doe from Oceanside, California - reiterating her claims of a "vicious assault" which she said
she knew "will get no media attention."
Upon investigation, the Judiciary Committee investigators found that Munro-Leighton was a
left wing activist who is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh , who lives in Kentucky. When
Committee investigators contacted her, she backpedaled on her claim of being the original Jane
Doe - and said she emailed the committee "as a way to grab attention."
"I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call
to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news." claimed Munro-Leighton.
Grassley has also asked the DOJ to investigate Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, who claimed
through her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that Kavanaguh orchestrated a date-rape gang-bang
scheme in the early 1980s.
President Trump chimed in Saturday morning, Tweeting: "A vicious accuser of Justice
Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you
imagine if he didn't become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False
Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?"
... ... ...
In a Friday letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray,
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote:
on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. Munro-Leighton by phone
and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made
to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted,
contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and
was not the author of the original "Jane Doe" letter .
When directly asked by Committee
investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the "Jane Doe" from Oceanside California who
had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: "No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab
attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of
the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news."
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she "just wanted to get
attention"; (2) "it was a tactic"; and (3) "that was just a ploy." She told Committee
investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing
process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford's allegations surfaced – to oppose
his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the
Committee, she said: "I was angry, and I sent it out." When asked by Committee investigators
whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: "Oh Lord, no."
The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of
sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may
not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven
ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his
office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman
claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims
against him.
13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up
accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters
received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the
matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u
"... Avenatti's tweet became the occasion, in the bland phrase of the New York Times , for "immediate, blanket coverage across social media and cable news." The cable news channels did indeed bombard their viewers non-stop with the story -- if they weren't reporting on Cosby's being sent to jail. ..."
"... MSNBC correspondent Kate Snow, for instance, read the most graphic portions of Swetnick's statement. The other cable channels followed suit, along with the Times , the Washington Post and the rest. CNN anchor John King asked correspondent Sara Sidner to "walk us through" the allegations, which she obliged by providing every salacious detail. Afterward, King expressed appreciation for the "live reporting" on "a very sensitive and dramatic issue." ..."
Following the press and television news in the US on Wednesday might lead one to believe that a kind of madness has seized hold
of the American media, along with sections of the affluent petty-bourgeoisie.
The media generated new geysers of filth in regard to the controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Donald
Trump's candidate for the US Supreme Court. On the same day, the degrading impact of its #MeToo campaign could be seen in the hysterical,
semi-fascistic tone of the response to the sentencing of comedian Bill Cosby.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear Thursday from Christine Blasey Ford, who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted
her when both were high school students. But newer allegations against Kavanaugh bumped up against one another on Wednesday. Before
the population had time to digest the claim by Deborah Ramirez (reported by the New Yorker magazine September 23) that Kavanaugh
had exposed himself to her at a Yale University party 35 years ago, a third woman came forward with even more sensational charges.
Michael Avenatti, best known as the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels in her legal case against Trump, tweeted a sworn statement
by Julie Swetnick, 55, claiming that Kavanaugh and others, while in high school, spiked the drinks of girls at house parties so that
they might more easily "gang-rape" them.
Swetnick went on to allege that she herself became the victim of one of these "gang rapes where [Kavanaugh's friend] Mark Judge
and Brett Kavanaugh were present."
Avenatti's tweet became the occasion, in the bland phrase of the New York Times , for "immediate, blanket coverage across
social media and cable news." The cable news channels did indeed bombard their viewers non-stop with the story -- if they weren't
reporting on Cosby's being sent to jail.
MSNBC correspondent Kate Snow, for instance, read the most graphic portions of Swetnick's statement. The other cable channels
followed suit, along with the Times , the Washington Post and the rest. CNN anchor John King asked correspondent
Sara Sidner to "walk us through" the allegations, which she obliged by providing every salacious detail. Afterward, King expressed
appreciation for the "live reporting" on "a very sensitive and dramatic issue."
The Times set the stage for the day's torrent of media smut in its morning edition, which plastered across its front
page two lead articles on the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations and a third on the Cosby sentencing. The report on Trump's fascistic
and war-mongering rant at the United Nations was relegated to a subordinate spot. The opinion pages featured a lengthy editorial
("Questions Mr. Kavanaugh Needs to Answer") listing detailed questions for senators to ask about his sexual activities.
The American media lowers and demeans itself further with every new scandal.
It is impossible for us to determine the truth of the claims against Kavanaugh. It is certain , however, that the Democratic
Party campaign against Trump's nominee is a reactionary diversion and an effort to bury the most pressing issues. Kavanaugh is a
zealous right-winger and enemy of democratic rights. But no Democrat on the Judiciary Committee will ask him, "What was your role
in the attempted coup d'état, known as the Starr investigation, against Bill Clinton?" or "Why did you support torture and illegal
detention as part of the Bush administration?"
None of the Democrats, the supposed defenders of women, will even forthrightly denounce him for his attacks on abortion rights.
They've all but dropped the issue.
Speaking on CNN, the Times' Michael Shear inadvertently alluded to the anti-democratic character of the campaign against
Kavanaugh: "One of the dynamics that we've seen throughout this entire #MeToo movement is that accusations that start out as a single,
a solitary accusation against a man in power, often don't pick up the kind of steam that ultimately forces action until there's a
second allegation, and a third allegation, and beyond. And that's what creates often the kind of pressure -- overwhelming pressure
that forces some action."
Five, ten or twenty accusations do not amount to proof. Kavanaugh may have been guilty of sexual misconduct, but Shear and the
rest apparently need to be reminded that every witch-hunt in history has also operated on the principle of "numbers."
The repressive, right-wing character of the middle-class outrage over sexual misconduct, whipped up by the #MeToo campaign, is
on view in the frothing reaction to Cosby's sentencing. The comedian was convicted of sexually assaulting a Temple University employee
at his home in 2004 while she was under the influence of a sedative.
The comments on the outcome of the Cosby case in the Times from readers of its article "Bill Cosby, Once a Model of Fatherhood,
Is Sentenced to Prison," are overwhelmingly vengeful and vindictive:
Burkman told The Atlantic that he has no clue who the woman is, suggesting he represents a
different accuser.
DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores referred all inquiries back to the special counsel,
however we imagine the "all survivors must be believed" standard applies.
The false flags and fake scandals are flying fast and furious in the final weeks before
the election. Let's see if Mueller is able to construct another charge against Trump. The
collusion failed. Obstruction? Failed. Got to concoct something else.
Remember, this is the guy in charge of the FBI during 911. He's good at constructing a
narrative and has a LOT to lose if the house intelligence committee stays in GOP hands.
I am shocked this man is roaming free tonight. We must believe the women, unless and until
Mueller can prove his innocence. There is too much smoke for there not to be some fire. At
this point, he should resign and begin the process of constructing his defense.
Meanwhile, on the Gateway Pundit, they are spinning this way more aggressively at
Mueller....
The Gateway Pundit obtained a copy of the charges.
What we know: The woman is a "very credible witness." Her story are corroborated. The
incident happened in 2010 in New York City. The woman is a professional.
The Mueller apologists are already trashing the accuser -- and don't even know who she
is!
OMG, this story is the best. It keeps giving. So, the phony security company, "Surefire
Intelligence", which Jacob Wohl created and then claimed he had no connection to, but was
registered to his mom's home phone number, has a guy named "Matthew Cohen" as a supposed
founder, who is supposedly ex-Mossad. The profile for "Matthew Cohen" in one place is a photo
of actor Christoph Waltz, and in another place is a photo of Jacob Wohl himself.
Now Jack Burkman, who's the one who has been promoting this story, says he was being
hoaxed by Wohl. When a reporter was talking to Wohl and brought up the fact that "Surefire
Intelligence" is registered to his mom's phone number, he hung up.
So far, no women have come forward with any allegations against Mueller, but several have
come forward with allegations saying Wohl offered them $20,000 to make up phony
allegations.
The special counsel's office confirmed to CNBC that it learned about the "scheme" from
journalists who had been approached by a woman alleging that she had been offered $20,000 by
Burkman "to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert
Mueller." -
CNBC
So con men covering Bad Bob.....as though CNBC has any credibility...
I think FBI and CIA live in strong conviction that they are Rex Mundi. They can do
whatever they want. There is no law for them at all. Typical demokratorship
Let's see. I believe all Victims. Where have I heard that before? Amazing how the Demtards
have fall guys lined up for miles to take the hit for the team. Their spin control is amazing
to watch in action. I so hope this is true. Mueller seems like an evil cat.
These counter claims sound a whole lot like the technique of inserting "confidential
informants" into the Trump Campaign to insert information - or DISINFORMATION - into the
storyline.
what if this whole Pillsbury email was manufactured to create a counter narrative that
people are paid off.....?
see, no one trusts anyone anymore......so, might as well question everything. or not
question ANYTHING and just #believewomen
Mueller is a huge snake; a guy who'll grin widely into your face as he plants evidence to
frame you from the ground up. Ask those who've been released from years of imprisonment
because of Mueller's set ups. They've got a few things to say about Robert Mueller...
A rapist? Who the hell knows but those involved at the time?
I'd put nothing past this uranium mule Mueller. Nothing. Deepest Statist Mueller's career
was made on being a silent and gruesomely pernicious bastard who'd go there for his pals. A
DC Fixer; like his devotee James Comey. Real dirty crums. And they hold a shitload of
blackmail-able secrets.
Marriage is in decline. This fact is by now so familiar to conservatives that they may be
tempted to gloss over an interesting shift in the manner of marriage's decline.
Thirty years ago, Americans were getting married but
not staying that way . Today divorce rates are down but wedding bells are also in less
demand. Growing numbers of young people are simply staying single. There's evidence they're
becoming less interested
even in casual sex .
Are men and women giving up on each other? It's starting to feel that way. In the vitriol of
the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the #MeToo movement, and our ongoing discussions of " incels
, " " NEETs
, " and absent
fathers , we see rising levels of frustration and rage, often directed indiscriminately
from one sex towards the other. Making relationships work has always been a challenge -- even
casual human interactions can sometimes be a challenge. So what if people decide that it's just
not worth it anymore?
A few years back, I became aware of that countercultural strain of identity politics known
as the "men's rights movement." I first encountered it on social media, of course, and in a
quest to grasp its red-pilled logic, I spent some time wandering the fever swamps of male
grievance, noting the many interesting parallels between virulent masculinism and the more
radical strains of feminism. It added an interesting layer to my perspective on our ongoing war
of sexes.
It's well worth noting that both masculinism and feminism, at least in their more extreme
forms, are fundamentally materialist in their logic. Feminism draws regularly on Marxist
ideologies, reducing complex social relations to an endless war of classes vying for power. For
masculinists, sociobiology is the more defining influence, as huge swaths of culture and custom
are reduced to mere expressions of the Darwinian imperative to procreate. It all makes sense,
on reflection. Aggrieved women, resenting the natural vulnerability of their bodies, are
attracted to political theories that call for the leveling of power disparities. Aggrieved men,
by contrast, hope to find in the male body a kind of warrant for dominance, which is bestowed
by biology and ostensibly crucial to the survival of the species. Peeling back the layers, it
seems that gender crusaders of both types are intensely fixated on brute corporeal realities:
the strength of man and the comparative neediness of woman.
I noticed something else, too, in my journey through the manosphere. I'd had occasion to
note before that militant feminists tended to be disagreeably female in their
mannerisms, exemplifying many of the vices that are most characteristic of women. This is
particularly obvious in the more misandrist corners of the feminist world (for instance, where
people debate whether non-exploitative heterosexual sex is in principle impossible, or
whether it might theoretically happen in a radically different sort of society where the
patriarchy has truly been defanged). The women in these circles seemed morbidly emotional,
catty, and a mess of hair-trigger sensitivities. You couldn't possibly mistake them for men,
but calling them "feminine" felt like a disservice to my sex.
Sizing up militant man advocates, I saw a fascinating mirror image. They seemed boorish,
rage-prone, and obsessed with one-upping each other. They were everything women find most
noxious in men. Girls would never exhibit such behavior, but it surely did not qualify as
"manly."
These sad cross-sections of society give us a glimpse of a significant truth about the
sexes. We're better off together. Even the apparent exceptions, examined closely, usually
aren't. The
men of Mount Athos or the Poor Clares of
Perpetual Adoration may appear to live in single-sex worlds. But the former regard
themselves as the special servants of Christ's Mother, while the latter see themselves as his
Brides. Their methods may be idiosyncratic, but in their own way they do
enthusiastically embrace the opposite sex. This is dramatically different from what we see with
our resentful gender warriors.
However we go about it, men and women
seem happiest when we are balanced by our sexual complements. Healthy things can still be
difficult though. Men and women readily misunderstand one another, and the fact that we
do need one another opens the door to many types of exploitation and abuse. Avoiding
these pitfalls takes work. Too often nowadays, I hear young people describing family life as a
hazard more than a blessing, wondering not "what can I do to be worthy of another's love and
commitment?" but rather "what can marriage really do for me? "
Love doesn't easily grow in such a stony soil.
I myself had the good fortune of growing up in the Mormon Church, where teenagers are given
extensive instruction in preparing themselves for marriage. There are elements of that teaching
I would modify a bit, just based on my own marital experience. Two commonsense lessons still
stand out in my mind though.
First, you can't possibly be a good spouse unless you're willing to work on yourself.
Your partner will surely have some irritating qualities, but so do you. Also, sometimes
marriage will call for things that are not fully congenial to your comfortable, satisfied,
long-developed individual self. This can be a problem in a society that is constantly urging us
to self-actualize. But be willing to bend a little instead of always insisting that "this is
how I am."
For women, I see this manifested in a stubborn reluctance to do things that remind them too
much of domestic stereotypes. They're so worried about being pigeonholed as domestic that they
don't consider how much the occasional homemade stew or fresh-baked cookie might do to help the
men in their lives feel cared for and at home. Is avoiding Donna Reed associations really more
important than making your men feel loved?
On the men's side, I often hear gripes about how "commercial America" has made women
unreasonably greedy for compliments and ego-stroking. Let's assume this is true (though
personally I'm skeptical because I think women have always craved compliments). How hard is it,
really, to say some nice things to the women in your life? To me it often seems that resentful
men are so allergic to "sensitivity" (which they associate with distasteful images of modern,
metrosexual girly-men) that they can hardly be bothered to be kind.
The second point is that living together inevitably involves some putting-up-with and
I-can-live-with-that. This is expected, and not a violation of your human rights. If men and
women always got along easily, we wouldn't be so good for one another.
The #MeToo movement has given us a remarkable illustration of just how ungenerous men and
women can be towards one another. Aggrieved women, in their zeal to punish the patriarchy,
sometimes act as though any unwanted expression of interest is an outrageous insult. To
be sure, some overtures are improper and deserving of censure. But men and women will never
find happiness together if the latter aren't willing to assume any responsibility for
attracting and encouraging attention in appropriate ways, or for deflecting it graciously when
it is unwanted. If women are unable to distinguish between sexual predation and normal sexual
attraction, Cupid will find it exceedingly difficult to find his mark.
On the male side, some men resent women's "invasion" of once-masculine spaces to the point
that almost any accommodation feels like a personal affront. The truth is, women do
feel more vulnerable than men, in public, at work, or in social gatherings. That's because,
in a very real sense, we are. We shouldn't treat all men as likely aggressors, but men
should be expected to conform to behavioral standards that serve, among other things, to
help women feel safe. That's always been a major function of gentlemanly behavior, without
which men and women rarely find one another bearable for very long.
In their better moments, both feminists and masculinists raise worthwhile points. At the
same time, the posture of each may be inimical to the happiness of both. For the sake of
our children, but even just for our own sakes, men and women need to remember what we used to
like about each other. We used to think human society was worth it. Maybe it still is.
Rachel Lu is a senior contributor at The Federalist and a Robert Novak Fellow.
The crown jewel of California's Progressive-feminist policy this year was Senate
Bill 826 which mandates publicly-held corporations to put women on their boards. It was
passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown. California now proudly leads the nation in identity
politics. The law requires a minimum of one woman board member by 2019, and by 2020, two for
boards with five members and three with boards of six or more.
The law's goal is gender
parity, but it is couched in financial terms suggesting that companies with women on their
boards do better than those that don't. Several studies are cited to back this claim (UC Cal,
Credit Suisse, and McKinsey). Catalyst
, a nonprofit that promotes women in the workplace, did a
widely quoted study that claimed:
Return on Equity: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board
directors outperformed those with the least by 53% .
Return on Sales: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board
directors outperformed those with the least by 42% .
Return on Invested Capital: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women
board directors outperformed those with the least by 66%.
This claim doesn't meet the smell test and the overwhelming conclusion of scientific
research in the field says that women directors have little or no effect on corporate
performance. Much of the data supporting the feminist theory lacks empirical rigor and is
coincidental ( A happened and then B happened, thus A caused B ).
Professor Alice H.
Eagly , a fellow at Northwestern's Institute of Policy Research, and an expert on issues
related to women in leadership roles, commented on this issue in the Journal of Social Issues :
Despite advocates' insistence that women on boards enhance corporate performance and that
diversity of task groups enhances their performance, research findings are mixed, and
repeated meta‐analyses have yielded average correlational findings that are null or
extremely small.
Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy
goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific
findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of
evidence-based policy options. [Emphasis added]
"... Attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick have been referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation for a "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States," according to a statement released by the Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... The referral has an entire section entitled: "issues with Mr. Avenatti's credibility," which starts out highlighting a 2012 dispute with a former business partner over a coffee chain investment in which accuser Patrick Dempsey said that Avenatti lied to him, while the company was also "reportedly involved in additional litigation implicating his credibility, including one case in which a judge sanctioned his company for misconduct." ..."
"... Swetnick - whose checkered past has called her character into question, alleges that Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, ran a date-rape "gang bang" operation at 10 high school parties she attended as an adult (yet never reported to the authorities). ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick's account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but couldn't reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations . No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims. - WSJ ..."
"... Soon after Swetnick's story went public, her character immediately fell under scrutiny - after Politico reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she's lying. ..."
Attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick have been referred to the Justice Department for criminal
investigation for a "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional
committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination to the
Supreme Court of the United States," according to a statement released by the Judiciary Committee.
While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking
sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge
Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client's allegations of drug- and
alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s. The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the
suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice
Department.
"When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I
take it seriously. It takes courage to come forward, especially with allegations of sexual
misconduct or personal trauma. I'm grateful for those who find that courage," Grassley said. "
But
in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee
. That's
unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the
truth. It stifles our ability to work on legitimate lines of inquiry. It also wastes time and
resources for destructive reasons. Thankfully, the law prohibits such false statements to
Congress and obstruction of congressional committee investigations. For the law to work, we
can't just brush aside potential violations. I don't take lightly making a referral of this
nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future."
Grassley referred Swetnick and Avenatti for investigation in a letter sent today to the Attorney
General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The letter
notes potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001 and 1505,
which respectively define
the federal criminal offenses of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of Congress. The
referral seeks further investigation only, and is not intended to be an allegation of a crime
.
-
Senate
Judiciary Committee
The referral has an entire section entitled: "issues with Mr. Avenatti's credibility,"
which starts out highlighting a 2012 dispute with a former business partner over a coffee chain
investment in which accuser Patrick Dempsey said that Avenatti lied to him, while the company was
also "reportedly involved in additional litigation implicating his credibility, including one case
in which a judge sanctioned his company for misconduct."
Swetnick - whose checkered past has called her character into question, alleges that Kavanaugh
and a friend, Mark Judge, ran a date-rape "gang bang" operation at 10 high school parties she
attended
as an adult
(yet never reported to the authorities).
The allegations were posted by Avenatti over Twitter, asserting that Kavanaugh and Judge made
efforts to cause girls "
to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be "gang
raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys
."
To try and corroborate the story, the
Wall
Street Journal
contacted "dozens of former classmates and colleagues," yet couldn't find
anyone who knew about the rape parties.
The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick's account, contacting
dozens of former classmates and colleagues,
but couldn't reach anyone with knowledge of
her allegations
. No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims. -
WSJ
"... An article IIRC in the Nation by a restaurant worker specifically discussed how #MeToo had ignored waitresses and there was no change in behavior. ..."
"... Hundreds of McDonald's employees, emboldened by the #MeToo movement, demonstrated outside company headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday to draw attention to alleged sexual harassment at work ..."
"... McDonald's employees only. No show of solidarity by other women. As a result, look how small the protest was. I rest my case. ..."
"... I think the movement, for both ethical and pragmatic reasons, should and must center working class women. I'm not seeing that. I would be very happy indeed to see it. ..."
"... Caliban and the Witch ..."
"... Fundamental to all civilised systems of criminal law is the doctrine nulla poena sine lege ..."
"... "Inappropriate behavior," is not a category of conduct known to the criminal law. Nor, for that matter, is making a person feel uncomfortable. Awkward advances without a guilty mind is also not a criminal offense. ..."
"... Due process rights were hard won over many centuries. If we are to abandon, even with the best of intentions, nulla poena sine lege ..."
"... I loathe party culture, exactly because it encourages assault. ..."
"... a Jobs Guarantee would make it easier for a woman to leave an abusive workplace. A Post Office Bank, by giving every woman her own checking account as a matter of right, would make it easier for women to leave abusive relationships. Sometimes it's more effective to be indirect. ..."
"... Wages for restaurant workers such that they don't have to depend on potentially abusive customers for tips. A third way also does not appear: Encouraging cooperatives . So the question of whose ..."
Sorry, but this is going to be a long one. Because I've become increasingly frustrated by
the little asides in Water Cooler related to MeToo. So buckle up, buttercup.
Justice for Emmett Till and #Believewomen are only in conflict if you want to pit groups
of victims against each other. I'm not surprised to see a GOPer do it, but I'm disappointed
it's going on here. What Emmett Till and women of sexual assault (and men and children of
sexual assault) have in common is that there is no justice for them. This idea that we need
"due process" for the MeToo stuff is all well and good, but where exactly is it supposed to
come from? What #Believewomen and #MeToo (which includes men and boys, see, e.g. Terry Crews
for a famous example) are really about are holding the powerful accountable and telling the
world that the current system does not work for women (or anyone else who has been sexually
assaulted). How is that a bad thing? Unless you want to read #Believewomen as meaning that
you should literally never doubt a woman, regardless of any other facts. That's like saying
Black Lives Matter doesn't care about non-black lives, when everyone knows that's right-wing
crap. BLM focuses on a failing of the system. MeToo focuses on a failing system. As for due
process -- Larry Nassar, the largest known pedophile in sports history (that we know of) --
was repeatedly reported to the authorities. At one point, a police department made a victim
sit down with him so he could explain how she had "misinterpreted" his treatment for abuse.
It literally took a victim of his growing up, becoming a lawyer and studying how to prove
sexual assault cases, then building evidence and turning it over to the Indianapolis Star to
get anyone to do anything. And in the meantime, hundreds of women and girls were assaulted,
including most of the last two women's Olympic teams. That's not due process, it is a system
that protects the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Not exactly an unknown or rare
phenomenon limited to women.
So if people really care about "due process"* for MeToo, then it would be nice to see as
much time spent on discussing what that process might look like than just taking potshots at
people, many of whom are sexual assault victims, who are demanding society listen to them and
believe them instead of naturally lining up to defend the person in power. And that's what
#Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have as much credibility
as the powerful. Nothing about that would not deny justice to Emmett Till. A movement is not
defined by its twitter hashtag.
* Spoiler alert, they don't. Or, rather, I think lambert does, but most do not. It's just
another way to avoid accountability. After all, most of the more notable MeToo allegations
are employment or similar situations, where due process does not apply in any other context,
but now suddenly bosses want to invoke it for themselves. Please don't try to invoke it when
they fire you because you won't work a last-minute Saturday shift. Because you can't. But
report the boss for sexual harassment and be prepared for a lot of process. So much process,
you may never get through it all. Which is the other joke, companies have tons of process re
sexual harassment complaints, almost all of which is designed to protect the harasser.
Which brings me to class. I've seen a lot of picking at #MeToo for being focused on women
("identity") instead of class. This confuses me since, while any woman can be a victim, poor
and working class women (and men) have even fewer options of redress (I won't even get into
incarcerated men and women). See the recent
McDonalds' strike over sexual harassment, a labor action which shouldn't be surprising
since as many as 40% of women in the fast food industry
experience sexual harassment . Moreover, institutional sexism -- like racism -- has roots
in capital accumulation and labor exploitation. For an interesting read on this, see
The Caliban and the Witch . Which is not to say it's all about class, it isn't. Racism
and sexism exist, they exist for everyone regardless of class, but the effects of them are
greatly exacerbated by poor and working class people's material conditions and they are tied
directly to the system that creates those conditions. To the extent people want to discuss
due process, it should be about creating systems that hold the powerful accountable for their
abuse of power, a challenge that extends across society.
"And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should
have as much credibility as the powerful."
It is wise, when starting a movement, to say what you "really mean." As it stands,
#Believewomen MEANS convicting defendants on the sole word of one person – the victim.
If we really start doing that, women will be among the victims, along with other powerless
people.
" only in conflict if you want to pit groups of victims against each other." What do you
mean, "want"? That's a classic straw man. The slogan you're defending pits them against each
other – that's Lambert's point.
You also say that enforcement against either assault or sexual harassment is nightmarish
and often ineffective. That I'll believe, and it's a necessary point. Actually, law
enforcement and "justice" generally are pretty nightmarish. Tangle sex up in that and it only
gets worse. The point of #Metoo was to convince us that we have a problem, and it
accomplished that. Slogans that mean what you don't mean only detract from the
accomplishment.
It is simply disingenuous to say that #MeToo has taken up the cause of lower class women.
The restaurant industry is one of the biggest employers in America and harassment of women is
pervasive. How many #MeToo luminaries have talked up the problems they face? An article
IIRC in the Nation by a restaurant worker specifically discussed how #MeToo had ignored
waitresses and there was no change in behavior.
And that protest was NOT promoted by the loose #MeToo movement. See this from USA
Today:
Hundreds of McDonald's employees, emboldened by the #MeToo movement, demonstrated
outside company headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday to draw attention to alleged sexual
harassment at work
Most of my thoughts (which are evolving) on #MeToo are summed up in
this post on the McDonalds strikers : I think the movement, for both ethical and
pragmatic reasons, should and must center working class women. I'm not seeing that. I would
be very happy indeed to see it.
My 2015 post on the wonderful Caliban and the Witch is
here . I concluded:
However, if one takes the view that "Now is the time" -- however defined -- in the
present day, it also behooves one to do the math; it has always seemed to me that a bare
majority, 50% plus one, as sought by the legacy parties, is insufficient to do much but
perpetuate, among other things, the legacy parties. It also seems to me that sintering
together demographics based on identity politics -- Christian, Black, White, Hispanic,
Young, Old, Male, Female, Rural, Urban -- can only produce these bare majorities. It also
seems to me that a focus on "economic class" can't give an account of the sort of events
that Federici describes here. Hence, to bend history's arc, some sort of grand unified
field theory that goes beyond 50%, to 80%, is needed (along with the proposed provision of
concrete material benefits[1]). Work like Federici's is a step toward such a theory, and so
I applaud it.
Setting aside the lack of a unified field theory, it seems to me that without centering
working class women, #MeToo remains very much in 50% plus one territory.
Let me address your conclusion:
To the extent people want to discuss due process, it should be about creating systems
that hold the powerful accountable for their abuse of power, a challenge that extends
across society.
Fundamental to all civilised systems of criminal law is the doctrine nulla poena
sine lege -- no punishment without a law. There are hundreds of offenses on the
criminal statute books. Assault, sexual assault and indecent assault are serious criminal
offenses, attracting heavy sentences upon a conviction.
"Inappropriate behavior," is not a category of conduct known to the criminal law.
Nor, for that matter, is making a person feel uncomfortable. Awkward advances without a
guilty mind is also not a criminal offense.
Due process rights were hard won over many centuries. If we are to abandon, even with
the best of intentions, nulla poena sine lege for one set of behaviors, we'd best
believe it will be abandoned for other behaviors, and for purposes less benevolent. Have we
thought that through?
That said, if we think back to the Dred Scott case and its fate, it's clear that movements
can change law; we will have to see what happens with #MeToo. Feminist legal scholar
Catherine
MacKinnon urges[2]:
Sexual harassment law can grow with #MeToo. Taking #MeToo's changing norms into the law
could -- and predictably will -- transform the law as well. Some practical steps could help
capture this moment. Institutional or statutory changes could include prohibitions or
limits on various forms of secrecy and nontransparency that hide the extent of sexual abuse
and enforce survivor isolation, such as forced arbitration, silencing nondisclosure
agreements even in cases of physical attacks and multiple perpetration, and confidential
settlements. A realistic statute of limitations for all forms of discrimination, including
sexual harassment, is essential. Being able to sue individual perpetrators and their
enablers, jointly with institutions, could shift perceived incentives for this
behavior.
However, it's clear that the criminal justice system in which due process rights are
embedded isn't a justice system at all for this category of offenses. I wrote
: " [W]e as a society have no way of adjudicating sexual assault claims that treats the
assaulted with a level of dignity sufficient for them to come forward at the time " (The
backlog of unprocessed rape kits pointed to by Tarana Burke shows this clearly, even if
nothing else did.) I'm personally acquainted both with someone who was sexually assaulted,
and someone who was falsely accused of "inappropriate behavior," and I've wracked my brains
trying to imagine a system of adjudication under which either could have received
justice -- the first never did, the second was ultimately cleared -- but without success. I
can't see how MacKinnon's fixes would have helped either one.
I'd certainly welcome different and parallel forms of
adjudication that would have achieved justice for my friends; nobody said "due process"
had to be achieved only through the court sytem, after all. For example, although this is a
limited solution that applies to neither of my friends, an alternative adjudication system
that puts the burden of proof on the male if the other party is female and both are drunk
would probably brake a lot of bad behavior on campus; this of course speaks to my priors,
since I loathe party culture, exactly because it encourages assault.
NOTE
[1] For example, a Jobs Guarantee would make it easier for a woman to leave an abusive
workplace. A Post Office Bank, by giving every woman her own checking account as a matter of
right, would make it easier for women to leave abusive relationships. Sometimes it's more
effective to be indirect.
[2] One way to redress power imbalances in the workplace -- building union power, say
through card check -- does not appear on MacKinnon's list of legal transformations. A second
way also does not appear: Wages for restaurant workers such that they don't have to
depend on potentially abusive customers for tips. A third way also does not appear:
Encouraging cooperatives . So the
question of whose and which norms are to be transformed remains
salient.
UPDATE You write:
And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have
as much credibility as the powerful. Nothing about that would not deny justice to Emmett
Till. A movement is not defined by its twitter hashtag.
If that's what it really means, that's not what it really says. The hash tag isn't
#BelieveThePowerless, after all. I think it's simpler to take the movement at its word. If
the organizers wish to change the slogan because it's sending the wrong message, then they
will. If they don't, then the hash tag is sending the message they want.
I agree that movements don't totally define themselves by the choices they make
with their slogans. But those choices matter. The Bolsheviks won the day under the slogan
"Peace, Land,
Bread." "Less War, Gentler Serfdom, Access to Bread" just wouldn't have had the same
impact.
Gotta say this out loud ZH people- seeing first hand what the Democrats did 2011-2016,
getting way to close to government operations in my state, pushed me from left to the right
in absolute disgust with the left. Seemed like maybe the right is different and better
nowadays. However, general gay bashing and blatant racism on websites like this one scares
some and puts some moderates and Independents off the right. I'm all for #hetoo and Corey
Booker reaping what he sowed. What they did to Kavenaugh was despicable. A conservative party
that disavows racism, gaybashing and misogyny is highly appealing nowadays over the left. I'm
a card carrying member of the NRA, but when you start that gaybashing you all get scary and
make some reconsider voting red for fear of devolving. Want to change your gender? Knock
yourself out; none of my friggen business. But to force the taxpayer to pay for "gender
reassignment", and then claim there's no money for stopping and repairing the landslides in
Pennsylvania's red counties, and blame it on Trump? That's the insanity of the leftist
governor in my state. All you do when you attack a group over race, being gay or being women
is create a new class dependent victims for the left to "protect" and give a free ride in
exchange for votes. Hope this makes sense. Not as articulate as some here but hope I got the
point across.
The right was looking pretty good after Kavenaugh. Maybe this whole post and many of its
comments is a ploy to draw in the stupid and the trolls. This post and comments like yours
are making the right look like apes last minute before the midterms. Its working. You all
could have handled this news with some decency and some class and some tolerance and sealed
it for the republicans in the upcoming elections. But no. You let yourselves be drawn into
posts like this, for all the world to see that maybe nothing at all has changed about the
right. SMH.
Some of us who wanted to vote red might have a family member who is gay. Coworkers and
neighbors and friends who are black. Now we have to worry, after reading posts like yours,
that we'll be plunging loved ones back into a world of discrimination and maybe violence by
voting red. Thought all this crap was in the past. Nope. Still raging strong I see after
reading posts like these
I should think that there ought to be a change in American law wherein someone making a
sexual accusation without proof can be held liable financially and possibly criminally.
Booker must be sweating bullets now that his secret is out. Maybe he and the anointed one,
Obama, can get it on in a steam room in somewhere in D.C. together, with the Wookie looking
the other way.
Unless there is a smoking gun in regards to evidence, I do think we should stoop to their
lowness - play their game. Kill them with the rule of law. Be sympathetic to the gay man and
tell him if there is real evidence they will follow-up, but if not they have no grounds to go
anywhere with it. Show them what they SHOULD have done. Then let the rumors and paranoia of
potential evidence do the job on Booker. It will eat him up. Mean time, we move forward and
ride the Red Wave.
There's an older episode of The Green Room with Paul
Provenza when the late Patrice O'Neal, arguably one of the best stand-up comics in recent
history, gets serious for a moment, saying: "I love being able to say anything I want. I had to
learn how to stop caring about people not laughing. Because the idea of comedy, really, is not
everybody should be laughing. It should be about 50 people laughing and 50 people horrified.
There should be people who get it and people who don't get it."
O'Neal gets right to the chaotic, trickster heart of comedy with that statement. Comedy at
its best balances humor against shock–not necessarily vulgarity, mind you, but a sort of
unsettling surprise. It's a topsy-turvy glimpse at an uncanny, upside-down world, which, if the
joke lands, provides a bulwark against torpor and complacency. Great comedy inhabits the
absurdity of the world. It makes itself into a vantage point from which everything seems
delightfully ridiculous, including (often especially) the comedians themselves. We wouldn't
need comedy in a world that wasn't absurd. Perhaps that's why Dante only included humor in his
Inferno . There is no absurdity in paradise.
Unfortunately, Hannah Gadsby's Nanette , a comedy special recently released on
Netflix, only embraces the non-laughter half of O'Neal's dictum. It's the very epitome of
self-serious, brittle, didactic, SJW "comedy." It's not funny. And worse, it's not meant to be.
Gadsby, a queer Australian comedian, uses her "stand-up special" as a way to destroy the very
medium she pretends to be professionally engaged in. Her basic argument is that, since comedy
is by its very nature self-deprecating (true), people who define themselves as members of an
oppressed minority shouldn't engage in comedy because they're only participating in the
violence already being done to them by society at large.
We have allowed "social justice" types, a tiny fringe minority of unhappy and often unstable
people, rewrite the rules of our entire civilization and culture.
All the way back to Aristophanes comedy has often included a political component or an effort
to "educate" audiences or at least make them think about things. But the actual comedy part
is essential. Otherwise it's just a lecture.
We might just be witnessing the death of Art. As the SJW furies brutally and effectively
enforce The Narrative in literary fiction, film, TV, comedy, etc. they destroy the potential
for creative genius in these mediums and kill off most of the audience. It was already hard
enough for those arts to compete with new media forms. The SJW's hostile takeover of Art just
makes the triumph of Real Life As Entertainment all the more complete.
Whereas twenty years ago I might be spending my free time reading a novel and attempting
to write a short story, today I'm reading articles on The American Conservative and posting
this comment.
"... the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth. ..."
"... 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else." ..."
On October 2, Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian published an article
titled "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship," incorporating the
results of a year-long effort to publish hoax articles, deliberately comprised of bunk facts
and irrational and reactionary conclusions, in academic journals associated with gender, racial
and identity studies.
The results expose the intellectual bankruptcy of identity politics and postmodernist
philosophy. Their proponents, who dominate university humanities departments worldwide, are
charlatans who have published or given favorable "revise and resubmit" comments to the most
absurd and vulgar pseudo-scientific arguments.
These include: a purported 1,000-hour study of dog "humping" patterns at dog parks that
concludes by calling for human males to be "trained" like dogs to prevent rape culture; a
long-form poem produced through a teenage angst poetry generator about women holding
spiritual-sexual "moon meetings" in a secret "womb room" and praying to a "vulva shrine;" a
proposal to develop feminist robots, trained to think irrationally, to control humanity and
subjugate white men; and additional articles relating to male masturbation. Another proposal,
which was praised by reviewers in a paper that was ultimately rejected, encouraged teachers to
place white students in chains to be shamed for their "white privilege."
There is an element of humor in the fact that such drivel could win accolades from academics
and journals. The "dog park" article was even selected as one of the most influential
contributions in the history of the Gender, Place and Culture journal!
But the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian
have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought,
based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective
truth.
Most chillingly, the authors also submitted a re-write of a chapter from Hitler's Mein
Kampf , with language altered to reference female identity and feminism. The paper, titled
"Our struggle is my struggle: solidarity feminism as an intersectional reply to neoliberal and
choice feminism," was accepted for publication and greeted with favorable reviews.
"I am extremely sympathetic to this article's argument and its political positioning," one
academic wrote. Another said, "I am very sympathetic to the core arguments of the paper."
In the wake of their public disclosure, Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have come under
attack by the proponents of postmodernism and identity politics, who claim the hoax is a
right-wing attack on "social justice" disciplines.
Typical is the argument of Daniel Engber, who wrote in Slate : "How timely, too,
that this secret project should be published in the midst of the Kavanaugh imbroglio -- a time
when the anger and the horror of male anxiety is so resplendent in the news. 'It's a very
scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and
Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether
levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else."
In reality, the hoax has exposed the fact that it is the proponents of identity politics who
are advancing views parallel to the far right. While they are enraged with those who voice
concern about the elimination of due process and the presumption of innocence for the targets
of the #MeToo campaign, they are unbothered by the fact that the writings of Adolf Hitler are
published and praised in feminist academic circles.
Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian are self-described liberals who are concerned that the
present identity hysteria is "pushing the culture war to ever more toxic and existential
polarization," by fanning the flames of the far right. As a result, identitarians are
"affecting activism on behalf of women and racial and sexual minorities in a way which is
counterproductive to equality aims by feeding into right-wing reactionary opposition to those
equality objectives."
In contrast, the authors' aim is to "give people -- especially those who believe in
liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice -- a clear reason to look at
the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, 'No, I will not
go along with that. You do not speak for me.'"
The hoax's authors are correct to link the identity politics proponents' hostility to
equality with their opposition to rationalism, scientific analysis and the progressive gains of
the Enlightenment. But the roots of this right-wing, irrationalist, anti-egalitarian
degeneration are to be found in the economic structure of capitalist society.
The academic architects of postmodernism and identity politics occupy well-paid positions in
academia, often with salaries upwards of $100,000–$300,000 or more. As a social layer,
the theoreticians of what the World Socialist Web Site refers to as the "pseudo-left"
are in the wealthiest 10 percent of American society. Their political and philosophical views
express their social interests.
The obsession with "privilege," sex, and racial and gender identity is a mechanism by which
members and groups within this layer fight among themselves for income, social status and
positions of privilege, using degrees of "oppression" to one up each other in the fight for
tenure track jobs, positions on corporate or non-profit boards, or election to public office. A
chief purpose of the #MeToo campaign, for example, is to replace male executives and male
politicians with women, while ignoring the social needs of the vast majority of working class
women.
The weaponization of identity politics is directed down the social ladder as well. By
advancing the lie that white workers benefit from "white privilege," for example, the
proponents of identity politics argue: the spoils of Wall Street should not go to meeting the
social needs of the working class, including white workers, who face record rates of
alcoholism, poverty, opioid addiction, police violence and other indices of social misery.
Instead, the world's resources should go to me . It is this visceral class hatred that
serves as the basis for absurd and reactionary arguments like those advanced in the hoax
papers.
Nor have the politics of racial identity improved the material conditions for the vast
majority of minority workers. Inequality within racial minorities has increased alongside the
introduction of affirmative action programs and the increasing dominance of identity politics
in academia and bourgeois politics. In 2016, the top 1 percent of Latinos owned 45 percent of
all Latino wealth, while the top 1 percent of African-Americans owned 40.5 percent and the
richest whites owned 36.5 percent of white wealth.
The influence of postmodernism in academia exploded in the aftermath of the mass protests of
the 1960s and early 1970s. Based explicitly on a rejection of the revolutionary role of the
working class and opposition to the "meta narrative" of socialist revolution, it is not
accidental that identity politics and postmodernism have now been adopted as official
ideological mechanisms of bourgeois rule.
In recent decades, a massive identity politics industry has been erected, with billions of
dollars available from corporate funds and trusts for journals, non-profits, publications,
fellowships and political groups advancing racial or gender politics. Identity politics has
come to form a central component of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy. Imperialist wars
are justified on the grounds that the US is intervening to protect women, LGBT people and other
minorities.
The growing movement of the working class, broadening strikes across industries and
widespread interest in socialism on college campuses pose an existential threat to the
domination of postmodernism. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have struck a well-timed blow
against this reactionary obstacle to the development of scientific socialist consciousness.
This is the liberal arts equivalent of what happened in Soviet Russia with its "revealed
truth" ideas.
I suspect it will die at some point as the revolutionaries turn on each other. It will
also die off with further exposure to reality. You can deconstruct the use of gender in the
German language as much as you want and scream loudly about the use of "der, die, das" and so
forth. But you know what? People are going to continue using them.
(In fact, if I wanted to blow up the whole silly mess from the inside, that's what I would
do. Start a movement to "get rid of gender" in the gendered languages and turn all po-mo
arguments into total jokes.)
Identity politics has jumped the shark. SJW's are a minority who wish to perpetuate identity
politics as an end all, be all substitute for the hard work of framing actual policy. The
whole undertaking is flailing -- and backlash to PC culture had much to do with how Trump got
elected. So let the Ivy League schools continue down the path toward irrelevance.
Although the ID of the university was withheld, while I was reading this piece–and at
the risk of being unnecessarily coy–there was one word used which jumped off the
screen, so I think I have a pretty good idea which school it is. Then again, does it really
matter? This kind of soft-core bolshevism has, to one degree or another, infected all of the
Ivies as well as most, if not all, of the Forbes Top 50.
I have no idea who this gentleman is about whom Rod is writing but it is clear that he is
quite intelligent and is trying to bring something of value to the table. If he has reached
the end of his tether and feels the necessity to bail, then it'll be the university's loss,
not his.
If you are a conservative – student/staff/faculty in an ivy league university. Be
careful what you say
Your thoughts are not welcome. And everybody knows that.
Back in Soviet times, scientific positions were frequently filled with incompetent but
politically connected people. STEM can be corrupted–although the resultant failings are
much more clearly noticeable.
Back in the Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" (the book, not the movie, where this was
scrubbed out), what sets off Marko Ramius was that his wife died in a botched surgery
performed by an incompetent doctor who was in his job because of his political connections.
Clancy based this event on numerous stories reported by Soviets of the time.
"... It's better to just keep your mouth shut sometimes, even if your teeth grind, and your lips go blue, and you get cobwebs in your mouth. ..."
"... Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to do a conference about gender roles in society? ..."
"... Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender preference. ..."
"... He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people. ..."
"... Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now. As far as whether it's appropriate - he's reacting to a huge political movement that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this. ..."
"... The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished. ..."
"... I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com]. An archive just in case. [archive.is] And enjoy the witch hunt in action. [twitter.com] ..."
"... It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women. Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did the modern version of burning books. ..."
At a workshop organized by
CERN, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by
invitation", BBC reported Monday
. Strumia's presentation
[Google
Drive link]
that supports the idea that "physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does
not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside" has already received a lot of
criticism, with one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that had long
been discredited."
In a statement on Sunday, CERN
said
, "It is
unfortunate that one of the 38 presentations, by a scientist from one of the collaborating universities, risks
overshadowing the important message and achievements of the event. CERN, like many members of the community,
considers that the presentation, with its attacks on individuals, was unacceptable in any professional context
and was contrary to the CERN Code of Conduct. It, therefore, decided to remove the slides from the online
repository."
On Monday, CERN said
it has
suspended the scientist from any activity at CERN with immediate effect, pending investigation into last week's
event.
Yes to both. However, the exact way in which the world was batshit crazy has varied greatly.
At one point, suggesting that the earth wasn't the center of the universe was enough to be
burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Before then, questioning the nature of anything
and pissing off the powers that be might well have gotten you literally burned at the stake.
Batshit crazy goes in cycles. Last peak was during WW1/2 and this one is hopefully less
destructive. Blame it this time around on the social media that makes everyone's private
thoughts available for inspection by everyone else.
one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that
had long been discredited."
If it really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it. Strumia has
provided evidence to support his claims, and evidence is needed to dismiss those claims.
This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many
physicists
however are
definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem.
It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered
to look for even 20 seconds on Google. Sexism is quite real and it is distressingly
common in the field of physics and many other branches of science. It's ironic that
you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he
(apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure
you understand the meaning of the term.
His presentation provided data to support his position. In contrast you are
offering nothing. You didn't even bother to read his presentation. Had you have bothered to do so you
would have noticed the sentence cited in the headline occurs under the heading
"discrimination against women". BTW the very next slide includes the heading "discrimination against men".
I know a few female PhDs in engineering subjects. When asked, all of them said
that gender discrimination was not an issue in their studies or their research,
except for the very rare "conservative old professor" that was easily avoided.
Gender discrimination in the hard sciences is at worst a myth and at best
irrelevant. The rare cases were it happens get blown all out of proportion to
fuel an utterly sexist and misandrist movement.
it's "Locker room talk" and a generally unfriendly work environment.
The nerds I know have very, very little tact. The few who do know what tact
is have to try really, really hard to avoid saying incredibly off color crap.
There are entire books about dead baby jokes and enough jokes about dead
hookers and pedophiles to fill several books over. Being a nerd and spending
a lifetime around other nerds I can tell you they'll cheerfully spout these
gags along with harmless Monty Python jokes and be completel
It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was
fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm
not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
You're begging the question.
He may well be a sexist - I don't know, but you can't justify the claim using the
claim itself as evidence.
This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many
physicists
however are
definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem.
You might have missed the new hotness in intersectionality: the redefinition of -isms and
-ists to refer to outcomes, not intent.
If an insufficient number of XYZ are not present, then "the system" (not specific people)
is XYZ-ist and must be corrected. And if you are not XYZ, then you are a receiving a benefit
of an XYZ-ist system and are thus XYZ-ist yourself. (Note: Denying your inherent XYZ-ist
nature shall be taken as strong additional evidence that you are XYZ-ist.)
Perhaps you missed the part that one of the official subjects of the conference was gender
in the field. It was relevant to the discussion. See AC's post about 4 or 5 below with the
part in bold.
Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two
things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo
chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy
that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if
you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend
to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to
do a conference about gender roles in society?
Physicists are free to discuss gender between themselves, and sociologists are free to
talk about quantum physics, but to organize a conference in a reputable scientific
institution, one would expect experts in their fields.
Way too many conferences already have one guy, or girl, who decides to bring a pot
of shit to stir instead of any actual contribution to the conference.
Disagreeing with the status quo is not "bring[ing] a pot of shit to stir". Strumia
provided evidence to support his claims. If he is wrong, then provide evidence that he
is wrong. Evidence huh? Did you actually read his presentation? Seriously, there is a link to it
right there in the summary. Go through the whole thing. Evidence indeed.
If I didn't know it came from a professor (with an obvious axe to grind) I would have
guessed it was done by a 9th grader. (with an axe to grind)
At best a lot of his 'evidence' pretty much comes down to 'it isn't sexism, women
really are just worse, otherwise they would be doing better in physics because we only
care about merit!'
Looking at the pdf presentation in the OP's link, he went somewhere that some people do not
want to be discussed, Gender differences and gender preferences.
Instead of refuting his
argument, it's easier to call him a sexist bigot and just discredit him that way.
Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't
primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of
study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender
preference.
He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the
reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the
narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole
land and murdered indigenous people.
Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now.
As far as whether it's appropriate - he's
reacting
to a huge political movement
that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this.
In fact I'd say it's almost inevitable that highly analytical minds are going to react
against this identity politics at some point. It's more surprising how rare it is to see
reactions.
Physicists are expensive. Get women into physics and they become significantly less so. It's
the same across all STEM fields. It's got nothing to do with diversity and everything to do
with wages.
As an added bonus men and women are fighting among themselves over gender issues, making a
nice skism in the working class.
He is wrong, "physics was invented and built by
physicists
." But he was right, "it's not
by invitation". It is not a social club. You don't get a invitation in the mail. You join by
achievement, by accomplishment. All this gender talk is a distraction from real physics.
Anyone who thinks physics, esp historically, was not a social club has never worked in the
field. Who you know, who you worked with, who will vouch for you, all critical things in the
field. Very invitation only.
meritocracies are based on results, not on your sex, no matter what society "wants" to see ...are largely indisputable.
Interesting Ted talk by a feminist activist who was
making a documentary about 'men who hate women' and came to realize that in some ways men are
marginalized:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com] - the point that resonates with this thread
is where she said "you can look around and say that every single person was born of a woman,
and nobody will doubt or criticize that.... but if you say look around and nearly every single
building you see was built pretty much by men and you get immediately attacked"
That said, in no particular order:
- there's no reason women can't participate in physics going forward. None.
- there's a HUGE amount of base sexism in the field today
- it's never been a pure meritocracy anyway
- there IS a cultural/social pressure from people who have this silly notion that half the
participants in every field must be female. This is frankly stupid, and should be resisted.
However, acting like an ass and flinging shit at a conference like this is simply not
productive in the larger scope.
If you have SPECIFIC instances where A was promoted over B because A had a vagina and B had
clearly better work, then let's talk.
To me it seems he's actually just butthurt because HE didn't get a promotion he wanted, and
has been seething about it for a while.
You may want to look at the slides linked in the summary. The phrase "Physics invented and
built by men, it's not by invitation." occurs on a slide (titled "Discrimination against
women") seemingly pointing out sexist notions against women in physics. He's not making that
claim himself, but pointing to such a claim as an example of sexism.
Maybe you should be strummed out for not doing any basic research as well.
The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will
be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback
AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished.
What these idiots fail to realize is that
it is OK to stop with progressive ideas once you reach a certain point. The people who used to
push equality of the sexes have now transitioned into female subjugation of men at the expense
of everything else. As someone who totally signed on for equality, this is NOT ok.
If you are a physicist, board member etc, were placed into that position by merit, and
happen to be a woman good for you! We should be at a point in history where we don't look at sex as a determining factor but
ignore it in favor of a list of successful options.
But no, we aren't and can't focus on more important things because these loud nitwits have a
hammer and see everything as a nail.
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's
slander in the UK.
He literally said it as one of
two
sentences on slide 17, and they linked to his
entire slide presentation in the article. Pretty sure that that's not slander.
Feel free to describe how it is "out of context," however. I'm sure that this will be
good...
Sexism fired him, I don't see anything sexist in his presented material. On the contrary, he
is attacking a persistent agenda distracting from physics and that lacks sound logical
support.
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected
If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled
"High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the
gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something
stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender
conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one
of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from
you
One of the slides amounted to: "No one is seeking gender equality in jobs that get you
killed." Is that true? I suspect the military and law enforcement may be an exceptions
since there's a lot of social prestige, but I don't hate myself enough to read jezebel.
You don't even need to look at jobs that get you killed. No one is seeking gender
equality in jobs that women dominate.
Women dominate teaching below the college
level, veterinarian jobs, and nursing, just to name a few. Yet there are no efforts to
increase the number of men in those fields. You also never see a push for more women
construction workers or farm workers or garbage collectors. It's only well-paying jobs
where a high percentage of men is a problem. Low paying jobs? No one cares. Jobs where
women
As someone that works at an Ivy league veterinary school I just have to point out
that there are actually programs to help men enter the field due to the current
imbalance. There are also similar programs for men in nursing. They vary from
everything including better work balance, family time off and mentoring.
When is the last time you have heard of a protest that women are just as good at
picking up garbage or mining coal as men. Or that a woman can dig a ditch just as well
as a man? Where are the complaints that women are just as good at cleaning out sewers
as men?
There may well be discrimination in those fields, and there may be
individual women who fave a just complaint about it, but if so, they aren't getting a
lot of support from other feminists.
I think only the one slide got him fired. Maybe the way he presented as well, I haven't
seen that. The quote about physics' invention is very easy to misread, I can't blame CERN
for reacting to that slide. Everything else... he's just attempting to analyze the issue.
Nothing wrong with that.
I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations
particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting
in around 2015.
His being a dumb ass got him fired. Why do idiots like this feel entitled to bring
up their backwards politics at non-political events?
If I'm working a job and
presenting for my company and I go off on a rant about something political guess
what will happen to me?
If you guess I probably will get fired you win. I'm tired of all these over
privileged cry babies feeling like they have a right to throw out their politics on
company time.
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case
though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that reached
the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made. And if you haven't noticed,
the trend by the SJW crowd is to insert politics at ALL events, because "there is no
such thing as a non-political event", and "being able to ignore politics is a white
male privilege" and if you disagree, you're a bigot.
I'd be all for keeping these events non-political. Too bad one side has already
decided that bridge must be crossed.
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case
though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that
reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made.
Yes, precisely.
For an example more close to home for most of us, consider pretty much every
non-political online discussion forum ever.
If someone posts something that's political but trendy,
that's
fine. But
if somebody
reacts
to it, posts the opposite point of view or even just
tries to be balanced or put it in perspective, he'll get taken to the woodshed for
"being political", "flaming", etc.
This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN
[google.com] and may be incomplete.
It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember, SJW's really aren't
the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for the best, trying to make the
world a better place by stomping on your face.
This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN
[google.com] and may be
incomplete. It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember,
SJW's really aren't the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for
the best, trying to make the world a better place by stomping on your face.
The twitter post you're calling "piece of shit" is @jesswade:
"When people in positions of power in academia behave like this and retain their
status they don't only push one generation of underrepresented groups out of science,
but train others that it's ok to propagate this ideology for years to come."
The "witch hunt in action" link shows a collage of Kavanaugh headlines by the poster
@BeastOfWood with lines like "white male entitlement", and "white male supremacy" marked,
it's not evident to me how the poster or the collage is relevant. The last link is just
the same slides as posted in the summary.
This is how Mashiki's mind works. He gets triggered easily because he believes
in a vast conspiracy of feminists trying to destroy the world with Cultural
Marxism, and so whenever anyone says anything he disagrees with in the slightest
he assumes they are part of it and the embodiment of pure evil.
So why don't you prove me wrong. Go out, publicly, in front of the media and
take ads out in the paper with the two following subjects: "The wage gap is a
myth." "No, the US rate of sexual assaults is not higher then the Congo."
The greatest minds were never immune. Read up on the biographies of Newton, Tesla, etc.
Humans have always been flawed. That was the single greatest achievement of the Scientific
Method: making progress in the great game in spite of its flawed players.
Maybe the folks at CERN should have done the Scientific thing and refuted his
paper using facts.
The statement,
"physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does
not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside"
shouldn't be that hard to refute, no? Then they make a presentation the next time and
shame that guy into a career at Starbucks.
But they didn't that, did they. All they did was spout platitudes designed to
placate the SJW crowd.
If you're a scientist, instead of shutting someone up to mollify the
SJW's, bust his ass up with FACTS. Then, it's a win-win, double smackdown for Strumia if he is proven wrong, again,
with FACTS.
Are any of you folks whining about SJWs actually reading his presentation and
CERN's statement? On slide 15, he makes a dumbass little chart to whine about
someone he calls a "commisar" hiring a woman instead of him. You can't pull shit
like that at any conference in any field, and that's exactly what CERN's statement
points out.
If you want to prop him up as a martyr for the red-pill crowd, that's your choice.
But I wouldn't recommend picking a guy who torpedoed his reputation with a
shit-tier analysis of gender issues because a woman got a job instead of him.
Personally I don't think you or I are in any position to evaluate his claims of
reverse bias in hiring. Unless we knew ALL of the details he account might be
100 percent accurate. Or perhaps not.
Yes, because talking about "cultural marxism" in front of a slide with a silly
alt-right cartoon is science and fact. He denounces "victimocracy" before declaring
himself a martyr in the very next slide.
But they didn't that, did they. All they did was spout platitudes designed
to placate the SJW crowd.
In the current uber-politically-correct world, placating the SJW crowd is
pretty much the only thing that matters anymore. Don't do that and you are
automatically a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and other sassy
words that end
in "ist"
and "phobe."
The very existence of Gender Studies is predicated on the idea that Gender
Studies "experts" need the right to give unsolicited Gender Studies talks at
events related to everything that isn't Gender Studies. You're the fucking
government. Go away.
Yes, he was talking about genders and science, but his talk wasn't
scientific. Where's his data?
His talk was almost entirely analysis of data. Lots of it. He's a
physicist, that's what he does.
Sorry if this interferes with your SJW agenda.
A telling quote from the BBC article:
"There were young women and men exchanging ideas and their experiences
on how to encourage more women into the subject and to combat
discrimination in their careers. Then this man gets up, saying all this
horrible stuff."
He said all these horrible things! Facts, data, analysis, all
disagreeing with our established dogma! It was horrible! If we weren't so
busy chanting "lalalalala we're not listening" then we'd almost be forced
to rethink our ideas! Oh the SJW-ity!
Instead you'd rather these great minds ignore the truth and bow down to political
correctness and pretend that everything that is not true really is? All in the name of
making marginalized people feel better about themselves... That is absurd.
A woman I know recently applied to a PhD position. She already had a master's in the
topic, from a school pretty strong in the subject area, doing some pretty difficult work,
plus a fair amount of science communication & outreach on the side, and was looking to go
further. She got rejected from a well funded position (with several openings), and later,
she made the mistake of looking at the student roster to see who had gotten in. All male,
seemingly straight out of undergrad, none of whom had a master's. She was kind of pissed,
because while she couldn't prove that was a result of sexism, it sure looks like it, you
know? And that's ridiculous, we shouldn't be dismissing anyone based on their sex, but
this is definitely happening in science and academia.
Funny thing though, while that story is true, I lied about the sexes. I swapped them.
Still feel the same way?
I have a hard time dismissing claims that there is political bias against men when I can
see it happen. And before some moron accuses me of being sexist, I'm not saying that
there aren't plenty of very competent female scientists out there, there are. And I'm not
saying that there isn't real sexism against women in science, there is, I've seen it, and
anyone who denies that or covers for it is part of the problem. That doesn't change the
fact that screwing over men is also happening, and that it is not the way to go about
fixing anything.
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to
violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious
I would say "willful ignorance" is not having even bothered to read the presentation.
nonsense, and all the other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with,
but as-is I'm not even so sure the human species will manage to survive to see the year
2100, when even the greatest minds among us aren't immune to all the above.
LOL you are being played by outraged fueled media simply to make money.
tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious
nonsense
That might be true.. if I had anything to do with 'outrage(d) fueled media', which I
don't. It's my observation of the human species, formulated over all the decades of my
life. That's okay, I don't expect most people to be honest enough with themselves to
admit what I'm saying is true, the truth hurts too much for most people, and to be quite
honest it hurts me deeply because I know I'm fundamentally no better, even if I try to
be. Admitting I'm right is admitting you're just a caveman with high-tech toys;
It's an interesting talk but I absolutely can't understand why a physicist would
hold such a talk at a physics conference at CERN.
Simple.
Because it is negatively affecting a physics conference at CERN, not some random
gender-studies organization's conference.
Why is CERN engaging in Post-Modern anti-Enlightenment political correctness when
it should only be concerned with *scientific* correctness? Post Modernism is anathema
to science. Science is a Meritocracy or else you're not engaged in science but rather
politics.
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to
violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious nonsense, and all the
other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with.
Human bigotry in it's many forms won't end until the last of humanity does. I don't
believe it can be done and I don't believe there is one person on this planet that doesn't
harbour at least a little bigotry in one form or another. That doesn't mean we should ignore
it and say it's inevitable- we need to limit it as much as possible... but it will never
end.
The relevant slide is number 17 titled "Discrimination against women."
The text:
Physics invented and built by men, it's not by invitation.
Curie etc. welcomed after
showing what they can do, got Nobels...
It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only
scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women.
Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference
took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did
the modern version of burning books.
He broke one of the cardinal rules about slide decks on controversial subjects - make
sure no sentence may be pulled out of context and used against you. Some interesting
analysis and infographics in the paper. His conclusions are probably what pissed the most
people off - that people screaming about how unfair STEM fields are to females may play a
significant role in discouraging females from the field, which in my small sample survey
(of STEM females) was strongly agreed with. But that puts part of the blame back on SJWs
who are more interested in virtue signaling than being constructive, so of course he must
pay. SNAFU...
Nope, the relevant slide is actually number 15, where he attacks a named "commisar" who
hired a woman instead of him. He made a dumbass little chart and everything. It's kind of
hilarious.
CERN's statement points out that such personal attacks are unacceptable. It's just plain
not okay pull shit like this.
Unless i'm missing some irony here: False dichotomy, we can all simultaneously reject
the grossly absurdly evil machinations of post modern identity politics and one of is
main weapons political correctness, and reject all those things you mentioned.
No one would be happier because one of the first of many casualties of that way of
thinking is the loss of free will.
Never mind that women having the right to property and self determination is something that
only happened over the last century or so. In other words, they weren't invited to the
"invention" of physics.
Many of these biggest minds were actually labelled as "problem students" by the mainstream
schools and teachers of the day. They had to be home-schooled by tutors. Other times, home
schooling by tutors was the only way of getting an education. Either way, that kind of
intensive teaching going at the speed of one student rather than the average speed of a
class would have accelerated their learning.
He was not wrong in that "Physics was invented and built by men". By and large, this is
undoubtedly true, with a few outliers. That observation in itself is valid science.
What would have been wrong if he had said that this needs to continue.
Science and physics
should be blind. Whether you're a man, woman, hermaphrodite, black, white, green or
invisible is irrelevant for producing theorems and testable hypotheses, and moving science
forward.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men
True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at
physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes,
things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to
not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in
physics or indeed any science.
This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way
that you fix idiotic thinkin
Yah-- everyone needs to have the opportunity. But it may not be "fair" in numbers
afterwards.
Testosterone seems to cause *increased variability* in outcomes. Women
appear to be slightly smarter on average than men (depending on the metric you choose),
but men have a greater variability in intelligence and performance. That is, men are
over-represented at the very dumb and brilliant ends of the spectrum.
Equal opportunity may still result in an excess of men at the very top of many
professions...
(And again
Eh, fascination with systems and ideas are traits that skew to males. This will lead to
imbalances in scientific disciplines.... Attempts to artificially adjust these for equity
will only lead to injustices against more qualified individuals. I don't understand how
people can continue to pretend that biological differences between the sexes stop at the
brain. There are really great female physicists but not of an equal number to males.
Unless you have some sort of agenda this shouldn't be seen as bad t
the inflection MEN or MAN? I can't tell from the context.
It's "men" under a slide with heading "discrimination against women".
The very next slide has heading "discrimination against men".
People publishing media accounts of this crap with intentionally misleading exerts simply
to stoke public outrage in order to rack up views for profit are the ones we should all be
"outraged" at and demanding resignations from.
She had one in physics (1903) shared with her husband.
When I read the headline my
first thought was "A certain Madame Curie would like to have a word with this guy..."
Does he not even recognize that ideas and discoveries by women were almost unanimously
dismissed and women even prohibited from participating in scientific fields or hell, any
academic field until recently?
It's very disappointing that some scientists fail to
realize how drastically the world has changed in the last 100 years.
There were probably a lot of discoveries by women that were posted secretly under a man's
name with the credit given to a male relative or a male employer. Look how many female
novelists in the old days used to post under male pseudonyms... and that was for something
as harmless as a novel.
October 12, 2018 Identity
Politics and the Ruling Class by James Munson Reagan ditched the Fairness Doctrine. Now his youth complain they're shunned by
the politically-correct media. Clinton's Telecommunications Act let mergers trample
the free press. Now it pains his wing that we read rants and conspiracy, instead of news.
So much that Hillary employed teams of fact-checkers in 2016, figuring we couldn't trust our
own minds to parse reality from clown-babble. Then–contrarily–she blamed her loss
on hopeless cases. If one or the other were true, democracy would be a lost cause, and perhaps
that's crossed her mind since losing, despite a majority of votes. But it can't explain why
close to half of us had the common sense to not vote for either hopeless party.
Yet, to hear either speak, tribal privileges are fracturing America. Not the top .001%'s
privilege to half the wealth, nor the military's to the bulk of our taxes. Rather, half of the
poor's designation, versus the other half's. Somehow, minorities -the lowest rung in terms of
media ownership- bully the mainstream press, and rednecks -the next-lowest- bully the rest.
(Hourly-waged Russians command any overlap.) And since, according to the Right (and much of the
Left), 'political-correctness' stifles all other manner of free speech, elites are powerless to
restore order to their own, private empires, or prevent the hordes tearing us up over what
bathroom to use.
Really? Have we lost our pussy-grabbing Executive and Judiciary branches to the wanton touch
of #MeToo? Can our founding, 'self-evident truths' not outwit pc's chauvinism? On the other
hand, how is it 'deplorables' are blind to exploding class inequality, yet so attuned to the
nuances of race, gender, and their nomenclature?
'Identity-politics' explain everything recently, from Trump and Kavanaugh, to Crazy Rich
Asians . Francis Fukuyama has a new book out (I've read only part), regarding its tension
with liberalism–group versus individual rights, etc., tepidly joining him to more-hawkish
mouth-pieces like Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro (and some Left doom-sayers) who warn its
steam-rolling our democracy. Their over-arching fear is that identity politics suppress
rational–though not always politically-correct–thought, giving extremists on both
sides the floor, who don't mind confronting 'identity' on racist (and sexist, etc) terms. Ergo,
more than an analytical device or a school of (not always congruent) ideas, a movement. A
juggernaut, if you read and believe the hype.
But if so, whose? Saying 'first respect my uniqueness, then treat me as equal' provides
snares that 'first treat me as equal, then respect my uniqueness' does not. The Left has a long
history with -and can tie most of its successes- to the latter. The labor movement, for
instance, united presumed-cultural rivals and coordinated dozens of languages. Ergo, the
Left , by definition -the many against the privileged few- would have to be amnesiac,
or -more likely- not the Left, to think a plan that tries to establish the differences first
would better serve their goals.
Perhaps the cultural wins (like marriage equality) and sizable, politico-economic losses
(demise of Unions, etc.) of the past few decades have inspired reorientation. There's evidence,
so long as we define the 'Left' as ruling, Neoliberal Democrats. Certainly their Wall Street
financiers can accept women CEOs and gay marriage more-readily than Union wages and universal
healthcare. (After all, the point of capitalism is to pocket the most one can without
sparking an insurrection.) BUT an elite-run party -paid for by Wall Street–doesn't
constitute a Left. Nor is it able to absorb popular will. Proven, since they lose most of their
elections.
Also, that leftists would demand censorship when most everyone of them believe the Right is
in control, and when they're silenced within their own party, seems farce. Again
there's evidence, college students sometimes dis-invite conservative speakers, and we figure,
as Reagan did, they're taught to (so he hiked tuition). But I doubt censorship exists as
agenda, nor even as sentiment on any grand scale. Think, whenever something explodes multiple
parties besides the bomber take credit. Where are the professors claiming this attack? If 18%
are communists (as the American Enterprise Institute warns), what sort of communist links class
to 'identity', not labor?
The other 'fear' is that over-zealous freshman are taking control, like in the Princeton and
Evergreen incidents. Perhaps but it contradicts the wisdom of Occupy!, which refused the
collaborative financial, political, educative, and other aligned powers from pigeon-holling
their complaints. -Wisdom that we credit to the young of the movement.
There's also a notion that dis-investment has engendered a new 'tribalism'. But even though
'color-blindness', for example, has excused softening equal-opportunity legislation (welfare
reform, voting law, etc.), which baits 'identity', as minorities are often dis-empowered under
the ruse of equality, color-blindness came out of the neoliberal play-book and expanded
Leftward from think-tanks on the Right. In other words, while it's hard to gauge its impact, it
marks a very separate program from the Left-academia or 'bottom-up' narratives.
Furthermore, most every poll finds 'economic inequality', not racial, gender, or other
inequalities to be the #1 problem with America. So, while it's not unreasonable that our
decline in wealth and status might see us retreat toward other than liberal identities
(Fukuyama's point), unless someone's peddling those narratives, one plainly sees more leverage
in class-solidarity.
As for the Right, what should be 'self-evident' is that complaining minority recognition is
unfair to the majority rests on the same argument it decries; that your privilege impedes my
privilege (instead of the reverse). Evident, at least to a Harvard-educated lawyer like Ben
Shapiro. Yet you find all that fallacious, 'populist' reaction in his books. Do they speak to
him or he to them? Does he speak for them?
Of course, identity politics aren't new. The Spanish liberal-philosopher, Jose Ortega y
Gasset wrestled with it a century ago, when his homeland's empire was crumbling, and came up
with a lot better answers (though it didn't save Spain from its fascist clown). Spain even had,
in his words, 'a common past, language, and race, yet had split into mainly-regional factions
because it had failed to invent a sufficiently-attractive collective program for the
future' . [i]
Isn't he right? Rather than hell-bent on forcing this or that culture on the rest of us,
aren't the 'extreme' Left, Right, and clusters of us in between are just figuring out that,
increasingly, being 'American' means losing ground to the .001% and their top brass? The
opening passage to the Combahee River Collective's manifesto says as much: ' focusing upon our
own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics . We believe that the
most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as
opposed to working to end somebody else's oppression.'
Last week Gary Younge revived that notion in a piece titled ' It comes as no shock that
the powerful hate identity politics ' [ii] , reminding that without
'women', 'blacks', and other self-referential vanguards we wouldn't have democracy, anyway.
It's an important point, and I agree, but is his over-arching theme–that the powerful
hate it–also true?
Whether 'identity-politics' raise tensions or awareness among the crowd might be a secondary
matter. First is whom they neglect. For all the media's naval-gazing, the system, itself gets
rare attention. Mind, all political strategies shoulder contradictions. But it's odd that
cultural issues (not to say there's no overlap) would hold the foreground right when fraudulent
wars, torture, bank crime, rigged elections, police violence, tax-breaks for the rich, willful
habitat destruction, and a widely-evident and growing gap between rich and poor and state and
population have laid the political, economic, and judicial systems bare. Matters such as
environmental or foreign policy are largely out of public reach, except with massive, boots on
the ground confrontation. In which case, atomizing class politics seems counter-intuitive to
the extreme.
Unless it's not us preaching it. It bears saying, in an oligarchy, oligarchs speak in order
to make their actions less–not more–clear. That's what a shill like Ben Shapiro
(Hillary does the work herself on the Left) laments when his talks get ignored (or
Ocasio-Cortes ignores him). Shapiro's a cause-celeb for saying identity politics threatens our
democracy, because it censors Right voices. Yet it appears complaining gets him more,
not less, airtime. In fact, I've heard too little substance in his' speeches (or Hillary's of
late) to warrant an interview, otherwise. Thus I suspect its the opposite of censorship; hyping
the market, that threatens our democracy. Threatens for real, like the Telecom Act, not just
prescriptively, like 'Russo-bots' and 'terrorism'.
Wow. This is an extremely one-sided, black-and-white view of a complex issue. I don't
understand how you could prepare to write on this subject and not realize that the
#BelieveWomen was, for MANY NOT ALL women, a call to NOT DISBELIEVE the woman right off the
bat. The immediate disbelief and victim blaming and shaming which has been standard treatment
of victims for a very long time is the primary reason that sexual crimes are not reported.
Sure, give the man the "innocent until proven guilty" but do the same for the woman too.
Don't start in with the "what was she wearing" and the rest. Don't make drinking be an excuse
for him and a reason for condemnation for her. In the many discussions I had on this subject
with other women, what the vast majority wanted was a full and complete investigation. They
didn't get it.
And you don't get it either. You are welcome to your opinions but you don't get to put the
words and beliefs into other people's mouths and minds as though you somehow know it all. You
are dead wrong about what I think and believe and about the vast majority of the women with
whom I have discussed this either in person or via text online.
It is easy to write against a straw man that isn't true. Try writing against a real
argument instead of simplifying the other person's position to the point that it is
ridiculous.
This conundrum is what convinced me to abandon the Democrats, registering as an Independent
for the first time: "It holds them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock
back on women's rights. Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous
eras; today it seems like 'believing' takes precedence over equality."
I am married to a man who has been loyal, works long hours to support our family, and
happens to be a white. I am raising a young man and young woman, and my experience has been
that, although they differ vastly in temperament and aptitude, they a both valuable to
society. The sexism and racism of the Leftist Democrats goes against my conscience and
experience.
get real ,
I think the issue with #MeToo isn't about speaking out on sexual abuse in general, it's about
publically naming, accusing & convicting men of sexual abuse sans law enforcement, &
any legal due process. That's character defamation & slander, not justice.
If women have legitimate grievances they need to go about addressing them the way every
other type of victim does through law enforcement & the courts. Women are adults &
should behave with maturity & prudence. Not expecting special considerations just because
of gender.
Currently, men accused of sexual crimes are named in the media but their accusers are not.
Even when found innocent, that notoriety will haunt the accused men for the rest of their
lives. That seems like a double standard to me.
There absolutely were obstacles for some sexual abuse victims in the past & it could
be difficult to find justice. We had a case like that in our community & it took years to
get a prosecution & conviction. But we've swung way too far in the other direction. Now
men are presumed guilty until proven innocent & they & their families are publically
shamed, hounded, & humiliated.
Women don't need to drag down men in order to find equality.
In justifying her decision
, Collins went to great pains to stress her support for all victims of sexual assault and for
Ford in particular. "Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves
to be heard and treated with respect," she said. "The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It
is needed. And it is long overdue." But, she concluded, "In evaluating any given claim of
misconduct we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and
fairness, tempting though it may be."
Collins is absolutely correct to defend these important principles. The mantra of #MeToo and
the Kavanaugh hearings has been "I believe." But the idea that women should be believed without
question or evidence presents them as naive innocents who never lie or misremember. It holds
them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock back on women's rights.
Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous eras; today it seems like
"believing" takes precedence over equality.
For her cool-headed defense of long-held legal principles, Collins stands accused of
betrayal. She "betrayed the interests of the women and sexual-assault survivors she professed
to support" according to Lisa Ryan at
The Cut .
Diane Russell , an activist for the Democrats, was more specific: she argued that Collins
voted to "betray Maine women and Maine survivors" by ignoring their stories. "There is a
special place in hell for women who cover for rapists," Russell continued. Presumably she has
privileged insight into exactly what happened between Ford and Kavanaugh 36 years ago that
allows her to circumvent trials and juries and find Kavanaugh summarily guilty all by
herself.
Bizarrely, some activists seem to have more loathing for Collins than Kavanaugh. Lawyer and
"social entrepreneur" Kat Calvin tweeted: "Never let
Collins have a moment of peace in public again." This has since been shared well over 33,000
times. The hatred for Collins has even given rise to a crowd-funder
to get her replaced as senator from Maine. A cool $2 million was raised before Collins made her
speech; the site crashed as she was speaking.
Feminist commentators and activists are clearly furious that Collins could " vote against
believing women ." They are nonplussed that she could express support for victims of sexual
assault and yet back Kavanaugh. The only explanation for Collins' volte-face is, we're told,
hypocrisy . But it's perfectly possible to feel sympathy and endeavor to support women who
claim to have been sexually assaulted while at the same time maintaining the important
presumption of innocent until proven guilty. There is no logical reason why women should be
unconditionally believed any more than men. Feminists might not like it but, as Collins argued,
evidence and proof are the basis of justice.
Yet rather than trying to understand the reason for Collins' vote, activists have only
extended the net of hatred further. Over at the New
York Times , Alexis Grenell moves deftly from disdain for Collins to fury at "all the
women in the Republican conference" before eventually focusing her anger on the category of
"white women." White women, Grenell opines, "will defend their privilege to the death." In the
eyes of Grenell, women think and act according to the dictates of their race. There is a "blood
pact between white men and white women," she tells us, though how this ties in with Ford's
whiteness is anyone's guess. Apparently, all white women are "gender traitors" who have "made
standing by the patriarchy a full-time job."
So there we have it. The show trial of Kavanaugh shows us exactly where feminism is heading
in the #MeToo era. Women are not to be considered rational beings equal to men before the law
but as emotional creatures who deserve special treatment. Women's political views are,
apparently, determined by their race. And it's legitimate now to make explicitly sexist and
racist arguments in the pages of respectable national newspapers -- as long as "white women"
are the target.
Today's feminism divides the world into "good" women and "bad" women. Good women suffer,
empathize, and believe other women without question or criticism. Bad women, on the other hand,
raise awkward questions about evidence and principles of justice. As Grenell demands to know,
come November, "Which one of these two women are you?"
"... The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something seriously wrong with you. ..."
On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and
the resentful. Team Resentment is manned -- pun very much intended -- by people who are
predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and
predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white "allies" do their dutiful part). These
teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most
routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.
Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam
Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, "
Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape ," most Americans don't fit into
either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social
media might suggest -- including a general aversion to PC culture.
You don't say. More:
If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of
white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct
clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the
politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.
According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives,
and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are
progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of
Americans who don't belong to either extreme constitute an "exhausted majority." Their
members "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to
be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national
conversation."
Hmm. If one out of four people believe something, are they really "far" out of the American
mainstream? In the report, "Traditional Liberals" and "Passive Liberals" make up 26 percent of
the population. Aren't they part of the mainstream too? Or am I reading this wrong? Here's a
graphic from the "Hidden Tribes" report that shows how they sort us:
How do the authors define these groups? Here:
Anyway, the story goes on to say that r ace and youth are not indicators of openness to PC.
Black Americans are the minority group most accepting of PC, but even then, 75 percent of them
think it's a problem. More:
If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and
education.
While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness,
just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87
percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a
problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.
Political tribe -- as defined by the authors -- is an even better predictor of views on
political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political
correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists
are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a
problem.
Here's the heart of it:
So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally
representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly
educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than
$100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And
while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of
progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives,
progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.
This, a thousand times:
As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:
The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you
discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call
themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something
seriously wrong with you.
So, guess who runs most of the institutions in this country: academia, media, entertainment,
corporations? Educated, rich white liberals (and minorities who come out of those institutions,
and who agree with their PC ideology). They have created a social space in which they lord
their ideology over everybody else, and have intimidated everyone into going along with it, out
of fear of harsh consequences, and stigma, for dissenters.
Mounk points out that it's not that majorities believe racism and bigotry aren't things to
be concerned about. They do! It's that they believe that PC is the wrong way to address those
problems.
If you have the time,
read the whole "Hidden Tribes" report on which Mounk bases his essay. They reveal something
that has actually been brought out by Pew Research studies in the past: that US political
conversation is entirely driven by the extremes, while most people in the middle are more open
to compromise. It's not that most of these people are moderates, are centrists. It's that they
aren't driven by a strong sense of tribalism.
The authors call these "hidden tribes" because they are defined not by race, sex, and the
usual tribal markers, but rather by a shared agreement on how the world works, whether they're
aware of it or not. Where individuals come down on these points generally determines where
they'll come down on hot button political and cultural issues (e.g., immigration,
feminism):
You shouldn't assume that most Americans share the same basic values. As the report
indicates, there are substantive differences among us. It's simply not accurate to blame
tension over these divisions on extremists of the right or the left who exaggerate them. Though
the differences are real, what seems to set the majority-middle apart is their general
unwillingness to push those differences to the breaking point.
I want to point out one aspect of the analysis that means a lot to me, as a religious
conservative. It's on page 81 of the report. Here's a graph recording answers to the question,
"How important is religious faith to you?"
Religion is important to almost two-thirds of Americans. The only tribe in which a majority
finds it unimportant are Progressive Activists. According to the study:
Strong identification with religious belief appears to be a strong tribal marker for the
Devoted and Traditional Conservatives, and an absence of religious belief appears to be a
marker for Progressive Activists.
Guess which tribe runs the culture-making institutions in our society (e.g., major media,
universities, entertainment)?
I am reminded of something one of you readers, a conservative academic, wrote to me once:
that you feel safe because your department is run by traditional liberals, who don't agree with
you, but who value free and open exchange of ideas. You are very worried about what happens
when those people -- who are Baby Boomers -- retire, because the generational cohort behind
them are hardcore left-wing ideologues who do not share the traditional liberal view.
Hollywood has been at the forefront of the political resistance to President Donald Trump,
using awards shows, social media and donations to promote progressive positions on issues
from immigration to gun control.
Now, the entertainment industry is using its star power and creativity to support
down-ballot candidates in the Nov. 6 elections. Down-ballot races are typically state and
local positions that are listed on voting ballots below national posts.
This approach is part of the way Hollywood is rewriting its script for political action
following Trump's shock election in 2016.
I can't blame anyone for advocating for their political beliefs in the public square. But
these are among the most privileged people on the planet. They are Progressive Activists -- and
they are massively out of touch with the rest of the country, though they have massively more
cultural power to define the narrative than their adversaries.
Here's another interesting factoid from the report:
Progressive Activists are unique in seeing the world as a much less dangerous place than
other Americans. For other tribes, the differences are much smaller. On average, 14 percent
of Americans view the world as generally safe and nonthreatening, while among Progressive
Activists almost three times as many people hold this view (40 percent). This figure is
especially striking in light of Progressive Activists' deep pessimism about the direction of
the country (98 percent say it is going in the wrong direction) and their emotions toward the
country (45 percent say they currently feel "very" scared about the country's direction).
Think of the psychology of this! How can they feel that the world is "generally safe and
nonthreatening" while at the same time be "very" scared about the direction of the US? The
answer, I think, is that in their own lives , they feel secure. And why not? Remember
this from Yascha Mounk's essay on this study:
So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally
representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly
educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than
$100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree.
Economically, educationally, and racially, Progressive Activists are the most elite group in
the country.
Look at this amazing factoid:
First, notice that one out of three African Americans think that people are too sensitive
about race, the same percentage of Traditional Liberals who do. A solid majority of Hispanic
Americans believe that, and nearly three out of four Asian Americans believe that. Sixty
percent of Americans overall agree with this viewpoint. Who rejects it overwhelmingly?
Progressive Activists -- the rich, educated white people who control academia and media.
Note well that majorities are not saying that racism isn't a problem (81 percent
agree that we have serious problems with racism), only that there is too much emphasis on it.
Do you get that? They're saying that racism is a serious issue, but it has been
disproportionately emphasized relative to other serious issues. On bread-and-butter issues like
college admissions, Progressive Activists are far, far removed from everybody else, even
Traditional Liberals:
The numbers are similar on gender issues. Progressive Activists are radically far apart from
the views of most Americans. No wonder the media can't understand why everybody doesn't agree
with them that Brett Kavanaugh is a sexist monster.
Finally, the last chapter of the study focuses on what its authors call the "Exhausted
Majority" -- Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged and Moderates:
The four segments in the Exhausted Majority have many differences, but they share four
main attributes:
– They are more ideologically flexible
– They support finding political compromise
– They are fatigued by US politics today
– They feel forgotten in political debate
Importantly, the Traditional Conservatives do not belong to the Exhausted Majority, while
the Traditional Liberals do. The key difference lies in their mood towards the country's
politics. While the Exhausted Majority express disillusionment, frustration, and anger at the
current state of US politics, Traditional Conservatives are far more likely to express
confidence, excitement and optimism. As such, the Traditional Conservatives hold a
meaningfully different emotional disposition towards the country that aligns them more with
the Devoted Conservatives.
That's really interesting. Having read the detailed descriptions of the various tribes, I
fall more into the Traditional Conservative camp, but I am much more pessimistic about the
country's politics than TCs in this study. What accounts for that? Is it:
a) I spend a lot of time looking at the cultural fundamentals and trends, especially
regarding religion, and believe that the optimism of Traditional Conservatives is irrational;
or
b) I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing the mainstream media, including social
media, and therefore overestimate the power and influence of Progressive Activists
I'd say the answer is probably 80 percent a) and 20 percent b). I believe my fellow
Traditional Conservatives (like the Devoted Conservatives to our right) believe that things are
more stable than they actually are.
Anyway, if you have the time, I encourage you to
read the entire report. It's basic point is that neither extreme of left and right speak
for the majority of Americans, though their stridency, and the nature of media to emphasize
conflict, conditions most of us to think that things are far more polarized than they actually
are.
For me, the best news in the entire report is learning how sick and tired most Americans are
of political correctness. It's not that most people believe there aren't serious problems in
the country having to do with race, sex, immigration, and so forth. It's that people are tired
of the Progressive Speech Police stalking around like Saudi imams with sticks in hand, whacking
anyone who fails to observe strict pieties. As Yascha Mounk says in his piece about the
report:
The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue
could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose
editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to
a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership
decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population
when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next
election.
Yes. And -- drums please -- that has a lot to do with how we got Trump.
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered
the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie
Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me
too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right
because she is a woman!
I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first
thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was
appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95
percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.
For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To
regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is
acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically
corrupt politicians in the US.
@utu
You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh
clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the
Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show
that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people
in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to
enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed
from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than
in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this
cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and
root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team
Blue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their
teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value.
Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel
and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't
even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.
Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness
rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski),
however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to
REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they
have not.
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.
I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with
the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife.
In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party
to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their
destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair
chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor
suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.
The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid
social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college
courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer
chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a
man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of
social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.
They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make
the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and
their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they
Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet,
Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let
this happen in America.
They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court
Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no
doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is
shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and
creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he
was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.
The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is
destined to be.
@Ludwig
Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully
defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are
concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will
continue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling.
Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has
surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done
nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity
'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either).
Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia,
China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the
wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been
promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god
damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as
Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to
keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.
@utu
Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a
partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an
over-estimation.).
This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less
than 1% of the population we're talking about.
This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when
the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with
George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of
those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.
Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution
that it is
This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of
Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq
War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing
classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you
absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground
because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and
Obama is.
Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense.
Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for
the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.
@Realist
Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy
America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the
highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades
distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground
economically or stayed static no improvement.
@Jon
Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left'
circus will be We The People.
Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population.
The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use
legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo
jumbo.
Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Because that is precisely how the smear game works.
The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the
defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From
then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than
why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers'
primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of
the smears within them.
If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed
against Corbyn , who unfortunately
fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand. No, the only way to
effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics
and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation,
especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you
do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start
defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.
Carroll Price says:
October 1, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
@Dorian I agree. The me-too crown demanding Brett Kavanagh's head on a platter should have
been shown the door rather than given a worldwide stage from which to spew their hateful
venom.
If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually
suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into
like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.
Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love
identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity
politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood
producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.
Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.
The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they
(i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the
majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly
butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could
get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity,
and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the
ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically
vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet
Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.
The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact
that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means
corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like
trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away
with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of
democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a
mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual
democracy, of, by, and for the people, which is, basically, the ruling classes' worst
nightmare. The best way to avoid this scenario is to keep the working classes ignorant and
confused, and at each other's throats over things like pronouns, white privilege, gender
appropriate bathrooms, and the complexion and genitalia of the virtually interchangeable
puppets the ruling classes allow them to vote for.
The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry
are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks
who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self-worth on
their superiority to the unwashed masses, enjoy spending time with the ruling classes, and
reaping the many benefits of serving them and, while most of them wouldn't personally
disembowel your kids and sell their organs to some dope-addled Saudi trillionaire scion, they
would look the other way while the ruling classes did, and then invent some sort of convoluted
rationalization of why it was necessary, in order to preserve democracy and freedom (or was
some sort of innocent but unfortunate "blunder," which will never, ever, happen again).
The fake Left loves identity politics because they allow them to pretend to be
"revolutionary" and spout all manner of "militant" gibberish while posing absolutely zero
threat to the ruling classes they claim to be fighting. Publishing fake Left "samizdats" (your
donations to which are tax-deductible), sanctimoniously denouncing racism on Twitter, milking
whatever identity politics scandal is making headlines that day, and otherwise sounding like a
slightly edgier version of National Public Radio, are all popular elements of the fake Left
repertoire.
Marching along permitted parade routes, assembling in designated "free speech areas," and
listening to speeches by fake Left celebrities and assorted Democratic Party luminaries, are
also well-loved fake Left activities. For those who feel the need to be even more militant,
pressuring universities to cancel events where potentially "violent" and "oppressive" speech
acts (or physical gestures) might occur, toppling offensive historical monuments, ratting out
people to social media censors, or masking up and beating the crap out of "street Nazis" are
among the available options. All of these activities, by herding potential troublemakers into
fake Left ghettos and wasting their time, both on- and off-line, help to ensure that the ruling
classes, their political puppets, the corporate media, Hollywood, and the rest of the culture
industry can keep most people ignorant and confused.
Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my
God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or
Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and
ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some
other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything
even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a
meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.
According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel,
but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media,
Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think
of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black
crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias?
Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!
See, the thing is, there is no essential difference between your identity
politics-brainwashed liberal and your Swastika-tattooed white supremacist. Both are looking at
the world through the lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or some other type of
"identity." They are looking through this "identity" lens (whichever one it happens to be)
because either they have been conditioned to do so (most likely from the time they were
children) or they have made a conscious choice to do so (after recognizing, and affirming or
rejecting, whatever conditioning they received as children).
Quantum physicists, Sufi fakirs, and certain other esoterics understand what most of us
don't, namely, that there is no such thing as "the Truth," or "Reality," apart from our
perception of it. The world, or "reality," or whatever you want to call it, is more than happy
to transform itself into any imaginable shape and form, based on the lens you are looking at it
through. It's like a trickster in that regard. Look at "reality" through a racist lens, and
everything will make sense according to that logic. Look at it through a social justice lens,
or a Judeo-Christian lens, or a Muslim lens, or a scientific or a Scientologist lens, or a
historical materialist or capitalist lens (it really makes no difference at all) and
abracadabra! A new world is born!
Sadly, most of us never reach the stage in our personal (spiritual?) development where we
are able to make a conscious choice about which lens we want to view the world through. Mostly,
we stick with the lens we were originally issued by our families and societies. Then we spend
the rest of our fleeting lives desperately insisting that our perspective is "the Truth," and
that other perspectives are either "lies" or "errors." The fact that we do this is
unsurprising, as the ruling classes (of whatever society we happened to be born and socialized
into) are intensely invested in issuing everyone a "Weltanschauung lens" that corresponds to
whatever narrative they are telling themselves about why they deserve to be the ruling classes
and we deserve to exist to serve them, fight their wars, pay interest on their loans, not to
mention rent to live on the Earth, which they have claimed as their own and divided up amongst
themselves to exploit and ruin, which they justify with "laws" they invented, which they
enforce with armies, police, and prisons, which they teach us as children to believe is "just
the way life is" but I digress.
So, who doesn't love identity politics? Well, I don't love identity politics. But then I
tend to view political events in the context of enormous, complex systems operating beyond the
level of the individuals and other entities such systems comprise. Thus I've kind of been
keeping an eye on the restructuring of the planet by global capitalism that started in the
early 1990s, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., when global capitalism (not the U.S.A.)
became the first globally hegemonic system in the history of aspiring hegemonic systems.
Now, this system (i.e., capitalism, not the U.S.A), being globally hegemonic, has no
external enemies, so what it's been doing since it became hegemonic is aggressively
destabilizing and restructuring the planet according to its systemic needs (most notably in the
Middle East, but also throughout the rest of the world), both militarily and ideologically.
Along the way, it has encountered some internal resistance, first, from the Islamic
"terrorists," more recently, from the so-called "nationalists" and "populists," none of whom
seem terribly thrilled about being destabilized, restructured, privatized, and debt-enslaved by
global capitalism, not to mention relinquishing what remains of their national sovereignty, and
their cultures, and so on.
I've been writing about this for over
two years , so I am not going to rehash it all in detail here (this essay is already rather
long). The short version is, what we are currently experiencing (i.e., Brexit, Trump, Italy,
Hungary, et cetera, the whole "populist" or "nationalist" phenomenon) is resistance (an
insurgency, if you will) to hegemonic global capitalism, which is, essentially, a
values-decoding machine, which eliminates "traditional" (i.e., despotic) values (e.g.,
religious, cultural, familial, societal, aesthetic, and other such non-market values) and
replaces them with a single value, exchange value, rendering everything a commodity.
The fact that I happen to be opposed to some of those "traditional" values (i.e., racism,
anti-Semitism, oppression of women, homosexuals, and so on) does not change my perception of
the historical moment, or the sociopolitical, sociocultural, and economic forces shaping that
moment. God help me, I believe it might be more useful to attempt to understand those forces
than to go around pointing and shrieking at anyone who doesn't conform to my personal views
like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers .
But that's the lens I choose to look through. Maybe I've got it all assbackwards. Maybe what
is really going on is that Russia "influenced" everyone into voting for Brexit and Donald
Trump, and hypnotized them all with those Facebook ads into hating women, people of color,
transsexuals, and the Jews, of course, and all that other "populist" stuff, because the
Russians hate us for our freedom, and are hell-bent on destroying democracy and establishing
some kind of neo-fascist, misogynist, pseudo-Atwoodian dystopia. Or, I don't know, maybe the
other side is right, and it really is all a conspiracy of Jews transsexual, immigrant Jews of
color, who want to force us all to have late-term abortions and circumcise our kids, or
something.
I wish I could help you sort all that out, but I'm just a lowly political satirist, and not
an expert on identity politics or anything. I'm afraid you'll have to pick a lens through which
to interpret "reality" yourself. But then, you already have, haven't you or are you still
looking through the one that was issued to you?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Along those lines, a female reader of this blog left this comment on a thread about
Alexis
Grenell's shocking New York Times op-ed denouncing "white women" for worrying that
their sons, brothers, and fathers might be falsely accused of rape. Grenell, who is a white
woman, lambasted them over what she calls a "blood pact between white men and white women." My
reader commented
Many white women have, in fact, made a kind of "blood pact" with white men: we call it
"family" in saner times. The expectation that abstract loyalty to any random person who
shares one's gender should override one's loyalty to their actual fathers, brothers,
husbands, and sons (as well as their actual mothers, sisters, and daughters) is profoundly
sad.
With more and more fatherless homes and very small families, I wonder how many women go
through life with no tight, enduring, loving, secure bonds with a father, husband, brother,
or son. Family is where these bonds that transcend individual identity can form. But if your
marriage can be dissolved for no reason, even the most primary bonds are insecure. Without
that, it's just tribe vs. tribe.
It is worth considering that many of these hysterical activists really do despise
the family, and are eager to see families turn on each other over politics. Consider this
tweet, from the senior art critic at New York magazine:
Come gather round people wherever you roam & shun any republican family member you
have. Until this president is gone. You don't need to tell that family member that you are
shunning them. Just stand up for your country very close to home. Make it hurt for both of
you. Rise. Rise
Anyone -- left-wing or right-wing -- who would turn their back on a family member over the
family member's politics is a disgrace. I have family members and good friends with whom I
disagree strongly on politics. Anybody who tries to come between us can go to hell.
This may seem trivial to some. But I canthelp but notice that whenever there is a photo of
one of these kind of protests,at least 1/4 to a third of the protesters are taking "Selfies"
of themselves
Maybe its because im 50 years old. .Maybe im an old fogie . But it really strikes me how
immature and narcissistic most of these protesters seem .
Its like the NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to yesterday. I may disagree with much of
what Paul Krugman writes.But at least he writes like an adult . The NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher
linked to reads like it was written by a 16 year old high school student
Ive long thought that those surrounded by those that they agree with , tend to not be good at
debating. For instance, a liberal that lives in a conservative part of Mississippi, is
probably good at debating.Whereas a liberal tht lives in Berkley CA probably has never had to
learn how to acutaly debate someone
The same goes for conservatives. Mostof the conservatives that I have met in Baltimore
tend to be good at debating.Because they need to be.They cant simply state a conservative
position and just sit back while everyone around them agrees with them
I think that the problem with liberalism nowdays is that a liberal is far more likely to
be surrounded by liberal media and liberal pop culture. To be in a "bubble" a conservative
has to restrict themselves to only watching FoxNews and reading the WSJ.And they pretty much
have to tune out almost all modern American pop culture.And if they go to college, they have
to go to Liberty University
All a liberal has to do in order to be in a bubble is to watch mainstream media and read
mainstream newspapers[like the NYT] and they just have to go to their local college and watch
and listen to mainstream pop culture
It didn't used to be this way.When I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, igrew up in
extremely liberal areas. And the liberals that I knew were very good at discussing politics.
Nowdays the liberals that I know[and there are many in Baltimore] just repeat and giggle
about, some joke that Samantha Bee told about Republicans. The older liberals that I know are
able to discuss politics.But the younger liberals really cant seem to discuss things in any
kind of adult manner. Since they really seem to have never heard any disagreeing
viewpoints
"... Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. ..."
"... This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem." ..."
"... We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties. ..."
Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions.
Harvard University's Yascha Mounk writing for The Atlantic:
"Over the past 12 months, three scholars -- James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter
Boghossian -- wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender
studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable
Sokal Squared doesn't just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of
dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license
discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals.
This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to
redress the "privilege" of white students.
Exhorting college professors to enact forms of "experiential reparations," the paper
suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even BINDING THEM TO THE FLOOR IN
CHAINS
If students protest, educators are told to "take considerable care not to validate
privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged
groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who
oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the
fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege."
In an article for Areo magazine, the authors of the hoax explain their motivation:
"Something has gone wrong in the university -- especially in certain fields within the
humanities.
Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances
has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars
increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their
worldview.
This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has
been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the
three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of
this problem."
We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected
peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural
studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it
is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.
As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields "grievance studies" in
shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail
in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance
studies, which is corrupting academic research.
Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and
sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been
to reboot these conversations.''
To read more, see Areo magazine + "academic grievance studies and the corruption of
scholarship"
President Trump said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of a Democrat
Hoax, and that allegations of sexual assault levied by multiple women were "all made up" and
"fabricated."
In comments made to reporters on the White House driveway, Trump addressed rumors that the
Democrats will investigate and attempt to impeach Kavanaugh if they regain control over the
House or Senate during midterms.
"So, I've been hearing that now they're thinking about impeaching a brilliant jurist -- a
man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax that was set up by the Democrats
using the Democrats' lawyers -- and now they want to impeach him," said Trump.
The President then suggested that the attacks on Kavanaugh will bring conservatives to the
polls for midterms:
"I think it's an insult to the American public," said Trump. "The things they said about him
-- I don't even think he ever heard of the words. It was all made-up. It was fabricated. And
it's a disgrace. And I think it's going to really show you something come November sixth."
"... It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. ..."
What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the
wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get
nailed..."
Aftermath As Prologue
"I believe her!"
Really? Why should anyone believe her?
Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced
something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said
that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine
Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad
imitation of Truman Capote.
I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities
underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last
presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines
is going to blow wide open.
It turns out that the Deep State is a small world.
Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael
Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying
to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury?
What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA,
she just happened to hook up with him.
It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where
her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next
four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the
"sexual assault" circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and
that she worked in the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York under Preet
Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer? Could Dr. Ford have
spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs.
Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean's lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top
lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia
investigations before resigning in February this year -- in fact, he sat in on the notorious
"unsworn" interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!
Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford's previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms
prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week -- as
reported by the The Wall Street Journal -- that she "felt pressured" by Monica McLean and her
representatives to change her story -- that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault,
or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think
that's called suborning perjury.
None of this is trivial and the matter can't possibly rest there. Too much of it has been
unraveled by what remains of the news media. And meanwhile, of course, there is at least one
grand jury listening to testimony from the whole cast-of-characters behind the botched Hillary
investigation and Robert Mueller's ever more dubious-looking Russian collusion inquiry: the
aforementioned Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, et. al. I have a
feeling that these matters are now approaching critical mass with the parallel unraveling of
the Christine Blasey Ford "story."
The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans
over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe
she acted on her own in this shady business. What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ
associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in
the process and they're going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle
is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow
sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled:
Liberals, This is War . Like I've been saying: Civil War Two.
Blasey-Ford happens to work at Palo Alto University, which is the west coast HQ for the
left wing feminist movement in the US. Here's a good video by a woman professor from Canada
that blows the lid off the entire conspiracy:
Nope, the people are so fragmented and full of disinfo and propaganda that they actually
think the other peons are the real problem. While we peons slaughter each other for having
different opinions on the privileged predator class spokespeople, they hop into the private
planes and disappear.
I actually fought in a civil war, the one in the former Yugoslavia. They are like
wildfires that can not be controlled but must burn until the fuel is consumed...
"... At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter. ..."
"... So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites ..."
"... The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise. ..."
"... This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt" ..."
"... In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness. ..."
The constitution was a creation of the elite at the time, the property class. Its mission was to prevent the common folk from
having control. Democracy=mob rule= Bad.
The common folk only had the ability to elect representatives in the house, who in turn would elect Senators. Electors voted
for President and they were appointed by a means chosen by the state legislature , which only in modern times has come to mean
by the popular vote of the common folk. Starting from 1913 it was decided to let the common folk vote for Senator and give the
commonfolk the illusion of Democracy confident they could be controlled with propaganda and taxes (also adopted in 1913 with the
Fed)
At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively
free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the
MOED became a minority voter.
Bernays science of propaganda took off during WWI, Since MOED's made up the most educated class (relative to minorities and
women) up to the 70's this was a big deal for almost 60 years , although not today when miseducation is equal among the different
races, sexes and ethnicities.
So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen
United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates
chosen by the elites
So how do the common folk get control over the federal government? That is a pipe dream and will never happen. The founders
who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today
got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless
and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise.
Pft has a point. If there was ever a time for the people to take the republic into its hands, it may have been
just after the Civil War when the Dems were discredited and the Repubs had a total control of Congress.
This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century.
So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt"
All manner of political office-seekers devoted themselves to getting on the government gravy train, somehow.
The selling of political offices was notorious and the newspaper editors of the time were ashamed of this.
Then there was the Whiskey Ring. The New York Customs House was a major source of corruption lucre.
Then there was vote selling in blocks of as many as 10,000 and the cost of paying those who could do this.
Then there were the kickbacks from the awards of railroad concessions which included large parcels of land.
If there ever was a Golden Age of the United States it must have been when Franklin Roosevelt was President.
karlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"
The only thing us "common folk" can do is work within our personal sphere of influence, and engage who you can, when you can,
and support with any $ you can spare, to support the sites and any local radio stations that broadcast independent thought. (
if you can find any). Pacifica radio, KPFK in LA is a good example. KPFA in the bay area.
Other than another economic crash, I don't believe anything can rouse the pathetic bovine public. Bread and circuses work...
The division of representative power and stake in the political process back at the birth of the US Constitution was as you
say it was. But this wasn't because any existing power had been taken away from anyone. It was simply the state of play back then.
Since that time, we common people have developed a more egalitarian sense of how the representation should be apportioned.
We include former slaves, all ethnic groups and both genders. We exclude animals thus far, although we do have some - very modest
- protections in place.
I think it has been the rise of the socialist impulse among workers that has expanded this egalitarian view, with trade unions
and anti-imperialist revolutions and national struggles. But I'm not a scholar or a historian so I can't add details to my impression.
My point is that since the Framers met, there has been a progressive elevation of our requirements of representative government.
I think some of this also came from the Constitution itself, with its embedded Bill of Rights.
I can't say if this expansion has continued to this day or not. History may show there was a pinnacle that we have now passed,
and entered a decline. I don't know - it's hard to say how we score the Internet in this balance. It's always hard to score the
present age along its timeline. And the future is never here yet, in the present, and can only ever be guessed.
In my view, the dream of popular control of representative government remains entirely possible. I call it an aspiration rather
than a pipe dream, and one worth taking up and handing on through the generations. Current global society may survive in relatively
unbroken line for millennia to come. There's simply no percentage in calling failure at this time.
It may be that better government comes to the United States from the example of the world nations, over the decades and centuries
to come. Maybe the demonstration effect will work on us even when we cannot work on ourselves. We are not the only society of
poor people who want a fair life.
In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative
government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the
predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be
madness.
"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect
it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up
now would be madness."
Here, here! I fully agree with you.
In my opinion, representative government was stronger in the U.S. from the 1930's to the 1970's and Europe after WW2. And as
a result the western world achieved unprecedented prosperity. Since 1980, the U.S. government has been captured by trans-national
elites, who, since the 1990's have also captured much of the political power in the EU.
Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result
of this dictatorship.
Prosperity, and peace, will only return when the dictators are removed and representative government is returned.
"Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result
of this dictatorship."
Exactly!! I feel like the Swedish knight Antonius Block in the movie the 7th Seal. There does not seem any way out of this
evil game by the death dealing rulers.
Love it. But you fad3d at the end. It was Gingrich, not Rodham, who was behind Contract on America, and GHWBush's Fed Bank
group wrote the legislation that would have been Bush's second term 'kinder, gentler' Gramm-Leach-Bliley bayonet up the azs of
the American Dream, as passed by a majority of Congress, and by that point Tripp and Lewinski had already pull-dated Wild Bill.
God, can you imagine being married to that hag Rodham? The purple people-eating lizards of Georgetown and Alexandria. Uurk.
I'm reading a great FDR book, 'Roosevelt and Hopkins', a signed 1st Ed copy by Robert Sherwood, and the only book extant from
my late father's excellent political and war library, after his trophy wife dumped the rest of his library off at Goodwill, lol.
They could have paid for her next booblift, ha, ha, ha.
Anyway, FDR, in my mind, only passed the populist laws that he did because he needed cannon fodder in good fighting shape for
Rothschild's Wars ("3/4ths of WW2 conscripts were medically unfit for duty," the book reports), and because Rothschild's and Queens
Bank of London needed the whole sh*taco bailed out afterward, by creating SS wage-withholding 'Trust Fund' (sic) the Fed then
tapped into, and creating Lend-Lease which let Rothschilds float credit-debt to even a higher level and across the globe. Has
it all been paid off by Germany and Japan yet?
Even Lincoln, jeez, Civil War was never about slavery, it was about finance and taxation and the illegitimate Federal supremacy
over the Republic of States, not unlike the EU today. Lincoln only freed the slaves to use them as cannon fodder and as a fifth
column.
All of these politicians were purple people-eating lizards, except maybe the Kennedy's, and they got ground and pounded like
Conor McGregor, meh?
"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect
it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give
up now would be madness."
Compare to: Sentiments of the Nation:
12º That as the good Law is superior to every man, those dictated by our Congress must be such, that they force constancy and
patriotism, moderate opulence and indigence; and in such a way increase the wages of the poor, improve their habits, moving away
from ignorance, rapine and theft.
13º That the general laws include everyone, without exception of privileged bodies; and that these are only in the use of the
ministry..
14º That in order to dictate a Law, the Meeting of Sages is made, in the possible number, so that it may proceed with more
success and exonerate of some charges that may result.
15. That slavery be banished forever, and the distinction of castes, leaving all the same, and only distinguish one American
from another by vice and virtue.
16º That our Ports be open to friendly foreign nations, but that they do not enter the nation, no matter how friendly they
may be, and there will only be Ports designated for that purpose, prohibiting disembarkation in all others, indicating ten percent.
17º That each one be kept his property, and respect in his House as in a sacred asylum, pointing out penalties to the offenders.
18º That the new legislation does not admit torture.
19º That the Constitutional Law establishes the celebration of December 12th in all Peoples, dedicated to the Patroness of
our Liberty, Most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, entrusting to all Peoples the monthly devotion.
20º That the foreign troops, or of another Kingdom, do not step on our soil, and if it were in aid, they will not without the
Supreme Junta approval.
21º That expeditions are not made outside the limits of the Kingdom, especially overseas, that they are not of this kind yet
rather to spread the faith to our brothers and sisters of the land inside.
22º That the infinity of tributes, breasts and impositions that overwhelm us be removed, and each individual be pointed out
a five percent of seeds and other effects or other equally light weight, that does not oppress so much, as the alcabala, the Tobacconist,
the Tribute and others; because with this slight contribution, and the good administration of the confiscated goods of the enemy,
will be able to take the weight of the War, and pay the fees of employees.
Temple of the Virgen of the Ascencion
Chilpancingo, September 14, 1813.
José Mª Morelos.
23º That also be solemnized on September 16, every year, as the Anniversary day on which the Voice of Independence was raised,
and our Holy Freedom began, because on that day it was in which the lips of the Nation were deployed to claim their rights with
Sword in hand to be heard: always remembering the merit of the great Hero Mr. Don Miguel Hidalgo and his companion Don Ignacio
Allende.
Answers on November 21, 1813. And therefore, these are abolished, always being subject to the opinion of S. [u] A. [alteza]
S. [very eminent]
"... Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state. ..."
"... It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC. ..."
"... All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump. ..."
The Kavanaugh circus was a sad spectacle. His wife was Bush's personal secretary. The
Democrats used the grievance culture because that is all they have. Focusing on abortion and
grievances keeps the public stirred up and diverts attention from some other very serious
very troubling issues that they are cashing out on.
Snopes has worked hard to discredit the allegations that came out on some websites that
are a bit crazy but the information is interesting. She MAY well have been the intake
psychologist for this program. Then again, maybe not. She was doing work at Stanford and the
scope of that work is not fully known.
Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three
letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running
building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office
sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched
out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the
state.
It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that
represented Fusion GPS who was behind
the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC.
While this information came out on some crazy websites SOME of it can be confirmed. Who
else is going to publish this? CNN?
All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The
CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump.
@4 dltravers.. i think your theory has a lot of merit.. "The CIA backed Hillary and the
military backed Trump." whatever is going on in the usa, it seems to be coming apart at the
seams..
Yes, CIA backed HRC since WJC was their boy from the time he attended the school of
foreign service at Georgetown where he was recruited, which is how he got his law degree and
was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. The CIA has either had its own people as POTUS or
controlled them via other means since late November 1963. Trump isn't one of them, thus the
virulent opposition and collaboration to undermine his office. Now it looks like he's under
control, but with Trump you never can tell.
Just talking to myself mostly...
If CIA backed HRC, and US Military backed Trump, and of course the israeli's, (read The
Mossad) also backed Trump, then it means that US Military and The Mossad go hand in hand in
Global Theater Operations, since they didn't (apparently) trusted CIA enough? Or is it that
what we see here is actually just The Mossad doing some moar extortion operations so they get
stuff from the CIA or also the Military transferred over to israeli control?
The Brazil elections if the rightwingers (read fascists) win I bet will be a rainfall for
israel, since, there you go, full country in upheaval, letaves you with great opportunities
to go sell your 5G and your smart dust and let the government keep every dissident in check,
without having to relly on third parties (Google/Apple/Microsoft - the bad guys full of
chinese chips.) that won't play with you along (israel). So they get to have their first own
little country (80 million?) to play with their new tech, and if you count that rgentina is
now back at the IMF, you just add the coiuntries now, from North to South: USA + Brazil +
Argentina, that's almost the entire Americas (minus Mexico and Canada, (but I gues uncle
Trump will make Mexican's comes to their senses with the Wall right?) That's not bad of a
"Market" of a lil country with merely 7 million people like Israel and it's "start up"
companies, right? No wonder Mossad doesn't like CIA now. They (retired vets?) took out too
much of their (could be) market share, right?
On Friday, 5 October, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to end unlimited debate and the
possibility of a filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, through a vote
on "cloture", the gimmick allowing Senators to do a filibuster or stop one, without actually
having to stand up and filibuster.
Shortly after Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy announced on 27 June 2018 that he would be
leaving the court, we discussed here on SST the fact that former president Obama, former
Democratic Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, current minority "leader" Charles Schumer,
and Senate Democrats muscled through a new "interpretation" of the Senate rules that allowed a
vote on cloture to require only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, for federal district
trial court and court of appeals judges, and other presidential appointees; but for supreme
court nominees, 60 votes were still required at that time [1]. This allowed the Obama
administration to push through nominees easier.
But when Donald Trump was elected president, the vacancy on the supreme court after the
death of Antonin Scalia remained. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch. A cloture vote was demanded to
end debate on Gorsuch and to proceed to a final up or down vote. But the vote was not
successful and did not get the required 60 votes. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
then followed up on what he said when the Democrats changed the filibuster rule: "You'll regret
this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think". He did what Harry Reid had done, and
with the slight Republican majority, reinterpreted the Senate filibuster rule to remove the
60-vote requirement for supreme court nominees. The Democrats could hardly effectively protest,
as they had unclean hands from their own prior actions. A second cloture vote was taken on
Gorsuch, and it passed, since only a simple majority was required. On the subsequent final
vote, he was confirmed. Had Obama et. al. not been greedy and arrogant, the monkey would have
been on the back of the Republicans about changing the filibuster rule, and I think it is
likely that McConnell would not have changed it. The dynamic in confirming supreme court
justices appointed by Trump would have been dramatically different.
When the Kavanaugh nomination was made, the Democrats again did not think past the end of
their noses, and tried to block him through a three act play with an accusation of sexual
misconduct made by Christine Blasey Ford. Two more accusations then conveniently showed up,
along with obviously coached "protesters". But with no real supporting evidence, the entire
approach began publicly to implode on itself, and behind the scenes, enough votes were put
together to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment.
"... "'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'" ..."
"... 'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'" ..."
"... Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats. ..."
Four days after he described Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as
a "very credible witness," President Donald Trump could no longer contain his feelings or
constrain his instincts.
With the fate of his Supreme Court nominee in the balance, Trump let his "Make America Great
Again" rally attendees in Mississippi know what he really thought of Ford's testimony.
"'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well,
you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get
home?'"
'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?'
'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I
don't know.'"
By now the Mississippi MAGA crowd was cheering and laughing.
Trump went on: "'What neighborhood was it in?' 'I don't know.' 'Where's the house?' 'I don't
know.' 'Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?' 'I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only
thing I remember.'"
Since that day three years ago when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to talk of
"rapists" crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, few Trump remarks have ignited greater
outrage.
Commentators have declared themselves horrified and sickened that a president would so mock
the testimony of a victim of sexual assault.
The Republican senators who will likely cast the decisive votes on Kavanaugh's confirmation
-- Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- they all decried Trump's mimicry.
Yet, in tossing out the "Catechism of Political Correctness" and treating the character
assassination of Kavanaugh as what it was, a rotten conspiracy to destroy and defeat his
nominee, Trump's instincts were correct, even if they were politically incorrect.
This was not a "job interview" for Kavanaugh.
In a job interview, half the members of the hiring committee are not so instantly hostile to
an applicant that they will conspire to criminalize and crush him to the point of wounding his
family and ruining his reputation.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham charged the Democratic minority with such collusion, he was dead
on. This was a neo-Bolshevik show trial where the defendant was presumed guilty and due process
meant digging up dirt from his school days to smear and break him.
Our cultural elites have declared Trump a poltroon for daring to mock Ford's story of what
happened 36 years ago. Yet, these same elites reacted with delight at Matt Damon's "SNL"
depiction of Kavanaugh's angry and agonized appearance, just 48 hours before.
Is it not hypocritical to laugh uproariously at a comedic depiction of Kavanaugh's anguish,
while demanding quiet respect for the highly suspect and uncorroborated story of Ford?
Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said
Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate
Democrats.
In our widening and deepening cultural-civil war, the Kavanaugh nomination will be seen as a
landmark battle. And Trump's instincts, to treat his Democratic assailants as ideological
enemies, with whom he is in mortal struggle, will be seen as correct.
Consider. In the last half-century, which Supreme Court nominees were the most maligned and
savaged?
Were they not Nixon nominee Clement Haynsworth, chief judge of the 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals, Reagan nominee Robert Bork, Bush 1 nominee Clarence Thomas, and Trump nominee Brett
Kavanaugh, the last three all judges on the nation's second-highest court, the District of
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals?
Is it a coincidence that all four were Republican appointees, all four were judicial
conservatives, and all four were gutted on the grounds of philosophy or character?
Is it a coincidence that Nixon in Watergate, Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, and now Trump
in Russiagate, were all targets of partisan campaigns to impeach and remove them from
office?
Consider what happened to decent Gerald Ford who came into the oval office in 1974,
preaching "the politics of compromise and consensus."
To bring the country together after Watergate, Ford pardoned President Nixon. For that act
of magnanimity, he was torn to pieces by a Beltway elite that had been denied its anticipated
pleasure of seeing Nixon prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison.
Trump is president because he gets it. He understands what this Beltway elite are all about
-- the discrediting of his victory as a product of criminal collusion with Russia and his
resignation or removal in disgrace. And the "base" that comes to these rallies to cheer him on,
they get it, too.
Since Reagan's time, there are few conservatives who have not been called one or more of the
names in Hillary Clinton's litany of devils, her "basket of deplorables" -- racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, irredeemable.
The battle over Kavanaugh's nomination, and the disparagement of the Republicans who have
stood strongest by the judge, seems to have awakened even the most congenial to the new
political reality.
We are all deplorables now.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the recent book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this
piece, has been given a pass by all sides. She had the Ford accusations in hand for weeks,
but sat on them. She could have passed them on to the FBI much earlier, and there would have
been adequate time for a thorough, professional, credible investigation of the accusations.
Perhaps that investigation would have been as inconclusive as the one that was ultimately
done. But it would have been done in an unhurried, and dignified manner. Nobody need have
been publicly humiliated. Nobody need have been dragged into Congress to testify reluctantly,
in public, about a painful episode in her life. And, more importantly, the investigation,
having been done in the normal course of background investigation, would have had
credibility–nobody would have called it a whitewash. And the resulting confirmation, or
not, of Kavanaugh would have ultimately been accepted by most people as legitimate.
Feinstein had the ability to make that happen, but she chose instead to sit on this until
the last minute when, surely she knew, it would unleash a sh**storm.
Her excuse that she was protecting Ford's privacy holds no water at all. A regular FBI
investigation could have been conducted discretely: they know how to keep things confidential
when they want to. Moreover, take a look at Feinstein's abysmal voting record on
surveillance: she doesn't respect anybody's privacy, ever.
Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I'm certainly voting for
her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.
I think that from the very beginning this Court Nomination has been about the midterm
election. The Democrats never really expected to be bale to stop Kavvanaugh.But they figured
that they could use anger against him in order to get out their "base" in November
In the end, both parties will probably get their "Base" out to vote.But there is going to
be a lot of wrecked human lives left behind because of this sad,sordid battle
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of
innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by
Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged
multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and
simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into
the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of
innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night
– or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations
fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these
charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.
With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of
the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine
justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush
and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have
been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter
of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on
uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the
confirmation process.
From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his
nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer
no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic
Party has abandoned as a political issue.
In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic
Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's
nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally
reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:
"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates
to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the
Times wrote.
The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at
by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to
defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh
had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the
Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination
was blocked by the Republicans.
Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one
another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from
an opinion written by the other only once.
In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans
secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new
"narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate
to recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism
and worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no
longer can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying
to compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA
population, including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of
living. They see exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously
supported Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no
political party that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
"ph" is one of the more subtle Concern Trolls I've seen, I'll give them that.
Reactionaries need to be more afraid that their relentlessly tightening grip on every
single lever of power will lead inexorably to the most bloodthirsty correction in human
history. It's not something anyone would wish for, but what's the realistic alternative?
American elites are just too stupid to enact the kind of sophisticated authoritarian controls
that might stave off total collapse.
As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter
failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to
disqualify him. Instead they used the fake
grievance culture
against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood
(vid, recommended).
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the
Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive
theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees
that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the
president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the
Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17
years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year
old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.
Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a
crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who
along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and
then castrated and fed to swine.
A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be
allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court
nominee's reputation was squandered.
There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the
country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch
powers and the protection of US civil liberty. Important books, such as Charlie Savage's
Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle
that the president is accountable under law. Can the executive branch torture despite domestic
and international laws against torture? Can the executive branch spy on citizens without
warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary? Can the
executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US
Constitution's prohibition? Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of
law, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law
professor John Yoo say "yes the president can."
Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled
presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.
And it wasn't just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progresive/left which has
discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by
the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize
and was not fired as a male would have been.
There is now a "funding platform" endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims
to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the
scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are
losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which
everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump's
capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is
being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States
dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.
To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let's assume that the vague,
unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let's assume
that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn't she raped? I
suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The
accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused
assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available.
Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go.
How is this a serious sexual offense?
Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the
enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole
or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama,
and Trump regimes?
There has been no accountability for these obvious and undeniable crimes. Why are not
feminists and presidents of Catholic Universities such as Georgetown and Catholic University in
Washington, and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US media, and
the liberal/progressive/left websites concerned about real crimes instead of make-believe ones?
What has happened to our country that nothing that really matters ever becomes part of public
notice?
US administrations have not only murdered, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated millions of
totally innocent human beings, but also the evil and corrupt US government, protected by the
presstitute media, which is devoid of character and integrity, has tortured in violation of
United States law hundreds of innocents sold to it under the US bounty system in Afghanistan,
when the Cheney-Bush regime desperately needed "terrorists" to justify its war based on nothing
but its lies.
All sorts of totally innocent people were tortured by sadistic US government personnel who
delighted in making people under their power suffer. These were unprotected people picked up by
war lords in response to Washington's offer of a bounty for "terrorists" and sold to the
Americans. The victims included aid workers, traveling salesmen, unprotected visitors, and
others who lacked protection from being misrepresented as "terrorists" in order to be sold for
$5,000 so that Dick Cheney and the criminal Zionist neocons would have some "terrorists" to
show to justify their war crime.
ORDER IT NOW
The utterly corrupt US media was very reticent about telling Americans that close to 100% of
the "world's most dangerous terrorists," in the words of the criminal US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, were released as innocent of all
With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the
financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices
will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald
Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by
presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of
torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on
uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the
confirmation process.
From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his
nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no
principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has
abandoned as a political issue.
In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the
Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's
nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary
justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:
"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose
from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times
wrote.
The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by
Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend
her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a
voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party
attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the
Republicans.
Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's
opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion
written by the other only once.
In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured
the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative"
leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.
What's clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence.
There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result
of being wrongfully accused.
The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue
reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual
assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the
Home Office
suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected
to be false.
Studies
carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.
I come across information about connection of Kavanauch to Vince Foster before but this is
probably the most complete text of what can be called Internet rumor. The suicide has
nevertheless continued to fuel speculation: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made news in 2016 when he remarked
in an interview with the Washington Post that Foster's death was
"very fishy", and added "I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they
think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair."
Notable quotes:
"... Praised *dissent* in Roe ..."
"... Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare ..."
"... Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants ..."
"... Opposes net neutrality ..."
"... Opposes consumer bureau ..."
"... Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional ..."
"... -- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018 ..."
"... " According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life -- without a warrant" ..."
"... " According to his wife , security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen"" ..."
"... color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply. ..."
"... "Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy" ..."
"... A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald's Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire. ..."
Both sides seem to be interested in the truth , only in so far as it serves their
respective political agenda's. Nothing more.
I was not particularly impressed with the testimony from either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr.
Ford.
I thought the Judge was too angry , whining, and evasive, when he could have been much
more precise and pointed in his responses. I was not a big fan of the "calendar"story (true
or not) nor his responses to an FBI investigation.
"... The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria. ..."
The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and
hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem
of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria.
... ... ...
(SEN. SHELDON) WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club
reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?
KAVANAUGH : Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school.
Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College,
got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.
... ... ...
In earlier testimony in September, Kavanaugh appeared the model of judicial restraint and
non-partisanship. On Thursday he dropped all the pretenses.
" This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit," he
said, "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear
that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and
millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
" This is a circus," Kavanaugh said. "The consequences will extend long past my
nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades." He then issued what can only be
seen as a threat: "And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early
2000s, what goes around comes around."
The judge's outburst unleashed an attack from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sen. Diane
Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the opposition party.
" I hope the American people can see through this sham," Graham screamed.
"This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap If
you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in
politics."
... ... ...
Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, said :
" Contrary to the mantra that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have it in
for Kavanaugh, they've largely let him off the hook on a number of critical issues, instead
favoring theatrics."
"While there's substantial attention being paid to the serious charges of sexual assault
by Kavanaugh, there's been very little note that he is a putative war criminal.
Specifically, recently released documents show that while Kavanaugh worked for the George
W. Bush administration, one of the people he attempted to put on the judiciary was John
Yoo, who authored many of the justifications for torture that came out of the Bush
administration."
Kavanaugh's career as a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of
corporations, the security state, and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial.
The hearings could have provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of
torture, mass spying, and the domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had
an important role in each of these.
Sifting – I read it, and it was very interesting indeed. Ms. Ford needs to be
investigated. She has yet to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee her therapist
notes and the information they wanted re her polygraph test.
Her former boyfriend of six years has said that she was never claustrophobic, was not
afraid of tight spaces, flew often, even on small planes, he witnesssed her help her friend
prepare for a polygraph test with the FBI, and, although the reporter did not want to talk
about it, it appears that her sexual relationships were not hampered by this alleged
Kavanaugh groping.
Sounds like her FBI friend may have helped draft the letter to Senator Feinstein. Many
questions to be answered by Ms. Ford.
irina , October 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm
I found the 'flying around the Hawai'ian Islands in a propeller plane' to be
rather telling. This activity could probably be easily corroborated by family
or friends or even old postcards, receipts, etc. If anything is designed to
make a person feel 'trapped' (in more ways than one), a prop plane ranks
right up there. Her 'fear of flying' (interesting reference to Erica Jong as well !)
seems to me to be extremely selective.
EVERYONE'S behavior during this Kavanaugh/Ford circus was deplorable. Made for a nice
distraction though didn't it. Christine Blasey Ford deserves an award for her performance,
because that's all it was – acting. She's a disgrace to all women who have 'really'
been raped, many violently, including myself. And we certainly don't reach out 36 years
later to profit from our traumatic experience. Gofundme: Help Christine Blasey Ford
$528,475 raised of $150,000. Donald Trump and our entire Government is a joke, a laughing
stock for the entire world to see. It doesn't get much more disgusting than this. Oh but
wait, it will.
robjira , October 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm
As was pointed out in this article (and thanks to Mr. Lauria for re-emphasising the
point), Kavanaugh already had plenty of factors against his suitability for the Supreme
Court; mainly his being an enthusiastic war monger and an accessory to war crimes (not to
mention the appearance of judicial corruption). Rather than focusing on these salient
issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display. It is distressing that
otherwise insightful posters to these boards are getting caught up in the partisan theatre
which, once again, has proven to be highly effective in keeping the citizenry divided
against itself while the usual criminals continue to laugh our collective way to either
thermonuclear or ecological apocalypse.
xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Bridget , October 4, 2018 at 12:51 am
"Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on
display."
That's because the Democrats are equally guilty of war crimes and war mongering. There's
no partisanship when it comes to grinding under the corporate boot.
Why is it that the Republicans aren't shouting about Ukraine's collusion with the DNC to
benefit Hillary Clinton? [And they did, succeeding in ruining Manafort, and birthing the
Trump/Russia narrative.] Could it be that the Republicans are just as eager to demonize
Russia, that they need an enemy to justify their war economy? Trump is expendable. Their real
target is Putin. They'd like to replace him with Khodarkovsky so they can once more rape
Russia as they did in the 1990's.
Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are stepping up efforts to challenge Christine Blasey
Ford's credibility by confronting her with a sworn statement from a former boyfriend who took
issue with a number of assertions she made during testimony before the Judiciary Committee
last week.
The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a
friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath.
Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford,
was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was
looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," the man said in
the statement. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped
McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."
He added that she never told him about a violent encounter with Judge Kavanaugh. "It
strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship," Mr. Merrick told the newspaper. "But
I would never try to discredit what she says or what she believes." "During our time dating,
Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault,
harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
Mr. Merrick took issue with Dr. Blasey's professed fear of flying and of confined spaces,
noting that they once traveled around the Hawaiian islands in a propeller plane. "Dr. Ford
never indicated a fear of flying," he wrote. "To the best of my recollection Dr. Ford never
expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit."
I wonder if the Toxic Cloud State (aka deep state) couldn't find anything relevant against
the nominee in the 10+ years of private comm data they have on him (and on all of us), or do
they favor him, despite being a Trump nominee, because of his not caring about the 4th
Amendment?
Something to think about.
Brian , October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm
You want something to think about ? If there's nothing damming about this nominee, why did
the committee withhold 100,000 pages of information about him ? Or why you support a nominee
for the highest court in the land who lies at the drop of a hat (2 that can be proven with
his last conformation hearing) ?
xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:30 pm
Here's what I think – that this is an attempt to destroy someone with an accusation
– it's about the power to do that.
If he can proven to have lied in his last confirmation hearing, then why isn't that what
they're using to defeat him, instead of an unsupported accusation from 35 yrs ago. There's
good reason to believe this accusation is part of a well planned conspiracy and is full of
holes.
I think his lack of support of the 4th amendment is itself a good enough reason to reject
his nomination instead of this feminist liberal attempt to destroy someone with an
accusation.
I think there's EVIDENCE plainly available to defeat him. Defeating him on the basis of an
accusation is what they're trying because that suits what this really about – the power
to destroy with an emotionalized accusation. That's power that undermine the law, politics,
everyday ethical behavior and normal humn relationships.
Rob , October 3, 2018 at 7:12 pm
That about sums it up. We're making fools of ourselves to the world.
Smear, malign, ridicule a man, then when he succumbs emotionally smear him for not being
able to control his emotions. Not a bad strategy. Attacking him because of his performance,
even as a teenager for goodness sake, and finding that was likely to fail, the enemies of
what they think he represents have attacked his emotional stability.
Having said that, I think Cavanaugh could have used some coaching before he rightly
attacked his accusers on the Committee. He. being human, I can sympathize with his attack but
his attackers are a cold and cunning lot and they finally found something they could use to
do what they wanted, to keep a Trump nominee off the Court.
That Trump will be willing to throw him under the bus is not beyond imagining.
As to Ms. Ford, however useful she was, she will suffer from the continuing glare of the
spotlight as the inconsistencies in her story unravel and her personal life is dissected over
and over.
If she is instrumental in keeping Cavanaugh off the Court, she will have proved quite
useful to those who went after Cavanaugh. That she is also a victim means little to the
scoundrels that used her.
JoeSixPack , October 3, 2018 at 11:38 am
"That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her."
Excellent point. Neither Democrats nor Republicans care. This is all political theater. No
one is interested in the truth.
Trump is a huge middle finger to the entire system especially the GOP and Bush cabal..The
more outrageous he was the better they liked it.My guess.
Lucius Patrick , October 3, 2018 at 10:54 am
Yes, the great Obama, who bombed more countries and dropped more bombs, than Bush and
Cheney; who sold more military weapons to foreign countries than any president in history.
Who backed an illegal in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War. That Obama?
Everybody needs to call the republican and democrat senators of your state and tell them
not to
confirm Bret Kavenaugh based on his opinion on the record that bulk NSA spying is not a
violation of the 4th Amendment. That makes him a traitor who does not uphold the
Constitution. This dog and pony show is a study in distraction. A 2015 Pew research study
found the majority of Americans, Republican, Democrat and Independent voters, oppose NSA bulk
spying.
You do know the architects for those crimes now work for MSNBC and CNN? .they are
democrats new hero's?
CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate. Fire him
Video for brennan lies
? 1:34 https://www.theguardian.com/
/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-sen
Jul 31, 2014
"The facts will come out," Brennan told NBC News in March after apologizes even though he's
not sorry, who
James Clapper Just Lied Again About His Previous Lies About NSA
Video for clapper lies
? 9:28
thefederalist.com/ /james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous
May 22, 2018 – Uploaded by The View
In an interview with the ladies of 'The View' James Clapper told another lie about his
previous lies about
Knomore , October 2, 2018 at 10:19 pm
What we've learned in these days is that it does not matter one whit if what you charge is
false; the mainstream media, in league with the Democrat Party, have mastered this to
perfection. No: What matters is lobbing something -- filth works best because it sticks best
-- at someone, especially if the latter person is someone you want to discredit in some way
-- any way -- possible.
I'm having a large problem with Lauria's article, admit I did not read past the first
paragraph. My excuse is that we are all on emotional overload in the aftermath of Ford's
juvenile presentation before the Judiciary Committee. What most of us suspected at the
time–that these were false charges–was largely substantiated first by what we
heard and then by Ms. Mitchell, the sex abuse professional who interviewed Ford. Witnessing
the Democrats, Feinstein especially, and then the dispassionate Kamala H., smile beseechingly
while encouraging this preposterous display left yet more funky smells in the room.
Now we are asked to forget all that and engage in a new game: This one is called Double
jeopardy? Triple jeopardy ? It goes like this:
You take a baseball bat and slam someone over the head with it as hard as you can. Next
step is to stand there and critique that person from every angle imaginable, but mostly for
having the audacity to stand up and try to defend himself.
Shame on all of us.
JR_Leonardi , October 2, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I shall be amazed if the censor permits this comment to post.
Joe Lauria does not deserve to be the Editor of the journal Robert Parry established and,
for years, edited honorably and professionally.
Joe Lauria disgraces Consortium News with his part-fraudulent, all toxic propaganda
"article" that clashes with near-all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (rather than the baseless,
thoroughly discredited accusations and the vile-politics-engendered "belief" of the
Democrat-suborned false accusations).
One must wonder whether her, Lauria, would feel and express rage and show tears were HE
the object of vicious, fraudulent character-assassination like that suffered by Judge
Kavanaugh.
I contemn Joe Lauria as I contemned Joe McCarthy and contemn now the Democrat Party's
members of Congress and the Clintonian DNC.
Joe Lauria needs to resign his Editorship.
exiled off mainstreet , October 4, 2018 at 4:21 am
Lauria's knowledge of Kavanaugh's real historic role explains why he finds the baseless
allegations against him believable. One has to examine his entire record, which is admirable,
rather than going to the mattresses because he makes a mistake here. The fact is, Kavanaugh
is a disgrace for reasons other than the ones the democrats are proferring because as an
integral part of a corrupt militarist imperialist power structure intent on continuing their
total domination of everything, they don't want to deal with the real failings of Kavanaugh
as a corrupt opponent of the rule of law. I agree that it is unfortunate that Lauria accepts
this largely debunked story influenced by his knowledge of unrelated worse stories that are
provable.
"Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S.
military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in
the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of
his "victory tour" in December 2016, Trump vowed,
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we
shouldn't
be involved with." Instead of investing in wars, he said, he wouldinvest in rebuilding
America's crumbling infrastructure."
"Trump retorted angrily that the generals were "the architects of this mess" and that they
have were "making it worse," by asking him to add more troops to "something I don't believe
in."
Then Trump folded his arms and declared, "I want to get out. And you're telling me the
answeris to get deeper in."
Jean, you make a good point that Trump's taking down the American Empire, but not as
you've envisioned it? Trump's Trade Wars & Financial terrorism in the form of Tarriffs
& Sanctions are forcing other Nations to consolidate & start the process of the
"dedollarisation" of their economies to transition away from the US Dollar & it's removal
as the Worlds reserve currency! Alternatives to the US Swift Banking system are well on the
way, further isolating the USA's role in punishing Nations through financial & economic
warfare via the Banking system! Once this happens, the entire "ponzi scheme" of the most
indebted Nation on Earth will collapse in on itself like a Black hole! And Trump is
accelerating this demise of America as a Hegemonic Empire! And for your information & in
direct contradiction of his campaign promises,Trump is not withdrawing America from meddling
in the Middle East, he's appeasing the Deepstate & outsourcing this Foreign Policy of
Regime change & Resources theft of other Countries, to Warmongers like Mattis &
Pompeo who are maintaining the status quo of the US as a unwanted, Foreign Invader by hanging
on in Afghanistan; Iraq & Syria, like a limpett crab attaching itself to a rock! Trump is
unable to extricate the US because the US cant't or won't face the reality, that they have
achieved nothing, despite wasting trillions of dollars of warmongering with zero results to
show for the horrendous cost of the invasions! So they will remain over there, till hell
freezes over, as a face saving measure to avoid the inevitable humiliation of defeat like in
Vietnam, knowing that the endless Wars conducted by them has been a utter, catastrophic
disaster caused by arrogance, ignorance & supreme hubris by a out of control, lawless
Rogue Nation!
"Whataboutism" is a call out of hypocrisy and was first used by a poor Carpenter who said
to "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the
speck out of your brother's eye."
We wouldnt even have Trump if not for Hillary.
rosemerry , October 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm
All this "evidence" business is interesting when we observe that since March, the USA
media and government has accepted the word of UK PM Theresa May that the Russians have
poisoned two Salisbury residents with novichok under the orders of Vladimir Putin himself. NO
evidence of any kind has been produced, the EU and NATO gang were called in, over 100
diplomats were expelled and the Russians had no right of reply at all, and the whole saga
continues. These days, who cares about evidence?
In this case, there is abundance evidence over thirty years that Kavanaugh is "a corporation
masquerading as a judge", to use Ralph Nader's words. He cares not at all for workers,
environment, poor people, ordinary citizens. Find a real candidate, if any come forward.
Cratylus , October 2, 2018 at 4:58 pm
There are good reasons for opposing Kavanaugh – and they were obvious to begin with.
Lauria and others have summarized them nicely.
BUT with all those things known, he was on his way to confirmation. The lesson is that the
Elite, Dems and GOP, are just fine with Kavanaugh. If it were a Dem essentially like him the
voting would be Partisan, just the other way.
Some would prefer a woman but they had their day in approving Gina Haspel. No big fight
was involved; and we know what she has done dwarfs even the worst accusations against
Kavanaugh.
Then the last minute accusations, and everyone got interested. There are many serious
issues here – sexual assault being one of them as Lauria points out. But they are
unproven and alleged against a 17 year old. So the discussion shifted to temperament and
respect for Senators. Do they deserve respect? I do not think so. And now on to drinking
habits of the high school and college boy. Down, down, down.
What is motivating 99% of the people glued to this issue? It is Partisan Identity Politics
– in fact worse, it is Tabloid Identity Politics. Meanwhile tensions are soaring on the
Russian border, in Middle East and in the South China Sea; mass incarceration stares us in
the face; health care degenerates ever further -and we have to debate Kavanaugh's alcoholism
and "temperament." What a sad excuse for real political discussion. In fact I find I am
getting annoyed at myself for even weighing in on this. I
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:44 pm
Exactly. We are now reading in the 'papers of record' articles which not long ago
would have appeared in supermarket checkout tabloids. But since they are in
the Big Papers, they now have an aura of authenticity lacking in tabloid spreads.
It's practically impossible to find useful information on any topic in the Big Papers.
Deltaeus , October 2, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our
civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.
Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe
can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that.
Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological
reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just
some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see
his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone
can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with
this article.
Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you
can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you
will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised
idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be
a shame.
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.
For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's
child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by
her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only
imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this
situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize
to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he
started strongly resembling his dad (her son).
False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.
Hans Zandvliet , October 2, 2018 at 4:06 pm
I think the whole Kavanaugh back-and-forth-mud-slinging excersize is just an irrelevant
side-show to distract us from what really matters.
Justice in the USA is already dead; they only forgot to burry the corpse.
So why fighting over it? That;s the point: it's all a distraction from the twin-brother of
"Justice", called "Democracy" who's on life support, too. And by fighting over the already
dead corpse of Justice, the Deep State can let the death of Democracy go unnoticed.
In fact, I believe the present USA government system is way beyond repair. Corporate
corruption has taken over all government institutions, so there are no institutional
proceedings left to fight this corrupt system. The only way left is a revolution to overthrow
the corrupt system and start anew.
It will not be pleasant, but that's the ride the USA has embarked on.
GofSMQ , October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm
I believed Kavanaugh, did not believe Ford. Her fake crying reminded me of Susan Smith. If
no woman had ever lied and made false accusations about a man Lauria might have ground to
stand on, but sadly it happens, and thus no human being should be automatically given
credibility over someone else simply because of their gender, race, or other immutable
characteristics.
That said, Kavanaugh is unqualified due to his involvement with the Federalist Society,
Starr, and the Bush/Cheney regime. His background shows he is a threat to Constitutional and
natural rights. IMO He is as partisan as the people who hope to destroy him.
Joe Tedesky , October 2, 2018 at 12:44 pm
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers give a blow by blow review of Judge Kavanaugh's partisan
career.
Here is a
list of some of the serious allegations about Brett Kavanaugh which have nothing to do
with identity politics. When are we going to publicly discuss these issues?
Advocating torture, aiding war criminals, Big Brother-level surveillance the real issues
go far beyond whether or not Brett liked to party and drink beer and get aggressive in high
school. He's basically a henchman for Bush and will be one for Trump, and far-right
authoritarians for years to come.
This is the real problem with Brett Kavanaugh. Why do the Democrats make it all about He
Said v She Said identity politics? Is the Democratic party more concerned about firing up the
masses for the coming midterm elections than about Kavanaugh's record of assisting
authoritarianism? Certainly looks this way
Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 am
As I said in the McGovern thread:
The reason for that is simple: Democrats have no power to stop Kavanaugh's appointment.
That depends entirely on getting a couple Republicans to vote No, and they would not be
impressed by the lines of argument you (and others) have suggested.
Oh, I think the answer is clear and simple. The Democratic party is in favor of
authoritarian imperialism just as much as the Republican party is, and I think this whole
circus is a dog and pony show to distract everyone from the fact everyone in the show is a
criminal with skeletons. Happy Halloween!
Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Well, the difference between the parties is the that the Democrats pretend to opposed to
the Plutocracy, while the Republicans brag about promoting the Plutocracy. That is why the
Dems know it is useless, when the Repubs are in power, to oppose Kavanaugh on the grounds of
his being wholly owned.
Stumpy , October 3, 2018 at 3:28 am
You nailed it. Further, the bonus comes in when the Kavanaugh appointment enrages the
groundswell of #metoo assaultees into a even greater force of male career destruction at the
hands of vengeful goddesses.
The Democrats aren't really Resisting. They are playing the identity politics. It's the
only thing they stand for that's different from the Republicans. Here are examples of their
happiness with authoritarianism and imperialism. They even like it when Trump does it.:
If Justice Kavanaugh had his way, mass collections of Americans' private data would be
routine in spite of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
"The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the
sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored..."
Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the
violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human
rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not
interested in such trifles.
It is interesting that the name "Dick Cheney the Traitor" is gradually getting a name
recognition on a par with Goebbels & Mengele.. What a miserable subhuman being Dick Cheney
is.
You might be interested in what over 2400 professors of law had to say to their Senators as
to why Kavanaugh's unfit as a judge at any judiciary
level . Not "trifiles" but foundations.
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a
person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma"
from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc)
stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.
So does alcohol.
Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high
school and in college?
"... Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened. ..."
"... So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ..."
A former FBI agent and lifelong friend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford allegedly
pressured a woman to change her statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by
Kavanaugh in 1982, reports the
Wall
Street Journal
.
Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI
investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate
Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that
she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had
never happened.
The
Journal
also reports that after the FBI sent their initial report on the Kavanaugh
allegations to the White House,
they sent the White House and Senate an additional package
of information which included text messages from McLean to Keyser
.
McLean's lawyer, David Laufman, categorically denied that his client pressured Keyser, saying in
a statement: "Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser's
account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh
is absolutely false."
Ms. Keyser's lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that
she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh
, whom she
said she didn't know.
That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she
believed Dr. Ford
. On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms.
Keyser's attorney sent a letter to the panel saying
his client wasn't refuting Dr. Ford's account and that she believed it but couldn't corroborate
it.
-
WSJ
Keyser's admission to the FBI - which is subject to perjury laws - may influence the Senate's
upcoming confirmation debates. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
said that he found the most
significant material in the FBI report to be statements from people close to Ford who wanted to
corroborate her account and were "sympathetic in wishing they could, but they could not."
In his testimony last week, Judge Kavanaugh sought to use Ms. Keyser's initial statement to
undercut his accuser. "
Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted
by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers
," he
said. "
Refuted
."
Two days later, Ms. Keyser's lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Ms.
Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes
Dr. Ford's account." Mr. Walsh added: "However,
the simple and unchangeable truth is
that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.
" -
WSJ
In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford claimed she never told
Keyser about the assault, saying "She didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the
event and I did not share it with her," and adding that she didn't "expect" that Keyser would
remember the "very unremarkable party."
"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and
getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take
care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et
cetera." said Ford.
About that polygraph
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing
letter to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence
related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took,
after
her ex-boyfriend of six years
refuted statements she made
under oath last week.
Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because
the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr.
Ford's, stating that
he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph
examinations.
When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or
advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph,
Dr. Ford replied, "Never."
This
statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."
McLean issued a Wednesday statement rejecting the ex-boyfriend's claims that she was coached on
how to take a polygraph test.
A closer look at McLean
Enjoying the tastes are In back (l-r) Kelly Devine and Nuh Tekmen. In front,
Monica
McLean
, Karen Sposato, Catherine Hester, Sen. Ernie Lopez, R-Lewes, and Jennifer Burton.
BY DENY HOWETH
An intriguing analysis by "Sundance" of the
Conservative
Treehouse
lays out several curious items for consideration.
First, McLean signed a letter from members of the Holton-Arms class of 1984 supporting Ford's
claim.
Next, we look at McLean's career:
Monica Lee McLean was admitted to the California Bar in 1992, the same year Ms Ford's
boyfriend stated he began a six-year relationship with her best friend
. The address
for the current inactive California Law License is now listed as *"Rehoboth Beach, DE". [*Note*
remember this, it becomes more relevant later.] -
Conservative
Treehouse
Sundance notes that "Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the
Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various
reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI." and that "
After 2003, Ms.
Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field
Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara
:"
Here's where things get really interesting:
Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they
have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as
"roommates" in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former
boyfriend of six years.
Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential
election.
Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
; which
aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.
Now,
where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the
letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh
?
[Transcript]
MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the -- July 30th of
this year.
MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?
FORD: I did.
MITCHELL: And I -- since it's dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?
FORD: I believe so. I -- it sounds right.
I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time
.
I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed
MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?
FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes
sense, because I wrote it from there.
MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate? FORD: I'll take a minute to read it.
So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long
BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE .
Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. -
Conservative
Treehouse
Thus, it appears that Blasey Ford was with McLean for four days leading up to the actual writing
of the letter, from July 26th to July 30th.
Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms.
McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former
friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?
Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael
Bromwich, begin to make more sense?
Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a
different meaning or make more sense, now?
Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE .. could it be that Mrs.
McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to
grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?
-
Conservative
Treehouse
Were Ford and McLean working together to take out Kavanaugh?
In September we reported that an audio recording purportedly from a July conference call
suggests that Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh wasn't simply a reluctant claim that Diane Feinstein sat on until the 11th hour.
The recording features
Ricki Seidman
-
a former Clinton and Obama White House official and Democratic operative who advised Anita Hill
during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and who was revealed on Thursday as an adviser to Ford by
Politico
.
Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of
sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers,
is being advised by Democratic
operative Ricki Seidman
.
Seidman, a senior principal at TSD Communications, in the past worked as an investigator for
Sen. Ted Kennedy, and was involved with Anita Hill's decision to testify against Supreme Court
Nominee Clarence Thomas. -
Politico
"While I think at the outset, looking at the numbers in the Senate, it's not extremely likely
that the nominee can be defeated," says Seidman. "I would absolutely withhold judgement as the
process goes on. I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance."
What's more, the recording makes clear that
even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Democrats
can use the doubt cast over him during midterms.
"Over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it's
possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee...
whether or not it
ultimately defeats the nominee, it will help people understand why it's so important that they vote
and the deeper principles that are involved in it.
"
Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist
somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.
Granted, we don't know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the
Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That's because, well, she must never be questioned.
Questioning the left's latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine
Republicans blindly obey.
I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the "recovered
memory ruse," in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine
Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.
Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships -- one in law, the other in psychology --
had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator,
a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of
the Crown's attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in
therapy.
I attended. I was awed.
Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her
research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with
some suggestions.
"A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of
boredom, impatience or fascination" -- these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the
malleable human mind.
Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of
traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed:
"Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them."
Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that
has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.
Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is
without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof
for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely
on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.
Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?
Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. "As time goes by,"
writes Loftus in her seminal book, "The Myth of Repressed Memories," "the weakened memories are
increasingly vulnerable to post-event information."
What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an
unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.
After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban
prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory
retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.
"Recovered memories," inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers
Association, "are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the
historical dustbin."
Not that you'd know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the
U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under
therapy.
Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999 :
Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that
matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.
It is idiotic to write a piece talking about recovered memories in this context.
Agree: Mercer's approach to Ford's hippocampus is idiotic.
Also appears to be neurologically off-base; there's a much stronger refutation to
Perfesser Ford's dazzling psychological explanation: alcohol wreaks havoc on the hippocampus
–
She can't remember the house she was in or how she got there/got home because her
hippocampus was suffering alcohol poisoning.
She did poorly in subsequent high school and in early years in college because her
hippocampus was pickled.
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person
drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
-- -
Mercer's assessment seems to have been skewed in order to promote Mercer's 1999 work on
the Loftus case...
The whole hippocampus explanation made her sound like she's been talking to a therapist, but
then she herself is a psychologist so she probably doesn't need a therapist to help her
'recover' that memory.
I think the key thing here are the witnesses. None recalled such a party ever taking
place. Her best friend said not only did she not remember the party, but she had never met
Kavanaugh. If she had been ditched by Ford that night and was left in a house with 2
potential rapists, don't you think she'd remember and talked it over with her the next day?
That just made her story fall apart.
Interesting photographic choice for such an article. Trial, whether in a court of law, or
merely in terms of destroying someone's life in the media, cannot be about what someone
believes, or can be made to believe, but must be about what the evidence can reveal to be
true. Where, when and why did we ever lose sight of that?
The Dems (dims) wouldn't dare attack the criminal Kavanaugh on the actual facts because it
would implicate their goddess Hillary. There are no clean hands at the worm farm at DC, that
just doesn't happen.
@renfro
Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.
Main thing here is that she remembered to the rest of her life to be careful about the
water.
And also Miss Ford (If she did not lie) must have noticed the house that she would not go
into that house ever,
Let's not forget the "false memory" debacles of the 1990s with the McMartin preschool and
Wenatchee Washington preschool cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes that they
could not have possible committed.
In the McMartin case, the problem was overzealous parents who believed their childrens'
fantasies, and got overzealous "child protective services" caseworkers involved. Questionable
tactics to elicit "correct" responses from the children were used. Rewards, such as ice cream
were used when the children gave the "correct" response. The children were badgered by these
"professionals" until the proper answers were given. Many innocent peoples' lives were ruined
as a result.
The Wenatchee debacle was fueled by a rogue detective, who saw child abuse under every rock
and was determined to get convictions, the truth be damned.
The same tactics as in the McMartin case were used to elicit the correct responses from the
children.
In both cases, the mantra that "children cannot lie" was used, along with tactics that would
be unacceptable today (but are still being used).
After a long conversation last night with drunken friends, me being the sober one of course,
I had only one beer cuz I'm a good girl, but I can't recall what was said or how many of us
were in the room. Wait, oh yeah.
We all decided that the seeming wussy response by Republicans was a strategy. Weren't they
all also being accused? If Grassley hadn't bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and her
increasingly violent democrat extremist enablers and all of their ethically challenged dumb
followers, they would have appeared uncaring. They gave the Feinstein and Ford crowds serious
consideration – no one can truthfully say otherwise.
There really isn't much one can say about a woman, or a man, who claimed they were
assaulted or abused. Proper respect must be given and investigations must be made. We all
know Ford is a liar now. Almost any real victim of sexual assault can recall the details of
the assault.
I think Republicans played it right all along. If she was not deceptive, it would have
come out.
The whole affair was the same as watching Justice Channel homicide detectives patiently
wait for their prime suspect to speak until she slipped up and incriminated herself. No dna
test for Ford though. In fact, no evidence at all. In the end, she proved herself incredible
and all of her apoplectic supporters went off the rails and are making things worse for real
victims of sexual abuse.
The little girl act made Ford look insane.
Now, the unfunniest comedian in the world, Amy Shumer, who, let's face it, only got fame
due to her Uncle Chuck, is rallying the rest of the moonbats, reactionaries, and liars, aka
Democrat nutcases to rally and resist. Resist. Bunch of clowns think they have something to
resist rather than working to rebuild a party and find solutions to their problems. Hopefully
the democrat party will splinter apart and crawl away like the worms they are.
Anyone on the fence about Trump has now almost definitely jump to one side or the other.
Elections will show most people will deny democrats their ambition to destroy what's left of
the Republic.
The 'recovered memory' witch trials back then ruined many lives. The hysteria featured a wide
cast of characters including reckless and totally irresponsible 'therapists' who, for
whatever weird reason pushed gullible customers into believing these false induced illusions,
the troubled women (all women?Why?) who went on to make false accusations and all the true
believers in the form of prosecutors, police, judges and members of the public who accepted
this lunacy. Loftus deserves credit for having been one of the few people willing to stand up
and take the heat, going against this wave of hysteria. Seems like the US always has had
these bubbles of hysteria and panic since the days of the Salem witch trials. This person
Ford has been getting all this unwarranted fawning treatment, being continually called
'Doctor' and 'Professor' which, while true, isn't the usual treatment accorded to people who
have a Phd in one of the social 'sciences' or have jobs as professors. Nobody I've ever met
with those qualifications cared to be continually addressed by title. On the one hand this
person is some empowered example to all women, an esteemed 'Doctor Professor' who jets around
the world to surf the waves at exotic locales yet claims to have some fear of lying when
called in and starts to cry when she recalls being laughed at almost four decades ago.
Looking at it briefly she leaves the impression of being just plain screwy as well as being a
person who lies a lot where lies and facts are interwoven so that one can't be sure what's
what. What a circus this is.
I agree Kavanaugh is a warmonger and has
probably committed perjury many times. The trouble is, if he is denied confirmation in the
present circumstanes, it will amount to a victory for the feminists' witch hunt against men,
and it will do nothing to defeat the war agenda. The next nominee will be just as much a
warmonger.
1. The judgment of anyone who believes Christine Ford has to be
questioned. Her senate performance was a series of holes held together with emotion. If she
had been questioned as aggressively as Kavanaugh, she would have melted quicker than brie at
a beach party.
2. That she is a fraud does not in any way mean that Kavanaugh was/is honest or that he is
appropriate material for Supreme Court; I agree: he is not, he is deeply flawed. The pity and
the tragedy is that his flaws are not being discussed on their merits: the fact that he made
his living as a lawyer and a citizen by supporting the George Bush administration, which
participated in war crimes, is enough to disqualify him.
3. But US government, from Supreme Court to presidency to the entire Congress, have been
havens for liars who lied to the American people in order to wage war; they get monuments and
institutes, not jail cells:
–> Woodrow Wilson was a notorious womanizer, and a weak toady. One of his
liaison's threatened to release love letters unless he paid her $40,000. Zionist fanatic
Samuel Untermeyer paid the sum, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to Supreme
Court.
Brandeis "lied" insofar as he used his elevated stature to promote the Zionist cause. Wilson was manipulated into signing off on the Balfour Declaration, then drawing USA into
WWI.
–> FDR (who was in the company of his lover when he died) lied to get USA into
WWII.
–> George H W Bush sanctioned lies to involve USA in Persian Gulf war: "babies in
incubators . ."
–> George W Bush had Condi Rice and Colin Powell to do his lying for him, to
involve USA in war against Iraq.
–> Schumer pledged he would harry Trump "six ways 'til Sunday" -- to force him to
wage war on Iran. Schumer and the Israel firsts don't give a tinker's dam about Kavanaugh OR
Ford; their method is to keep Trump on a short leash and to make it impossible to rule other
than in a way that achieve their goals, which are similar to Wilson and FDR: with them, the
zionist goals were to destroy Germany and Palestinians for the sake of Zionists; wrt Trump,
the goal is to complete the fragmentation of the ME and destroy Iran, for the sake of
Israel.
"... Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh. ..."
"... in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls." ..."
The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her
own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions. So much
so, in fact, that Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI
investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh.
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0
@SenBillCassidy
A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the
apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was
submitted to the Senate by @MichaelAvenatti.
12:37 PM-Oct 2, 2018
Q? 25.9K Q 13K people are talking about this О
The threat of a probe into his own client did not daunt the pop lawyer, who on
Wednesday morning tweeted that "we
still have yet to hear anything from the FBI despite a new witness coming forward &
submitting a declaration last night. We now have multiple witnesses that support the
allegations and they are all prepared to be interviewed by the FBI. Trump's "investigation" is
a scam."
And, in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti
released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett
Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally
abusive toward girls."
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).
He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with
claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.
In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its
political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of
which, more in a few sentences' time).
I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the
US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
That has corollaries:
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if
Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to
juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim)
are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a
drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later.
But here's the thing: this dude wants to be part of a life-tenured clique that arrogated to
itself the right to call the shots on the final jurisprudential stage in the US system up to
and including matters of constitutional import. As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn). The
hubris involved in wanting to be on that court is an invitation to nemesis
.
And to quote Brick Top (from the movie "Snatch"):
Do you know what 'Nemesis' means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by
an appropriate agent – personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt: me.
If this was going to play out Hellenically, this controversy will result in the nomination
failing, and Kavanaugh will move on to catharsis and eventually metanoia ; but
this being 21st century America, he will be confirmed and will go on to do his masters'
bidding.
Now the question of actual fitness for purpose.
Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives
(i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the
hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the
role.
However, since the SCOTUS-J role is just to be a lifetime lackey for the party what brung
you to the dance he's exactly what his side of politics ordered.
[1] Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an
extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol.
I.)
What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes?
We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it
starts to feel like a family member.
There are two things I cant stand:
Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to
lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god
to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally
wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).
You left out.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in
particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1]
theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
Very eloquently and succinctly stated!
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
agree
There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And
that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt,
aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of
existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win,
only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes
women and cruelly mocks their messiah.
Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even
today. It's the gift that keeps on giving
This is a curious and confusing spectacle. I don't think he's a good pick since like all
Supreme "Justices" he's a Deep State sponsored toady with little respect for the US
Constitution. But the Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump, who
they are tying to oust even though he does whatever they demand. Perhaps they worry that
Trump may suddenly rebel.
One wonders why Republican Senate leaders allowed this circus to form. When allegations of
drunken misconduct arose shortly before the vote, they should have dismissed the matter and
moved on, noting there were no police reports or arrests involved, and all this occurred when
he was a minor. Case closed! Most Americans consider groping and unwanted kisses by teenagers
to be of poor taste remedied with a slap or kick in the shin. It is not "sexual assault."
Or perhaps they chose to allow the looney part of the Democratic Party to run wild knowing
they would unwittingly hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. Or maybe this
is a Deep State media diversion to keep the social justice warriors busy with an unimportant
issue, so they don't protest Deep State wars, ever growing military spending, soaring budget
deficits, or our dysfunctional health care system. Encourage them debate and protest what
some guy did as a drunken teenager for the next few weeks and fill our "news" programs with
related BS so real issues are avoided during the election campaigns.
Yeah. Liberals make much of the virtue of erasing a minor's record once they turn 18.
"It's a clean slate. A chance to start over again with a reputation unblemished by youthful
folly and mistakes. How can young Trey'Trayvontious grow up to become an aeronautical
engineer if, upon entering adulthood, he is handicapped by the burden of felonious assault,
burglary and attempted murder convictions?"
But when it comes to Kavanaugh??? No way. No forgetfulness, no forgiveness. What he did as
a minor, he will wear as a badge of shame throughout his adult life.
Is it even legal to consider what he did as a minor as having any bearing on his fitness
for this job? I'm seriously asking any parole officers or social workers out there who work
with youth.
As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally
wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).
Then you must be a leftist ideologue.
In the Dredd Scott case the naturalization act of 1790 only extended citizenship to
"free white persons", so the court got it objectively right since they ruled in accordance
with existing law and didn't strike down or make law from the bench as too many power mad
federal judges do today.
Plessy v Ferguson is a closer call (because of the 14th amendment) but IMO the
court got it objectively right because the court only upheld de jure segregation with the
stipulation that public facilities must be equal in quality. And in doing so the court ruled
that the desires and wishes of blacks don't automatically supersede those of whites like
federal courts reflexively do today.
The great irony is that today blacks, not whites, are demanding racially segregated
dormitories, student orientations, facilities, graduations, schools, clubs, etc. and leftists
have no issue with that but will scream themselves hoarse about racism and white supremacy if
whites do.
In Bush v Gore I'm not sure what pressing moral issue was at stake other than you
didn't like the court's decision, hence it was "immoral." Was SCOTUS supposed to allow
Florida to keep counting votes until Christmas?
I'd rather it be a bourgeois white guy with social markers indicating that he, like me,
has been a red-blooded American teenager rather than a foppish Bubble-boy nerd with no
theory of mind or a bitter lesbian hag
It's not the teenage indiscretions that should concern people – it's the obvious
temperament problem that manifested itself during his testimony.
Anyone who 'arcs up' the way Kavanaugh did, has no place in any judiciary, be he
ne'er so white and red-blooded: it shows that he is a narcissist.
I don't think he actually uttered the words " How dare you !", but it would
not surprise me if he had done so.
So I would prefer a non-narcissist lesbian hag or "Bubble-boy nerd" (as if
Kavanaugh did not grow up in a protective bubble! He exudes contempt for anyone outside of
his class nothing wrong with that, except if you're hearing death penalty appeals or
adjudicating on reproductive or sexual rights).
By way of stark contrast, I have a very good example of a decidedly non-bourgeois person
(who will be Chief Justice in my jurisdiction before he retires)
One of my close friends from university was made a judge of the Supreme Court (of
Victoria, Australia) in 2013.
He was a first-rate advocate (specialising in criminal defence) – another contrast
with Kavanaugh, who is a lifetime party/government apparatchik who has never tried a
case.
Michael (for that is my old mate's name) was also a former logging truck driver who
returned to study in his mid-30s (having already had a family). He went to government schools
for his entire education – the first Supreme Court justice to have done so, a fact that
the Chief Justice remarked upon at his inauguration.
Despite having no pedigree, no connections, no Old Boys' (or Masonic) connections, he was
made QC at the earliest possible date (i.e., 10 years after he was called to the Bar).
He is also a witty bugger, and his default expression is a kind of half-smile, even now.
He was (and is) talented enough that he does not have to rely on gravitas : on several
instances he has cried in open court while recounting the facts of particularly tragic cases,
even as he was sentencing the perpetrators to jail. This is not a display of weakness: it's a
display of empathy – a weak man would be scared of the public reaction.
His robes sit heavy, but he still played "old-blokes' footy" after his elevation to the
bench.
And although I think he has some leftish tendencies, I could not say with any certainty
where his politics lie: when we were students together his economics was first-rate and
"rationalist" (he and I both got Reserve Bank cadetships – only 4 of which were awarded
Australia-wide in our year).
Now the reason I drop his name into the mix is that I can declare with absolute confidence
that if he was involved in a hearing of this type, there would be no displays of righteous
indignation, no partisan political commentary, no facial contortions, no spittle-flecked lips
in short, no displays of behaviour that indicate that he thinks that he is above reproach
simply by virtue of his background or his current station .
That 's the guy you want in your judiciary: you can't tell me that a nation of 300
million people – and a surfeit of lawyers – doesn't have a single lawyer like
Michael Croucher.
OK, so that was a rhetorical trick on my part, because the US Supreme Court is only
open to people who went to Harvard or Yale Law (although Ginsberg got her JD at Columbia,
she was a transfer from Harvard).
And, of course, they must have a lifetime track record of opinions that align with the
party in power at the time of their nomination.
>>>>>>>>>>He is having a job interview for a government
sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet
the criteria for attempted rape. <<<<<<<<<<
She was two grades behind him and attended an all girl school in a different part of
town.
So how is she someone he went to school with? I went to an all girl school (Catholic) and can't recall any boys I went to school
with. As a mother, I was interested in the distance of her home from the place of the party.
I gathered it was too far to walk to and walk home from, (especially at night). What did
she tell her parents were she had been? Her parents did not care she ran around at night like
that? At age 15. Not that Kavanaugh would be my choice.
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who
knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country
secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just
in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS!
I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did
interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their
lips sealed n are completely neutral.
@Anonymous
We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age
15″.
Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and
warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day
One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I
sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character,
but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe
everything will now be alright with their naughty child.
Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely
does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then
they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.
I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To Prison
As I
stated in a previous comment, Ford is just another hysterical man hating wobaby (woman
baby), that has lied in her testimony and public shameful denunciation of Kavanaugh.
As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual
harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of
embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a
case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and
that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and
has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.
Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied
about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is
clear she did!
Once again, proof, facts and evidence, shows us all that you can't trust what people say,
especially hysterical women! History is replete with examples of how hysteria, especially by
women with a grudge, can destroy men lives. This nonsense, and it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, by
Ford and her followers is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic individuals who've nothing in
their lives other than to be jealous and embittered of others all because they are all
failing in their own miserable, misbegotten lives. This is not about social justice, it is
just about people who can't accept their irrelevant position in society and need to destroy
others whom are make something of themselves.
Christine Ford is that lowest thing of womanhood; a bitter, delusional, man-hating female.
When in reality the only thing she really hates, is herself. Now she will get her well over
due comeuppance.
And what of Senator Feinstein? That modern incarnation of Reverend Samuel Paris (alla
Salem Witch Trials), what of her? She should be thrown out of the Senate, and allowed to
wither in the backwaters of the Deep Swamp, where she belongs!
Senator Feinstein you are a disgrace to Justice, the Senate, to Women, and above all,
to the Human Race! Go back to murky slimy depths of the swamp, where you belong!
@Kratoklastes
Wholeheartedly agree with all your comments and adstructions. However, it would seem to me
that in 99% of cases, it really does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any office,
in the US or whichever other country.
What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and
assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the
moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any
compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous
basis.
Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never
realized that psychopathy is contagious.
@Kratoklastes
I don't know Michael Croucher J but I know and have a high regard for the conservative
Attorney-General who appointed him (also, you may be interested to know the product only of
radically unfashionable non-government schools). I Googled for Michael Croucher and was
surprised to find how many of the items on the first page had him tearing up on the bench. I
suspect that he fits pretty well with his appointer's pretty strong law and order approach
though I don't remember what the attitude of the latter was to the introduction of victim
impact statements, inevitably not subject to cross examination for obvious enough reasons.
(Moi: I was never a fan for several reasons).
While internet anonymity frees us up to say more than we can know with arrogant confidence
I am surprised that you don't make the distinction between US judges with a Bill of Rights to
maximise the likelihood of value differences infecting their judgments (bolstered by life
tenure) and Australian judiciary much of which still honours Dixon CJ's "strict and complete
legalism" in the sense in which he meant it (in answer to complaints of "excessive legalism")
and maybe Blackburn J's excellent 1970s article on Judicial Method.
But you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone.
You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge
of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured
products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to
politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let
alone 15 years and more.
@Kratoklastes
Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of
theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident
pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of
Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His
little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was
just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I
thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're
talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive
issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It
should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally,
Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that
she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like
a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing
in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations.
She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.
This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions,
it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.
Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current
positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming,
with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as
in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.
I do not think that even Bill Cosby raped anybody. All he had to do is promise the girl role
in next episode. And so by the time when Bill turned around and headed to liqueur cabinet
there she was on the bed naked with the feet pointing to the Heavens.
Basically the same story was with Weinstein.
You know women do not use their pussy only as a payment for full, they also use pussy as a
deposit.
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this
country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of
sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that.
Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.
But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly
any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities
and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump
done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white
women.
But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles
with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people
divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy
the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by
the Third World.
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on
the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I
attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I
doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do
practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always
will.
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first
organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal.
Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal
society.
I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange.
Is this happening in US? I do not know!
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's
always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.
Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your
15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end
your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."
And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent
question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the
US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already
is.
Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or
used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly
drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house,
location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form
letter), Klobuchar (trying to exploit fraudulent Swetnick testimony for political purposes),
Kavanaugh (inability to take punches calmly, low quality of defence (this supposed to
be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible
aggressive behaviors when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high school and college,
possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left
her, not vise versa), using questionable methods to rent part of her house, and even more
questionable method to justify this, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... "Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims. ..."
"... We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault. ..."
"... But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans. ..."
"... I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. ..."
Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's
credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her
friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii,
and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.
The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a
partisan attack. Give me a break.
Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36
years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly
being nearly raped and killed.
The longer this Freak Show continues, more and more of Ford's bones will be pulled from
the closet. Time to vote, time to move on. If Democrats want to pick judges, they need to win
elections.
"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend
who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.
I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence,
that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility?
Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial
board?
I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth?
The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is
credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.
Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are
unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the
test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she
probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?
How is investigating the allegations attacking her? She made statements in her testimony
that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should
this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be
investigated?
She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be
looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only
investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no
witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is
being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the
NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I
believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts
are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You
are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like
this.
Why shouldn't her credibility be established?
She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years.
Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no
corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said".
To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative
veracity of the two people involved.
It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side.
It's strictly about the outcome going their way.
@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a
psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a
psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"
I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid
and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a
quick summary from the American Psych Association.
Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience,
akin to phrenology.
People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are
psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.
Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and
finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass
because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as
much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this
except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed
it with her beach friends.
I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately
come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest
court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.
Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.
I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I?
Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of
the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman.
That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught
that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to
someone I was simply dating?
Finally we get some information about Kavanaugh's main accuser. For a while it seemed as
if she had just sprung into existence and had no history beyond her claims of sexual
assault.
"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at
last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone
about taking a polygraph test."
So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to
withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem
a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.
Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test
and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the
credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.
One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely
he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he
says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).
Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any
intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and
intellectually).
I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him
and his programs.
Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to
give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market.
Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.
P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much
better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.
This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the
Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the
foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's
withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be
deliberately destructive.
So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college
"friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of
Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.
People who use others credit cards are liars. Selective honesty is not possible. She is
dishonest. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh is honest but she is a pawn and loves the attention.
Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an
official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have
a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have
just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists,
having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.
Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating
when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to
online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people
emotionally have more to lose.
I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he
approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite
claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job
around it.
Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her
anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the
testimony.
From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr.
Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her
testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her
married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to
somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.)
Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on
speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).
Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people
about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate
Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she
wanted she knew nothing about it.
Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't
advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!
You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr.
Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being
a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you
accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or
waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.
Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They
should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck,
doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from
established).
We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal
Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When
they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and
frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual
assault.
What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing
of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the
proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government
and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like
men, thank you very much.
The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school
and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't
matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and
done.
Charles Grassley knew about this lie and fed it to Rachel Mitchell to entrap Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford. Who can't see through the blatant partisan desperation?
I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I
believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying
around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.
This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without
objective evidence.
In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with
Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were
replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous
child.
"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to
relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve
political interests. It does not serve interest in truth.
Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party
wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.
But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford
indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she
knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident
desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience,
evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.
That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.
So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second
door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an
entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex
threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back
up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her
friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would
that make any difference?
The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was
hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the
press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is
absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are
other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for
the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a
500 square foot apartment with ONE door.
@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed
his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability
to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these
extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr.
Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us
know what he's made of.
I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations
baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were
refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by
her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations
into the process.
A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's
testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for
sure, barring further investigation.
The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that
this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted
undisciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in
money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.
Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters.
From wikipedia:
"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may
delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful
effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past
sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound
familiar??
I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's
allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any
support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by
everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly
told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count.
I thought Ford's description of the
assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had
offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she
doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed
to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are
free.
I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care
about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's
testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly
veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing
in real estate in Canada.
Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You
know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the
reason for his well-documented vomiting.
Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it
you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?
My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did
many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were
'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to
the WaPo story.
Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with
a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.
In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the
'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in
2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who
rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now
refusing to discuss it further.
I was clear in my earlier posts that as a psychologist, especially a teaching psychologist,
Ford would have to know about polygraphs and how they work. https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the
FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom
she supported is a liar and perjurer.
When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my
first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he
contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.
@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and
evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.
When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is
outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation
and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.
This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything
regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote.
"Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of
knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific
stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in
Merrick's letter.
Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just
guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If
you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that
makes you more confident about your opinion.
If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is
going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax,
be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.
If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my
roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I
responded "no."
He also alleges she committed credit card fraud in grad school. But nobody should have
their character judged by something that happened so long ago, right?
@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing
straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell
someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer
when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at
other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.
I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country
deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides
that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's
divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way.
Put someone else on the table already folks.
As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace
Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views
consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy
Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you;
never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.
@al Ford is not the one accused of running rape gangs despite having an impeccable much
commended judicial service record for 23+ years. He is understandably upset.
Also "innocent holes"? There is no such thing in law. Either you are lying or you are
not.
Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes
she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But
the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe
that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of
false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the
kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when,
exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who
apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a
common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's
life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And
for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on
Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any
better on abortion anyway.
The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man
scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my
lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our
dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt,
Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.
Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too
divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along
partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.
It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe
either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the
other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical
evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are
not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot
get to the truth and never will.
I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of
division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so
divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.
@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the
defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the
basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.
"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and
that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the
account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the
use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."
Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd
venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third
person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at
the guy who's in the WH.
They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the
account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it.
He had no basis for a fraud case.
He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where
space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.
@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for
taking a bus seat before a white person."
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti
rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must
apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.
@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection?
Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google
interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not
have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having
discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph
the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that
stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your
loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But
I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media
isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his
family. This isn't fair.
feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it
if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to
the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.
sounds like muldar from x-files, "I want to believe". so I will believe, regardless of any
additional information which should perhaps cast a shred of doubt.
There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.
First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if
material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support
for the court, impeach him if he is on it.
Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is
unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing
now.
Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a
matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a
mandatory improvement in every election, period.
@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the
hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and
if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process,
he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way
it was handled.
His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There
was nothing more to be said.
1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of
running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos -
and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?
2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.
how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he
drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the
time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.
I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff
immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a
game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.
So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will
be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have
established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that
she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in
which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood
pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to
truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your
vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not
statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone
how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the
case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years
later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke
about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I
realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and
wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports
Trump (and we are divorced).
@Joan In California
"manly individuals who think this issue will go away after the dust settles better hope their
behavior has always been above reproach."
and how many women have lives that are "beyond reproach"? Notice the goal post moving. Now
its not only men who have sexually assaulted women who are the enemy its all men if the don't
adhere to every single accusation made by any and every woman on the planet. How can any sane
person think a gender war is the answer?
and will you only carry female babies to full term? because if one day your son doesn't
believe just one woman on the planet (or think that she is mistaken) will you stand in line
to scorch his earth too and betray your own motherhood?
They were in a relationship for 6 years and lived together. That doesn't make the
boyfriend's account true, but it does explain how selectively the NYT chooses to inform its
readers these days. The death of the media is a suicide.
@rosa Stalin's Russia also sent and punished without any regard for evidence or proof
which is the exactly what the left is doing to Kavanaugh right now. Ford's claim has no
corroboration, is convieniently dropped 2 days before senate vote, Fienstein recommended
lawyers, now exposed lies about fear of flying, polygraph etc...yet Kavanaugh can not demand
the basic courtesy of being treated "innocent until proven guilty" from the public and the
media? Stalin would be proud right now of this pitch fork mob culture we got going I tell you
that much.
@Henry She lied about fear of flying, lied about polygraph, no corroboration, she was with
merrick for 5+ years yet never mentioned this "assault", allegations 2 days before senate
vote?
@JenD My mother, my wife, my sister and my daughter's rage boiled over last week too...but
at the thought that their father, brother, son and husband could face an uncorroborated
charge and have his life ruined without due process.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a letter from former meteorologist and former
Democratic candidate for Maryland's 8th district, Dennis Ketterer, who claims that Brett
Kavanaugh's third accuser and Michael Avenatti client, Julie Swetnick, was a group-sex
enthusiast that he initially mistook for a prostitute at a 1993 Washington D.C. going-away
party for a colleague.
"Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her
anytmore" -Dennis Ketterer
Ketterer writes that Swetnick approached him "alone, quite beautiful, well-dressed and no
drink in hand."
"Consequently, my initial thought was that she might be a high end call girl because at the
time I weighed 350lbs so what would someone like her want with me? "
The former meteorologist then said that since "there was no conversation about exchanging
sex for money" he decided to keep talking to her, noting that he had never been hit on in a bar
before.
Over the ensuing weeks, Ketterer claims that he and Swetnick met at her residence for an
extramarital affair that did not involve sex.
"Although we were not emotionally involved there was physical contact. We never had sex
despite the fact that she was very sexually aggressive with me.
...
During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me
that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several
at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.
Ketterer claims that since the AIDS epidemic was a "huge issue" at the time and he had
children, he decided to cut things off with Swetnick. He goes on to mention that she never said
anything about being "sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will,"
and that she "never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity."
After Ketterer decided to run for Congress in Maryland, he thought Julie could be of service
to his campaign - however he lost her phone number. After contacting her father, he learned
that Julie had "psychological and other problems at the time."
Last week we reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend,
Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says
he has evidence that she's lying.
"Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and
threatening to do harm to my baby at that time ," Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with
POLITICO. " I know a lot about her ." -
Politico
" I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she's saying is not true at all ," he said. " I
would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more ."
Avenatti called the claims "outrageous" and hilariously accused the press of " digging into
the past " of a woman levying a claim against Kavanaugh from over 35 years ago.
And now we can add "group sex enthusiast" to the claims against Swetnick. Read below:
Neoliberals have transformed themselves into a collection of Trump mini-mes, with guilty
until proven innocent as the new "liberal" mantra. You've got standards.
Notable quotes:
"... I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone. ..."
"... To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted? ..."
"Neocon/neolib alliance is flat out of ideas and leadership, and is now rolling around in
the sexual accusations mud with the pig – and the pig is winning".
likbez 10.01.18 at 3:18 am
72 I believe Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly
damaged. Probably ruined.
Her yearbook said she had had 54 consensual sexual encounters. But apparently only the
alleged encounter with Kavanaugh was the one that traumtized her. Is she kidding me?
Despite those efforts, the Palo Alto University psychology professor's fears have come
true since she came forward over the weekend: Her lawyers say she's facing harassment and
death threats. Supporters and opponents have found pictures of her on the Web and converted
them into memes. And her Palo Alto home address was tweeted, forcing her to move out.
In the age of the internet, what's to keep the same thing from happening to any victim of
sexual harassment or assault who decides to come forward? Can they -- or anyone -- completely
erase their online presences to protect themselves?
"The extremely short and brutal answer is no," said Gennie Gebhart, of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. She does research and advocacy for issues that include consumer privacy,
surveillance and security.
ph 10.01.18 at 5:14 am (no link)
I've been wrong before and a month is an eternity, so the prognosis is subject to revision.
I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a
robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates
the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone.
To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs
to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health
care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are
people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by
Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you
suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have
converted?
Wasn't that the strategy with the access Hollywood tape? How'd that work out?
Good for the Dems isn't good enough. Dems might take the House, which looks very doubtful
to me now, and are unlikely to take the Senate. That's the best case, which still leaves
Trump and the GOP set up well for 2020. Notice how nobody is pinning their hopes on Mueller
at the moment.
"... They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened. ..."
Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the
Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty, as reported in the Hill, on Fox
News and elsewhere:
"HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh. But on Friday night's
show he conceded that a last-minute attempt to smear President Trump's Supreme Court
nominee with accusations of sexual assault is making liberals "look bad."
They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in
the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse
such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened.
But this accusation without substance seems to be standard operating procedure to
justify anything the government, or some faction within the government, wants to do, even
to the point of starting major wars. If THAT is permissible, merely destroying one man's
career and good name might be considered a trivial price to pay for the Dems to get their
way.
If this lynching succeeds, nothing will ever again be decided in a civilised manner
according to a set of standard rules and principles again in this country. Tyranny will
rule when guilt by accusation becomes the new standard. No one will ever again be safe and
secure if a mere denunciation can remove you from the picture. That was called the "Reign
of Terror" during the French Revolution. It was a hallmark of the Nazis, the Stalinists and
the Maoists.
That these women can feign critical memory loss of most details, but just enough to
claim "attempted rape," is preposterous. Fifty years later and I can still remember the
exact details of both wonderful dates and times I was stood up by callous females who
didn't care what those suddenly useless concert tickets might have cost you. You don't
forget when people truly ride roughshod over you.
backwardsevolution , September 27, 2018 at 8:20 pm
Realist – great post! Maher, who I used to always agree with, but hardly ever do now
(amazing how you change), is right here. Kavanaugh with accusations and no real evidence,
Trump with Russiagate and no evidence at all, chemical weapons attacks with fake evidence,
etc.
They just throw stuff out there and hope that it sticks, and their base laps it up. They
don't care about evidence; they're too busy shouting for the lynch mob. This is dangerous
stuff. I'm not exactly the most conservative person either, but I still see the importance of
maintaining the Rule of Law, freedom of speech, sacred and hard-fought-for principles.
Yep, there's mean women out there (just as there are mean men). I remember overhearing
women at work talking about going out for dinner with guys who they openly said they didn't
even like, but it was a free dinner. When I called them on this, they just laughed, could
have cared less. They're probably out there wearing pink pussy hats.
I've got both sexes as children, so I have to stay neutral.
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence
of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in
the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in
pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price
for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden
issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely
invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently
mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse –
most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers,
or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last
night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in
the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual
intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did
believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials
to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement
in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central
and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently
at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within
the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the
whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and
most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly
shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the
mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course.
Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud
seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to
hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted
in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient
reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the
rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both
hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate
the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without
the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly
propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated
to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been
suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian
doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of
the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of
the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component
the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and
the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from
the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger
individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were
the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities,
and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to
a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining
a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which
he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This
was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay
behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their
fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof.
Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded
with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions
women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem
was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't
find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they
are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical
Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation
to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims,
but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of
interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be
the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical
method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated
to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European
and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I
think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it
betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform
to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely
eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of
common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity
to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such,
I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with
the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon
has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in
testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the
Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus
of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and
emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent
some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems
likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was
announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election.
Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly
she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological
injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory,
however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been
exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical
advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the
scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim
into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively
projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along,
often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.
William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics
and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played.
However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual
proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough
information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.
We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we
only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could
prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore
girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older
boyfriend
and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was
a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first
base at the party.
From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone
without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those
were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom
with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her
demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment
into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up.
She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too.
And as a teacher she must be a real screwball.
Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten. Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago
Funny how Democraps are getting their panties in a wad over BK drinking beer in college,
yet were okay with Slappy Sotoro snorting cocaine in college....go figure...
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
Sinophile , 19 hours ago
If the bitch 'struggled academically in college' then how the hell did she get awarded a
freaking P(ost)H(ole)D(igger)?
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
onewayticket2 , 18 hours ago
He is not the first college student to get drunk.
Equating getting drunk to charges in every newspaper and TV news station for weeks stating
he is a gang rapist ring leader etc is laughably idiotic. Nice job. Thx for the laugh.
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
sunkeye , 21 hours ago
T/y Prosecutor Mitchell for conducting yourself w/ professionalism, decency, & honor -
personal traits none of the Democratic senators seem to possess, or would even recognize if
shown to them directly as you did. Again. t/y & bravo.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She allowed Ford to refuse to speak the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. Chris
Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who was Ford's one-time boyfriend. Some speculate that he was the
unnamed final boy at the party and that he may have assaulted Ford and/or dumped her after
she refused to go to the next level with him. Hence the trauma.
Paracelsus , 21 hours ago
I am having trouble keeping these personalities separate as I want to give everyone the
benefit of the
doubt. When I see Justice Kavanaugh, I think of the confirmation hearing as a political
attack on the
Trump administration . Also as an attempt to score points, or make the other side
screw up, before the
upcoming elections.When I see Dr. Ford, I see Hillary Clinton and all the bitterness
from a failed
politician.
The funny thing is I thought all the Trump "fake news" statements were a load of crap.
Turns out he hit the
mark quite often. The lefties are so damn mad because Trump is succeeding and they haven't
been able to
score points against him. So they feel that it is justified to use other
methods,regardless of the fallout.
There is a whiff of panic and desperation present.
I have stated this before, as have others: The loss of the White House by the Democrats
provided a
unique opportunity to clean out the deadwood. This may have seemed cruel and heartless
but the
Obama era is over and the Dem's urgently need to return to their roots before it is too
late. Did they
use this moment of change or did they revert to business as usual? To ask the question
is to
answer it.... This is commonly described as bureaucratic inertia. The Dem's only needed
to get the
ball rolling and they would be moving towards the objective of regaining power. New,
younger
and more diplomatic and law abiding types need to be encouraged to apply. Put out the
help wanted
sign. Do what Donald does,"You're fired!".
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
Well, if others have stated it before, it MUST be true. Republiconarists and Demcraps are
playing the same stupid games. Dems got punked w Garland, and now Reps are getting their
comeuppance w Kavanaugh (who really made it worse for himself by holding up such an obviously
false pious portrait of himself).
American Dissident , 22 hours ago
I believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I believe Rachel Mitchell, Esq. I believe Leland Keyser.
I believe Mark Judge. I believe P.J. Smyth.
I believe the evidence. That's why I don't believe Ms. Christine Blasey Ford.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
But she only had one beer!
Torgo , 11 hours ago
What do you think of the Chris Garrett hypothesis?
VWAndy , 22 hours ago
Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They
have gotten away with it before.
Aubiekong , 23 hours ago
Never was about justice, this is simply a liberal/globalist plan to stop Trump.
Prince Eugene of Savoy , 20 hours ago
Squeaky Ford only testified to what she had written down. She never used the part of the
brain dealing with actual memory. https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
Barney08 , 1 day ago
Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated
ditz.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Right Barney, not an undereducated and-proud-of-it slob like you.
MrAToZ , 1 day ago
You Dims are so willing to just swallow the hook. You idiots have been trained to react,
leave common sense at the door, slap on the vagina hats and start marching in circles.
What a cluster f*ck. Evidently there are suckers born every minute.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
"... Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day. ..."
"... Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members. ..."
"... She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi". ..."
"... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! ..."
"... Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists ..."
"... Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop... ..."
"... Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? ..."
"... Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. ..."
"... She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him. ..."
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said
she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by
name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of
questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up. She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too. And as a teacher she must be a real screwball. Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these
people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn
as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly
not members.
Brazillionaire , 14 hours ago
I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if somebody already brought this up... can
this woman (who was 15) explain why she was in an upstairs bedroom with two boys? Did they
drag her up the stairs? In front of the others? If she went willingly, for what purpose?
Some things reign eternal... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old
drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! Thank you
for paving the road to ruin! Don't forget to breathe in-between. You ARE the FACE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GIRL! Suck it up, Buttercup!
alfbell , 15 hours ago
I BELIEVE!!
... that America's institutions are being torn down by Leftists. The attempt to create a
new totalitarian regime has been upon us for decades and is now perfectly clear.
We will not say goodbye to morality.
We will not say goodbye to science.
We will not say goodbye to democracy.
We will not say goodbye to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Logic,
Decency, etc. etc. etc.
MAGA!
AHBL , 15 hours ago
Morality: Your dear Leader cheated on 3 different wives, one of them with a
prostitute,...while she was pregnant (or had a 4 month old, I forget); filed for bankruptcy 5
times, cheating many people out of money; settled fraud lawsuits; lied about charity
donations; your party nominated an actual PEDOPHILE (Moore) for Senate and now wants to
appoint an angry drunk to be SCJ!
Science: You folks are literally disputing the conclusions of the vast, vast majority of
scientists (97% by my last count) when it comes to global warming.
Democracy: this is a Democratic Republic...if it was a Democracy Trump wouldn't be
President.
The rest of the nonsense you wrote was just filler...obviously.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Still better than the rapist and intern cigarer and Benghazi killer clintons. why do retarded libturds not see that!!
alfbell , 11 hours ago
You are clueless. Have all of your priorities and importances upside down. Have zero
critical thinking.
Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an
end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists. Look at the big picture AHBL. C'mon you can
do it.
aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
NeigeAmericain , 13 hours ago
Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely
or would they ? 🤔
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten.
Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto.
Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
" The episode occurred on a September evening in 1985 after Kavanaugh, Ludington and
Dudley, attended the UB40 concert ."
UB40? Well, there you have it, if that isn't disqualifying, I don't know what is.
Debt Slave , 16 hours ago
She is a cross eyed boobis and we have to believe her because she says Kavanaugh, a white
hetero catholic man without any decent upbringing or engrained scruples raped her like a
monkey savage out of the jungle. Oh sorry, TRIED to rape her. As a teenager. Tried to raped a
pathetic, stupid cross eyed retarded moron that has since been successfully lobotomized at a
'modern' American university.
When is the last time you saw a 'mentally challenged' person being abused? Oh yes I
remember now, it was Chicongo, January 2017. Four negroes shoved a retarded white man's head
in a toilet and demanded he swear that he loved Niggers.
Never heard what happened to the savage fuckers, eh? Not surprised.
i know who and what I am voting for white man, do you?
benb , 16 hours ago
Time for the un-redacted FISA docs and the text messages. That should send Schumer and the
gang into a tailspin.
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
BankSurfyMan , 18 hours ago
Fordy had sexual encounters, she drinks beer and flies all over the globe... One day she
had a beer and cannot remember getting home on time to watch, MOAR DOOM NEWS! Fucktard Fordy!
Doom 2019! Next!
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
Just had lunch with a democrat. He's generally tolerable, so his level of anger at
Kavanaugh and his acceptance of "anything goes" to derail Kavanaugh was surprising to me.
Democrats believe that Roe V Wade is instantly overturned if Kavanaugh gets in. They also
think that if Roe V Wade is overturned, no woman will ever be able to abort another baby in
the US.
I explained to him that destruction of Roe V Wade will only make it a state issue, so
girls in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc will be able to kill as many babies as
they want to. It will only be girls in Wyoming or Utah or some other very red state that
might have to schlep their *** to another state to kill their kid.
Democrats see this as a battle for abortion, and if Kav gets confirmed, abortion is
completely gone in the USA. That's why you have these women freaking out. They think the
stakes are much higher than they actually are. Almost all of the women that are so worried
about this live in states where it won't have any effect on them at all.
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
I think I kind of calmed him down. We need to let them know that their world doesn't end
if Roe V Wade is overturned. I am also not at all sure it would be overturned, even with Kav
on the court, but they insist it will be, so not worth arguing. Reminding them that it
doesn't effect them, if they live in a blue state should calm their fears a little.
The right to abort is their 2nd amendment, God help us. If you explain to them they are
not really in danger, it may calm them down. They'll still make noise about those poor girls
who can't get an abortion after school and still make it home for dinner, and instead, have
to take a bus to another state to kill their kid, but they won't be as personally threatened
and lashing out as they mistakenly are now.
when the saxon began , 17 hours ago
And therein lies the fatal flaw of an elected representative government. The votes of the
ignorant and stupid are counted the same as yours or mine. And there are far more of
them.
VisionQuest , 18 hours ago
Democrats stand for atheism, abortion & sodomy. Ask yourself this question: Who stands
with Democrats? If your answer is "I do." then you'd best rethink your precious notions of
morality, truth, common decency, common sense and justice.
It is undoubtedly true that, in our entirely imperfect world, the American Way of life is
also far from perfect. But it is also true that, compared to every other system of government
on the planet, there is no comparison with the level of achievement accomplished by the
American Way of life.
Democrats hate and will destroy the American Way of life. Have you been a Democrat? Walk
away.
freedommusic , 19 hours ago
At this point the FBI should recommend a criminal investigation to the DOJ for treasonous
actors who are subverting the constitutional process of SC nomination. The crimes of perjury,
sedition, and treason, need to be clearly articulated to the public and vigorous prosecution
ensue.
We are STILL a Constitutional Republic - RIGHT?
Giant Meteor , 18 hours ago
Well, I am betting 27 trillion dollars that the answer to your question is a resounding ,
no ...
eitheror , 19 hours ago
Thank you Rachel Mitchell for having the courage to tell the truth about the testimony of
Ms. Blasey Ford, P.h.D.
Ford is not a medical Doctor but is a P.h.D.
The Democrats seem to have abandoned Ms. Ford like a bad haircut, instead focusing on
other smoke and mirrors.
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
About 35 years ago, at a party in San Francisco where everyone was very drunk, now Senator
Feinstein sexually molested me. Don't remember the date or location or anything else, but it
happened, I swear! Naturally, want to remain anonymous to protect my integrity, but it did
happen! She shoved me down onto my knees and ground her crotch in my face. It was terrible, I
can still recall the horrible smell to this day! The stench was a combination of rotting
flesh and urine. Makes me nauseous just thinking of that sexual assault. INVESTIGATE this
serial molester!
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
American Dissident , 20 hours ago
McConnell on the Senate Floor 50 minutes ago: "The time for endless delay and obstruction
has come to a close.... Mr. President, we'll be voting this week."
xear , 21 hours ago
Brett is obviously innocent. Groping her, holding her down, grinding into her... it's not
like it was rape. And as far as covering her mouth so she couldn't scream... after a heavy
night of drinking who wants to hear screaming? Almost anyone would do the same.
I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 20 hours ago
it's always interesting to see where and why people claim to know things about which they
have literally no 'knowledge.'
Also interesting to see how the same people who would protest assuming the guilt of an
alleged Muslim terrorist or Black liquor store robber now argue it is 'whiteness' and
'patriarchy' to not assume the guilt of a white male regarding decades old uncorroborated
charges... which 4 named witnesses deny having knowledge of, by a woman who lied about a fear
of flying to try to delay the process.
We can all be hypocrites.
But watching the Left embrace hypocrisy as social justice has been, in the pure sense of
the word, awesome to behold.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
FBaggins , 21 hours ago
To fix things if after all of this crap from the feminazis and Kavenaugh simply withdraws
his name, Trump should put forward Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next candidate. It would
really ensure support for Trump candidates in the midterms from women in general and from
social-conservative family-values people in the US and it would perhaps teach the feminazis a
lesson at the same time.
istt , 20 hours ago
No, Kavanaugh deserves better. He has earned his place on the USSC.
Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago
My prediction was, and still is Kavanaugh goes forward. Even the revered CNN is starting
to walk the drinking issue back.
By the way , the Trump presser today was a ******* hoot!
ToddTheBabyWhale , 21 hours ago
Nine page memo, Tyler. Your starting to write like a pro journalist now.
aloha_snakbar , 22 hours ago
Ms Ford, the newly minted millionaire, is probably lying poolside in Mexico, indulging in
her favorite psychotropics and getting pounded by the local brown talent. Wow...having a
vagina is like having a meat 3D printer that spews out money...
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
Was there in 1965, and I can recall what my classmates wore, who could dance, who kissed
great, who had the best music, who got laid and how often...and it was NOT the head of the
football or basketball team.
Her memory is selectively scripted, and I am 20 years older and my memory is just
fine.
charlewar , 23 hours ago
In other words, Ford is a liar
JohnG , 23 hours ago
She's a goddamned sociopathic lying bitch.
arby63 , 23 hours ago
A highly paid one. Gofundme alone is over $900,000.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
Her two *** lawyers doing well for their time and attention. McCabe's lawyer comes to the
rescue for Ford.
Dead how? We already know that these corporation are die hard neo-liberal but name me 2
republicans or ANY federal entity that would EVER go after a corporation like that.
You are not aware of the score if you think anything will be done to them.
HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago
My hippocampus is turgid and throbbing after seeing Chris Ford in those Adrian (Talia
Shire) spectacles.
blind_understanding , 23 hours ago
I had to look it up ..
TURGID - from Latin turgidus , from turgēre to be swollen
peippe , 22 hours ago
nothing better than a confused lady who forgets stuff...........
I'm all over that if she was thirty-six years younger. oops.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
I was the victim of an abuse event when I was 4. I'm 47 now. I know exactly where the
house is, we were in the backyard and I can tell anyone what happened and who was there. It
happened a few days back to back maybe three days, it was during the winter in the
midafternoon. I guess my hippocampus is in better shape than hers.
sgt_doom , 1 day ago
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was poised, articulate, clear and convincing. More than
that, she radiated self-assured power ."
----- So says Robert Reich
Saaaaay, Bobby, have you ever met Wesley Allen Dodd or Ted Bundy? I once came into contact
with Dodd, the epitome of calm, cool and collected --- and he was later executed for
torturing to death small children!
A (female) law professor from Seattle University said:
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (why do they keep referring to a professor of
psychology as doctor --- s_d) was credible and believable. " (Evidently, we don't need
no stinking proof or evidence where a law professor is concerned!?)
Sgt_Doom says: Prof. Christine Blasey Ford sounded credible, believable and completely
unsubstantiated.
Credible Allegations
Over this past weekend I learned three startling facts:
(1) All American women have been raped;
(2) All American males are rapists and liars; and,
(3) "Credible allegations" are accusations not requiring any shred of evidence.
Fake news facts , that is . . . . .
All this was conveyed by high-middle class (or higher) females who worship globalization
and American exceptionalism --- from the same news conduits who once reported on
weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and other similar mythologies!
Not a single so-called reporter --- not a single self-described journalist in American ---
thought to ask that most obvious of obvious questions:
Where in bloody perdition is Christine Blasey Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks?
After all, they introduced Kavanaugh's yearbook, so why not Christine Blasey's
yearbook?
Second most obvious question:
When one searches online for Holton Arms yearbooks, the searcher can find the yearbooks
for the years preceding Ford's last several years at Holton Arms, and the years following ---
why have the last several years when Christine Blasey attended missing? Why have they been
removed --- even cached versions --- from the Web?
Takes some serious tech resources to accomplish this in such a short period of time?!
How very odd . . . .
I do not want Kavanaugh, nor anyone like him, on the Supreme Court bench, but that does
not mean I automatically believe any and all unsubstantiated accusations and am sane enough
to comprehend that credible allegations require proof --- also referred to as
evidence.
It is not enough to state that this person drinks and is therefore guilty or that person
is a male and is therefore guilty.
I fully support an expanded investigation into both Kavanaugh AND Christine Blasey Ford,
including Ms. Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks and any and all police blotter activity/records
for her ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16.
And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . .
. and finally start doing their jobs!
Sidebar : Sen. Chris Coons claimed that Prof. Ford was courageous to have come forward as
she had nothing to gain , yet within several days after her testimony, Christine
Blasey Ford is almost one-half million dollars wealthier --- nothing to gain?
Hardly . . . .
[Next rant: MY elevator encounter with a 14-year-old psychotic blonde student, and her
buddy, many years ago in Bethesda, Md.]
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
She (Mitchell) was there to handle her like the delicate flower. To the pubes defense,
someone was smart enough to realize that a bunch of GOP white guys questioning her was not
going to play well. Enter the female prosecutor and her report.
On the other hand the dem guys and dolls could not genuflect enough , so their questioning
was fine. I mean they had her painted as the courageous hero of the modern era. So brave, so
noble , so, so, utterly awesome!
Puke ....
scraping_by , 23 hours ago
She had an emotional meltdown for a big finish. Note who gave her the run-in for it. (Not
Mitchell).
nicholforest , 1 day ago
Seems pretty obvious that Mitchell could not see a case for prosecution - what we heard
was mostly 'He said ... She said". So an unsurprising conclusion.
And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the
Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their
houses.
But what struck me was the behavior and style of Kavanaugh. He came across as belligerent,
petty, evasive, aggressive and impulsive. Those are not the characteristics that we want in a
candidate for the Supreme Court.
Little Lindsey G would say that Kavanaugh has a right to be angry, which may be so - but
the way that such anger is manifested is critical. In the military we look for leaders to be
cool under fire. The same should be true for a judge in the highest court in the land.
Instead he came across like a fearful, reactive, spiteful, spoilt frat boy. That will not
do.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
Ah, the double bind. Either he's robotic and reciting a script, or he's wild and howling
brat. Nice how that works.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nicholforest - And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the
process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A
curse on both their houses.
Please enlighten us on specifically which Dem. SC nomination the Republicans did a full on
character assassination .... were waiting!
It is mindless comments and a lack of rigorous thinking and moral equivocation like yours
that has led the country into the abyss of nonsense and division.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
Look at the time line provided and then tell me the Democrats aren't a pack of lying
weasles. The truth means absolutely NOTHING to them. Their agenda (to **** over Trump in any
way possible) is all that matters. Could anyone imagine what would have happened if the
Republicans would have pulled just 1/10th of that kind of ******** with the Homo *****??
There would have been continuous MSM inspired riots in the streets.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
They play by Alinsky Rules
rksplash , 1 day ago
I guess the only way this nonsense is going to go away is if the GOP start using the same
tactics. Hire some wannabe spin doctors to go through some old high school yearbooks in a
church basement somewhere in Alabama. An old black and white of some poor pimple faced
senator grabbing his crotch at the prom in 72.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
She did take a polygraph - and passed.
Yeah that's what the lying sacks of **** say, but of course there's absolutely no proof it
happened. She passed? O.k., let's assume they are at least not lying about that . . . what
questions were asked?
Bastiat , 1 day ago
A polygraph with 2 questions apparently. In other words a complete joke. A real poly has
scores if not hundreds of questions.
robertocarlos , 23 hours ago
Two questions were asked. "Are you a woman"? and "Are you a liar"?
Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago
It's amazing what a false memory can do.
Is there a verbatim transcript of the questions asked?
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Mitchell said it was irresponsible to give a polygraph to someone grieving the loss of a
loved one. Grandmother in this case.
peippe , 22 hours ago
rumor has it the exam included two questions.
Two Questions.
you decide what that means.
nsurf9 , 1 day ago
Not one shred of corroboration evidence of Ford's testimony, not even from her friend, who
flatly denied she ever went to such party, NONE, NADA, UNBELIEVABLE!
Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons'
bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with democrat financed malicious intent to defame?
And further, Montgomery County Police has formally stated that, as a misdemeanor, the
statute of limitations ran out on this allegedly crime - 35 frigging years ago.
And lastly, with regard to drinking in college, not one democrat mentions he finished top
of his Yale undergrad class and top of his Yale Law School class.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nsurf9 - Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy
loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with malicious intent to defame?
Please tell me how you or I could possible "safeguard" ourselves from "crazy loon" and
"bald-face lies" ....?
That is why we're supposed to be a nation of laws and innocent until proven guilty.
It is one thing to disagree over a person political position and or ideas but that is not
what is happening here. The Dems are in full assault mode to destroy BK and his family as a
warning to any future Conservative judge who may dare accepts a nomination to the SC.
What the Dems are doing will lead to some type of civil war if they do not stop this. It
will not be pretty if that happens.
nsurf9 , 23 hours ago
Requiring even a modicum of corroborated facts or evidence, outside of mere "words," would
be a good start!
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Yeah what an incredible story. She was at a party with some drunken creepy guys and got
sexually assaulted. Everyone knows that never happens!
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The current sleaze isn't overturning the legal right to abortion, it's making it
impossible to get one. It's a legal right that a woman has to sit through lectures, travel to
specific places, make certain declarations, and get a physician who's usually under attack at
the state level. It's not illegal, it's impossible.
It's not about restricting women, it's about making life harder for middle and lower class
people. Women of the Senator's economic class have always had and always will have access to
safe abortions. It's wage earners who have to depend on local providers.
Whether Catholic K will go along with the sabotage of a privacy right isn't clear. But
he's probably going to be sympathetic to making those working class wenches show some
responsibility.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
To quote famed feminist and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, women can always "Keep
their pants zipped". But then Granholm only extended her authoritarian control freakery to
the male half of the human race when she said that a few years ago. If women lose some
"reproductive rights" then some of them might start to have some empathy for men and our lack
of rights. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to empathize with us.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
I Write Code , 1 day ago
Wasn't there an old SNL skit about the "amygdala"?
YouTube doesn't seem to have an index on the term, LOL.
seryanhoj , 1 day ago
One more example of US governance and party politics on its way down the tubes. There is
no topic, no forum nowhere where the truth is even something to be considered. Media, law
makers, everyone looks at a story and says " Let's make this work for our agenda even if we
have to reinvent it from scratch". Then it is more than easy to find people to testify any
which way you want. Vomits copiously.
mabuhay1 , 1 day ago
The standard for females should be "They are lying if their lips are moving." Any claims
of sexual abuse should require proof, and witnesses that can back up said claims. Many
studies have found that years before the MeToo# lies began, about 60% of all claimed rapes
were false. Now, with the "Must believe all women" and the "MeToo#" scam, I would suspect the
rate of false claims to be very close to 100%
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The standard for any criminal investigation is ABC. Assume nothing, Believe no one, and
Check everything. The current feminist howl is sweep that aside and obey a women when she
points at a man.
Jack McGriff , 1 day ago
And yet every single MSM outlet is claiming she is credible! WTF!!!
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago
Major Hegelian dialectic **** going on with the Ford/Kav reality show.
Women everywhere side with Ford because she's a women, claims she was abused, and "has to
be believed", in order to settle some personal score that they all claim empathy for, even
though she has given every tell in the book that she is lying.
Men everywhere empathize with a man being falsely accused, regardless of his politics and
judicial history, even though he made his bones in the Bush administration, and can probably
be relied on to further the authoritarian state via the Supreme court. Guilty of this myself,
because it could be anyone of us next.
Pick a side, doesn't matter, because we've already lost.
Bastiat , 1 day ago
I "Believe the Women" -- the 3 women Ford named as witnesses who denied it ever happened,
the 65 women who signed the letter in support of Ford, and all the women who have worked with
him and had no issues. I don't believe this one, though.
phillyla , 1 day ago
truly embarrassing answer
were I a self important college professor I might lie and say "Shakespeare" but the truth
will out I learned it from The Avengers movie when Loki called Black Widow a 'mewling
quim'
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
A lot of women have seen their sons and brothers falsely accused. Ford was completely
unconvincing in her "I don't remember the details of a traumatic "sexual assault"
BGO , 1 day ago
Mitchell the "veteran prosecutor" also failed to ask Ford who hosted the party where the
alleged assault took place.
This is an important question. Maybe the most important question.
No one should be expected to remember their high school friends' home addresses, just like
no one should be expected to remember every person who attended a specific high school
party.
One thing ANYONE who suffered a violent attack would remember is WHO OWNED THE HOUSE where
the attack took place.
High school parties generally are hosted by a the same people throughout a students high
school years. It's not like everyone in class takes their turn throwing a kegger.
As anyone who drank to get drunk at parties in high school will tell you, it was always
the same handful of kids, maybe three or four, who let their friends drink alcohol in their
parents' home.
Narrowing down exactly who owned the home where the alleged attack took place should be
easy due to the fact that, according to Ford, it was more of a small get together than a full
blown party.
All investigators should need to do is ask the known attendees, under oath, whether or not
they hosted the party where the alleged attack took place.
The fact that Ford's testimony includes exactly one person whose name she cannot remember
is NOT a coincidence.
The phantom attendee was created out of thin air to give Ford an out if the known
attendees claimed the attack did not occur at their homes.
There are so many things wrong with this political farce. Liberal mental illness, as with
any case, is a given, automatically assumed.
Flip flopping dufuses on the other side, weakness, gross ineptitude.
The entire system needs to be culled via a massive firestorm; no one or thing left
standing.
Cassander , 1 day ago
@BGO -- Re your first sentence, Mitchell notes in her memo "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity".
I think this covers your point implicitly. If she doesn't remember what house it was, how can
she remember whose house it was?
Just thought you were going a bit hard on Mitchell, whose memo seems pretty damning to
me...
BGO , 1 day ago
Asking *what* house and *whose* house are two ENTIRELY different things.
Think about the most traumatic experience of your life. You know EXACTLY where the
traumatic experience took place, right?
FUBO , 1 day ago
She didn't ask one sexual question of her either,bu but dove right in on Kavanaugh.
istt , 1 day ago
And now we find out Leland Keyser was Bob Beckel's ex-wife. Unbelievable. Small circle
these libs run in.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
Actually nothing about the Democrats is surprising. They are predictable in keeping within
their closed ranks.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
They brought the wrong tool to the fight. Mitchell is a sex abuse prosecutor? Her tactics
may well work in the courtroom but the Judiciary Comm hearing was not a platform of
Mitchell's expertise. She apologized to Ms Ford and stated at the onset she would not ask Ms
Ford about the "incident" other than her recollections of location, date and witnesses.
Mitchell then hit Judge Kavanaugh head on with questions of gang rape, rape, sexual assault,
drinking behaviors. All validating Kavanaugh's guilt for the sheeple.
My two Eng Springer Spaniels exhibit better strategy than what we saw here.
Herdee , 1 day ago
Her father was in the CIA. Who was it within the organization that planned this?
aloha_snakbar , 1 day ago
If Fords alleged/imaginary groping is allowed to stand, what about all of the groping that
the TSA dispenses daily?
phillyla , 1 day ago
if touching over your clothes = rape I have several lawsuits to file against the TSA
...
Luce , 1 day ago
How does this ballsy ford bitch keep her PTSD in check when the TSA gropes her for all of
her exotic vacations?
phillyla , 1 day ago
some one should investigate if she signed up for the TSA's skip the line service for
frequent fliers ...
Also telling... nobody from her family (mother, father, brother) has come forward to
support her. Only her husband's family. They likely know she is making it up as it relates to
Kavanaugh. They know who she is.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
That's actually false. However, the muted support from her father is likely due his not
wanting to be ostracized from his upper-crust old boys golf club.
....and the biggest indications of fraud here are 4 go fund me accounts now raising over
$2M for CBF. Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a good gig if you can get it
now days.
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Y'all are being distracted and played, as usual, I am sad to say...
The judge Napolitano video at the end should have been played to Congress.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Yup, this man is not a friend of liberty, or justice.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
His *** is rethinking it now
istt , 1 day ago
"Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person's car without first
obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn't constitute a "search" as defined by the
Fourth Amendment."
I like him more now that I have read this article. Police should be able to legally track
known or suspected drug dealers. You got a problem with that? I suppose you're outraged over
our treatment of MS-13 as well?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Yes, I have a problem with that. Police must have enough prior evidence to get a warrant
to put a device on anyone's property (car, phone, email account, internet router) - any
private property is protected by the 4th.
Once they convince a judge of probable cause and get the warrant, they can plant the
tracking device. Most cops are power hungry, petty, vindictive, control freaks, with too much
time on their hands - one tried to make my life hell simply because I cut him off in
traffic.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
The hypocrisy of ZH posters in favor of this douche is unreal. Where is the libertarian
outrage?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
I think most libertarians have left ZH and this is a predominantly Republican partisan
site now. The internet is quickly becoming a bunch of echo chambers for like minded people,
with trolls appearing from time to time to fan flames if interest and eyeballs starts to
wane. We are lucky if one post out of 50 has any insight or real information.
11b40 , 1 day ago
Once you start down this slippery slope, the next step down is easy.
spieslikeus , 1 day ago
Eye opening, thanks for that. Appoint Judge Napolitano!
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
It would be nice to have a token libertarian voice on the court. Kavanaugh is not only a
statist, but a deep statist.
Golden Phoenix , 1 day ago
If taken completely at her word the gist of her story is someone touched the outside of
her clothes. Prison for tailors! They are all rapists!
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford says she ran from the house, Question, how did you get home? Answer, I don't
remember.
No Time for Fishing , 1 day ago
No one followed her out. No one said where are you going.
She is outside the house, no car, no phone, maybe clicked her heals and was magically at
home, worked for Dorthy.
Walked six miles home but just doesn't remember that? could be.
Knocked on a neighbors door to ask to use the phone and had someone pick her up but
doesn't remember that? could be.
Walked a few blocks to a pay phone and with the quarter she had in her bathing suit called
someone to pick her up, waited for them, didn't tell them what happened and then they drove
her home, just doesn't remember it? could be.
When she ran from the house did she not leave her purse or bag behind? Did she ever get it
back? Did her girlfriend never ask why she left?
Maybe I should just believe her......
Bastiat , 1 day ago
She ran all the way, got home in 35'32" -- she would have been a track star but the coach
looked at her *** at the team tryouts.
Benjamin123 , 1 day ago
Auntie delivers
The Swamp Got Trump , 1 day ago
Ford is a lunatic and a liar.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
so she does not remember how she got to the party or how she left the party but she
suggested she narrowed down the year because she knew she did not drive to the party since
she could not drive yet so she must have been 15.
I beg your pardon!
bh2 , 1 day ago
So does anyone recall Comey giving Clinton a free pass despite her many deliberate and
clear violations of US security laws on the basis that no reasonable prosecutor would take
action against her?
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
Dr. Fraud was a planned hit. Her social media presence was methodically deleted over the
last few months. There is nothing about her anywhere.... it's almost as if her name is fake
too.
Heard on 4chan that her and her husband have a big interest at the place she used to work,
Corcept Therapeutics. Apparently Corcept has developed a new abortion drug and have invested
a ton in R&D.
As always, follow the money.......
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
yeah, yeah. you do realize that her father plays golf with Kav's dad at their local
country club.
don't forget your tinfoil hat your way out, nutjob.
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
And you do realize that Kav's mother was the judge that presided over Dr. Frauds' parents
home foreclosure?
Lots of motives here.
Thanks for chiming in so we can all get to he truth.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Presiding over a foreclosure is not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a strictly
administrative task. The bank is the one foreclosing, you dolt.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
another unhinged, faux compassionate, rude leftist
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Another braindead gaslighting troglodyte
11b40 , 1 day ago
Then what is the judge for?
istt , 1 day ago
Turns out Ford is not even a psychologist. Some of the stupidest people I know carry PhD
titles because they are perpetual students. This just starkly shows the difference between
the two worlds people live in, if they can find Ford credible. She is the face of left wing
hysteria and partisanship.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And angry-boy Kavanaughty is the perfect reflection of unhinged conspi-racist GOP.
istt , 1 day ago
Keep repeating the mantras, losers. I'm sure there are many single mom's out there who
made lousy decisions, who hate their lives, who are willing to buy your whole story. YOU
resonate with them. But they are not here so get lost.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I crap bigger than you.
Got The Wrong No , 1 day ago
That's because you are Crap
Slaytheist , 1 day ago
Real men that live lives of principal and truth, get angry when women (inclues numen like
you) lie like children to get their way.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
So pretty much all of Kavanaugh's old cronies turn out to be degenerate drunkard
misogynist ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist toolbags and somehow Kavanaugh himself is Mr.
Squeaky Clean? <cough>********<cough>
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
No, they were all drunken college kids.
So have you lefties changed it and would like to charge him for partying?
lmao.....
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Lol, drunked college kids? More like degenerate a-holes. Troll harder.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
Yes. Troll harder.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
your being spoon fed a narrative by the msm like rice pudding to a gay cowboy, you make me
sick
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself, please.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
I thought I was being kind with the gay cowboy remark
istt , 1 day ago
Get the **** out of here, wingnut. Switch back to your CNN. We don't need your ilk here,
loser.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I have been here farrrrr long than the vast majority of you pikers. Long enough to recall
what ZH was intended to be for, before it became the cesspool it is today, infested with
russian trolls, nazi-fascist thugs, lunatic fringe d-bags spouting off like they know
anything about anything. So GET the F OFF MY LAWN, punk.
istt , 1 day ago
Anyone who finds this woman and her story credible need their head examined. They are
incapable of critical reasoning.
A political hit job and the stupid, ignoramus Ford was willing to do the hit. She should
be in jail for this disgraceful action.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
So she was communicating on Whatsup with the Washington Post on JULY 6th! How is that
consistent with wanting this whole story to be confidential?
She knew the person she was in contact with since she admitted she was the same journalist
who wrote the article in September. In whatsup you know each other's phone numbers so the
journalist knew her identity from the very beginning. Stop lying about the anonymous tip line
!
Let's call this for what it is: a conspiracy to hijack a supreme court nomination and Mrs
Blasio Ford, the Washington Post, democratic parties operatives (including senator
Fienstein's staff or the senator herself and the Kats legal firm) were co-conspirators).
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Hired by Pukes, no surprise here.
cheech_wizard , 1 day ago
So elections have consequences, right?
I'll bet you didn't miss a single one of Hillary's campaign events in Wisconsin, did
you?
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I really don't get it, there are many qualified conservative judges who would do a much
better job on SCOTUS and not damage the court's honor and credibility. Why Kavanaugh?
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Because he is a political heck and Drumpf likes it that way.
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford doesnt remember much, except when it matters. She doesnt know exactly when she was
raped or where she claims to be raped, but remembers seeing Mark Judge in a Safeway exactly 8
weeks later.
Hell I remember where I was when the space shuttle blew up in the 80s, I remember where I
was and who I was with when Mt St Helens blew her top in 1980.
People will always remember notable events, PERIOD!
Here is a classic, if you believe her story, I have a bridge for sale
Endgame Napoleon , 1 day ago
Back when the Roy Moore thing was keeping MSM ratings up, I, a person in Dr. Ford's age
group, recalled a 100% harmless event from my 16th year. The reason it sprang to mind is: it
echoed things they were accusing him of.
Accusers said he was in the mall, flirting with girls in their late teens and in other
commercial venues, chatting it up girls in that age group.
Although this event had not crossed my mind in years -- so un-traumatic was it -- I
remembered in much greater detail than Ford the specificities of this harmless event.
I was working at a locally owned steakhouse as a hostess, a glorified and very bored door
opener. I was wearing a pink, medium-warm-gray and light-warm-gray, striped dress (ugh, the
Eighties).
After work, I decided to stop at a local grocery store, and I felt pleased that a
candidate for office who later won handed me his card, trying to convince me to vote for him.
He also mildly flirted with me, not knowing how old I was, and I did not tell him my age,
enjoying the feeling of being older, sophisticated and attractive enough to get his
attention.
He put his phone number on the card, not that anything happened as a result. I knew that I
would not be allowed to go out with this man who really wasn't that much older than me,
anyway, probably about a decade older.
If this man ever ran for another office, or was appointed to a high office, I could call
this sexual assault, I guess, in this insane world. But I would never do that, nor would
almost any woman that I have met.
There must be something in the water, producing more barracudas with a mission to
criminalize things that earlier generations would have called flirting.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
was she on valium for funeral and polygraph test ?
this explains why test was done after funeral and her passing this test,
FBI must check this
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And while they're at it, they should also check all the stories from Yale classmates who
can attest to the fact that Kavanaugh was often spotted late at night stumbling and slurring
his words, and sometimes aggressively starting sh*t.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
inconsequential, nothing will come out of this,
opposite of her being on drugs for polygraph test, this just ends her story
"... The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up? ..."
"... Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis . ..."
"... Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep. ..."
"... Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill. ..."
"... My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen. ..."
Hey, John Brennan said to dig deeper, so we are. Keep peeling the onion and expose more
and more layers. She had a second door put in to improve the house's curb appeal, but you
can't see the door from the curb. The door helped with her claustrophobia but it only allows
egress from living space separate from her main residence.
As the commenter above said, "look squirrel"!
The whole point of discussing door #2 was to
bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford,
suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be
tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a
clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of
acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up?
The only pacifier evident here is the one up your ***.
Beatscape , 1 hour ago
Follow the money... it almost always takes you to the real motivating factors.
Sounds more like hubby didn't want strangers in the house, and she wanted the extra income
or potential. Perhaps, he was scared of the consequences of getting busted, after spending
the money...doing something non code compliant.
Builder here.
This starts to make sense...in a fucked up way.
digitalrevolution , 2 hours ago
Too far in the weeds on this one.
Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis .
NoPension , 1 hour ago
Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep.
PGR88 , 2 hours ago
Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad
acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill.
ChartRoom , 2 hours ago
My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the
field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
Can confirm
45North1 , 2 hours ago
A floor plan would be instructive.
NoPension , 2 hours ago
Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In an area where that setup probably
commands $2000 a month.
The gotcha moment for me was Ford's response to a question in which she declared that she
wanted Sen. Feinstein's office to know about her story while there was still time to find another
candidate. Not political at all.
Notable quotes:
"... after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of fatal attraction for him. . ..."
...In recent days I've seen teenage photos of both Ford and Kavanaugh. His handsomeness was
obvious. And he was evidently a leader in his school when it came to sports and academics.
I'm beginning to suspect, after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled
youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of
fatal attraction for him. .
Except for claiming she's 100% certain that Kavanaugh assaulted her, I
wonder if she's been vague enough to prevent any perjury charges?
There is this interesting passage, here as cited by the WP:
***************************************** Feinstein: How were you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh] ?
Ford: The same way that I am sure that I am talking to you right now: It's basic
memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that
sort of, as you know, encodes that neurotransmitter, encodes memories into the
hippocampus. And so the trauma-related experience then is kind of locked there whereas
other details kind of drift.
Feinstein: So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken
identity?
Ford: Absolutely not
*****************************************
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
Being Free , 23 hours ago
Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy
foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...
Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus
skewing the results.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
Blasey-Ford's squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child voice was both poor acting, and creepy.
If it wasn't acting, then its a clear sign of a deranged mind.
Blasey-Ford resides at 3872 Duncan Place in Palo Alto CA. Her house (according to Zillow)
is currently valued at $3,000,000.00+. There must be a lot of idiots out there contributing
to her GoFundMe account. She will need a lawyer, soon. I believe that there will be a trail
leading back to witnesses who will admit the entire thing was a hoax. And, the band played
on.
morongobill , 1 day ago
Saw this over at Burning Platform. Interesting that Ford's address is reveled.
Philip Rolfes
Leader
Philip Rolfes
@PhilipRolfes552
Leader
View Profile
3d
She can recall the number of beers she consumed but she cant recall the date or place?
Such a traumatic event and yet she did not tell police, parents?
Reply
Share
78
Likes
roc993
Leader
Philip Rolfes
3d
Somewhere in Maryland :-) "Good luck disproving my story!"
Reply
Share
23
Likes
Mason Williams
Philip Rolfes
3d
Very easy to see why she didnt tell as a 15 year old. But I agree with the rest of your
statement.
Reply
Share
9
Likes
Philip Rolfes
Leader
Mason Williams
3d
If she was honestly assaulted by him in 1982 she should of come forward then if nothing
more to remove the danger to other girls and women.
alan wong
Leader
3d
Edited
OMG. Feinstein not only cheapened the meaning of rape. She cheapened our Constitution. Shame
on her. What is fair about this process. Feinstein weaponized rape. Shameless!!
alan wong
Leader
3d
Edited
This is the same Senator that hired a spy and employed him for decades because she and
hiusband enriched themselves from China. Shameless!! Hey Senator Feinstein those women you
mentioned are not credible. Even NY Times are doubtful. I hope Kavanaugh's children are not
watching this tawdry hearing.
Reply
Share
11
Likes
Le Modele Francais
Leader
alan wong
2d
I hope Kavanaugh's family retains competent council and sues a mess of people into
bankruptcy...
roc993
Leader
3d
She talks and handles herself like a 20-year-old valley girl. She's what, 50+?
I for one see her as a political operative, may be crusader for abortions right (which I
support) and very troubled human being, possibly on antidepressants or something similar (her
facial expression, and kind of "permanently glued smile" are not natural at all and she looks
like a female of over 60 biological age while being 51 years old)
Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure." And his former colleague, James
Comey, has urged investigators to "dig deeper."
So begin at the beginning of her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony :
" I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couple's counseling
session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very
extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that
he and others disagreed with and could not understand.
In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in
detail."
Under questioning
from Sen. Diane Feinstein, Ford described an agonizing after-effect of the alleged Kavanaugh
attack that caused her to demand that second door :
"Anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I've been coping
with," Ford said. "More specially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."
FEINSTEIN: "Is that the reason for the second front door? Claustrophobia?"
FORD: "Correct."
The trade-off, apparently, was evident in Ford's statement that "our house does not look
aesthetically pleasing from the curb." From the view on Google Earth, or Redfin, one can't see
the second door easily and the house appears no uglier "from the curb" than it ever did, if it
did. But a glance at the real estate databases about Ford's house are instructive.
The Fords bought the house on June 20, 2007. And the "very extensive, very long remodel,"
including the second front door, were completed under a building permit granted in 2008.
So a natural question is why, four years after the remodeling, which also added two rooms
and a bathroom, is the installation of that second door still such a bone of contention between
the couple that it was an issue in the counseling they were undergoing in May 2012?
One key may be Ford's continuing testimony to Feinstein, after describing the aesthetic
difficulties "from the curb."
FEINSTEIN: "I see. And do you have that second front door?"
FORD: "Yes."
FEINSTEIN: "It "
FORD: "It - it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we
get to have - other students can live there."
Now that she mentions it, the additional remodeling in effect added a self-contained unit to
the house, with its own entrance, perfect for "hosting" or even possibly renting, in violation
of the local zoning . Perhaps a
professional office might be a perfect use, if an illegal one. And in the tight Palo Alto real
estate market, there are a lot of games played for some serious income.
And that may
answer another strange anomaly.
Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what
is now the Ford property . It is listed as this person's residence from 1993 to July 2007, a
week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.
Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed
practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in
2007.
Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a
talented artist as well.
But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall's address listed at what is now the
Ford residence.
Which raises other questions.
Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive
about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can't seem to recall much
about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the
therapist's summary? Who was the psychologist?
In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back
how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would
not answer yes or no, replying, "I am a couples therapist."
So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting her
terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the
second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for
the primary resident, how did the door's existence ameliorate Ford's professed
claustrophobia?
None of this means that her charges against Kavanaugh might not be perfectly valid, but her
explanation for the "second door" looks like it could use more investigation. At the very least
it appears to be a far more complicated element of Ford's credibility than it originally
appeared.
lulu34 , 3 minutes ago
It's a simple property tax scheme. Rent out the spacw to offset the taxes. You don't
report this income to the "authorities".
hannah , 22 minutes ago
first...******* NO ONE STATES THAT THERE ISNT EVEN A DOCTOR MUCH LESS THEIR NOTES...?
everyone wants to see the doctors notes yet no one has even mentioned the name of the doctor.
i dont think there are notes about a door. that is all ********. feinsteins people typed up
'the notes'.......also if she is renting the remodel area is she paying taxes on that income.
in california it could be $24,000 to $48,000 a year easily........
lulu34 , 2 minutes ago
Bingo...it's a cost $$$ collection to offset property taxes
Automatic Choke , 34 minutes ago
Illegal and unzoned apartment added to a house? Watch out, here comes the tax collector.
She just might have talked her way into a tax fraud conviction.
Seal Team 6 , 47 minutes ago
Randall ran a business from her home so I would wonder if she put the door in in the 90s,
as businesses run from homes typically have alternate entrances. Ford and husband listed it
on the permit in 2007 to cover it up otherwise it could be used as a basis to walk on a real
estate deal...no building permit was granted. Happens all the time. Boy if someone has a
picture of Ford's house from the 90's and see's that second door, she is done done done.
"... " The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles ..."
"... "The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive." ..."
"... Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system? ..."
" The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class
in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to
spoils and not to principles ."
(The Socialist Party and the Working Class". Eugene V. Debs' opening speech as Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in
Indianapolis, Indiana, www.marxists.org . September 1, 1904. )
I haven't paid any attention to the "Kavanaugh hearings" other than reading some headlines and some comments here and there. It's
not that I don't care about the Supreme Court, although my paying attention to this bullshit won't change a damn thing, it's more
that the entire spectacle of watching this country's political system in action, with or without sex crime accusations, makes me
sick.
I'm writing this because I clicked on an article titled,
"More Like a
Hijacking Than A Democracy, Senator Graham" because the reference to democracy interested me (we don't live in one for the ten
thousandth time). I scanned the article, which has a photo of Lindsey Graham and some suits against a wood grained background of
political importance, and saw it contained information about the process and system being followed by the oligarchy controlled duopoly.
At this point in my life, I'm adamantly against having a "Supreme" court with nine One Percenter assholes appointed for LIFE by
the duopoly unrepresentatives having the power of life, death or misery over hundreds of millions of people, and beyond when it comes
down to it. What bullshit. As with everything else in our national political system, the system and process has become so warped,
corrupt, partisan and ideological it's pathetic.
Plenty of people are asking why the process is unfolding the way it is, with the sex allegations as the focal point, but very
few are asking why we have a system like this at all. Why do we need this? Who and what is this for? Aren't there better options?
Why are we letting all these assholes do this to us? WHY do we let the corrupt and oligarchy controlled democratic and republican
parties completely control this process? In the end, isn't this just another example of how fucked up our political system is at
the national level?
"The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics
Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni
people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive."
Kind of the same old, same old Paul. I think the real question is why can't enough of us organize together to challenge those that
rule us. I mean really challenge, like revolution type challenge. Overthrow these motherfuckers type challenge. This isn't new. Look
at that Debs quote, 1904. Nothing is new, we keep doing the same shit over and over. Maybe that's just the way it is, but then again,
we're smarter than that aren't we? Why aren't more people calling for/demanding radical change to our fucked up political system
completely controlled by the rich? Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering
how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system?
They're doing all this shit and then we're going to have another election. Shit.
The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to
face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and
wrong.
Kavanaugh's career as
a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security
state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have
provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the
domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of
these.
Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately
aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an
era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong
nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps
the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political
activist.
The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture
A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet
activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough
enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance
as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the
Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the
government to conduct searches.
Kavanaugh
explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy
occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should
have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the
court.
Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the
power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people.
He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for
broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views
on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible
way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search
without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump
out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the
wrong nominee and should be disqualified.
Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US
and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as
a justice but
should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who
once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than
waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting
prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of
torture.
Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so
Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006
confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about
Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to
the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed
Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear
now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush
Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the
controversial Haynes nomination."
Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with
Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the
documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are
rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions
about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of
perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being
confirmed.
This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal
Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and
as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been
complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone
accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.
Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop
this nomination?
Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet
In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader
describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of
federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and
planet.
This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored
reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled
in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against
protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water.
If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the
damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.
Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of
anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruledin favor of the Trump Organizatio
n throwing out the results of a union election,
sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the
casino's First Amendment
right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which
they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate
the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed
Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the
right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and
mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.
Kavanough
opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality,
which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality
violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the
power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a
free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the
Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a
very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges
the mainstream narrative.
Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the
Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to
regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.
On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the
use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where
Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth
control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free
exercise of religion.
Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to
resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial
chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing
women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.
Multiple accusers
have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify
– it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by
the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI
investigation. It is unclear
whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses.
As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St.
Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director
Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After
graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush
Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"
Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader
suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating
evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.
During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they
were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He
demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to
serve on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral
arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying,
torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and
corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted,
but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process
undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.
The potential payoff is exaggerated. There's nothing stopping a lame-duck Senate ramming
an equally-conservative alternative justice through before they're gone. The SCOTUS payoff is
for seating someone like Kav , not for seating Kav. The payoff for seating Kav is
far narrower. And the seating of a Kav-or-equivalent justice ahead of the election is
an entirely and unevaluated different matter
What are the odds? No, the question should be: what are the ends?
cian 09.26.18 at 7:41 pm (no link)
More on Anita Hill:
"But conservative members of the State Legislature, led by Representative Leonard E.
Sullivan, a Republican from Oklahoma City, have called Professor Hill a perjurer, said she
should be in prison, demanded her resignation, tried to cut off matching money for the
professorship and introduced legislation to shut down the law school."
Post-Thomas, nobody made any claims of sexual misconduct, true or false, against Stephen
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Harriet Meyers, Sonia Sotomayor, or
Elena Kagan (though there were some whispers about matters that, in decent circles, don't
count as "misconduct"). Let's add in perhaps the only people who have a higher profile than
Supreme Court nominees: No one made any claims of sexual misconduct against Al Gore, George
H.W. Bush, whoever-the-hell was his VP candidate, Bob Dole, whoever-the-hell was his VP
candidate, Joe Lieberman, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom
Kaine, or Mike Pence. There were claims of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton, John
Edwards, and Donald trump, but they were true. It just doesn't look s if claims of sexual
misconduct, true or false, are that likely.
@Rational It seems to me that the FBI investigation should include an investigation of
who leaked the Ford information, over her stated objections.
On the other hand, the Dems were VERY interested in having the FBI do a further
investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, the same FBI that got a FISA warrant to "wiretap" Trump
under false pretenses. Can we really be sure that there aren't arrangements already in place
to frame Kavanaugh?
Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure."
national treasure
Is CLEARLY a code word.
Payoff? Bribe?
silverserfer , 22 minutes ago
Creepy as **** that a former CIA diector would say soemthing like this.
surf@jm , 18 minutes ago
Fords father was CIA....
Dont forget that.....
thebigunit , 42 minutes ago
Very curious.
So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting
her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances?
What I find MOST curious is the fact that Dr. Ford's internet persona has been completely
"sanitized".
Someday, the master conspiracy will be revealed, and it will look something like this:
The main plotter and organizer of the anti-Trump coup d'etat was former CIA director
John O. Brennan.
Venture capital funding for Google was provided by CIA venture capital operation
In-Q-Tel.
Google was started by Stanford University grad students Larry Page and Sergey
Brin.
Stanford University is located in Palo Alto, California
Palo Alto is a company town for Stanford University
Stanford University is a captive technology incubator for the CIA
One of the biggest technology companies in Palo Alto is CIA contractor Palantir
Palo Alto is a company town for the CIA.
Dr. Christine Baseley Ford was a professor at Palo Alto University and also taught at
Stanford University.
Overy 1750 Stanford University graduates work at Google.
The CIA developed the plan to take out Judge Kavanaugh using radical feminist
operatives associated with Stanford University and Stanford Law School to claim sexual
misconduct.
The CIA used its control of the technology industry and Google in particular to
sanitize Christine Ford's internet personna and to obscure or suppress any information that
might disclose her radical history and associations.
The CIA, Stanford, and Google are joined at the hip.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
Deschutes says:
September 29, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT 400 Words John Derbyshire – another shitty,
adolescent article from the angry white conservative man child who blames everybody whose not
white and male for his own failings and problems. The way you portray women in this article
reveals a man child who never matured beyond 16 years of age. It is little wonder you portray
women as nothing more than angry children's book characters who vomit if they don't get their
way: a man child can't see it any other way. Not once in this diatribe do you mention abortion
rights. It never occurred to you that losing abortion rights might piss off some women. If
Kavanaugh is put on the court, abortion will be made illegal in USA. Debryshire, you remind me
Jeff Sessions: you're a couple of bookends from the 1940s. Same racist mind set, same 'war on
drugs' reactionary bullshit, same 'women belong in the kitchen' nonsense etc. What's more,
anybody who actually likes Lindsey Graham is a total complete asshole. There is nothing to like
in that self-righteous reactionary, war criminal piece of shit from the Old South. If you've
enjoyed the last 17 years of wars without end and the wretched 'war on terror' and all that has
come to pass since 9-11, then Lindsey Graham is your man. Like McCain, he never saw a war he
didn't love starting. And watching Graham's temper tantrum meltdown in the congressional
hearings the other day made for rather uncomfortable viewing, like watching a 5 year old in a
toy store who didn't get his GI Joe doll. Since when is losing your temper, foaming at the
mouth and screaming at the entire caucus because you are not getting your way acceptable
behavior? It isn't. But it is a sure sign of a person who is a total, complete egotistical
asshole. I always hated Scalia, and was really happy when he died. That Obama and the dems were
too spineless to stick a replacement on the bench when they had the chance only reinforced my
total lack of respect for the dems. The tragedy in waiting was that now we will have a
reactionary conservative majority scotus headed by Kavanaugh, and abortion will be made
illegal; more laws passed to favor giant corporations like Citizens United; more anti-worker
legislation passed; more war and more police state measures domestically: that's your
Trump/Kavanaugh/Lindsay Graham/John Derbyshire shit stain USA coming yer way!
@Deschutes Ah, ah, the main issue here is not where Kavanaugh will stand on abortion laws
but whether the campaign of slander against him could have any possible truth.
The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the
helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have
traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago. Well, where on earth
was she all these years? She ended up with a Ph.D. in psychology so she could not have been
ignorant of laws and remedies surrounding rape and attempted rape through her years in
university. Where was her "great courage" all these years? A tad too much of a coincidence
this, her finding her memories and courage right on the eve of Kavanaugh's proposed
appointment. Kavanaugh may or may not be a good choice for the Supreme Court; opinions can
differ legitimately. But putting him on a show-trial where he comes out looking unclean no
matter what is a travesty of natural justice and a grave injury to common decency and common
sense.
@anon I know all of this woman-howling is covering up his role in the Vince Foster
'suicide' making him a George HW Bush CIA (Iran-Contra, cocaine trafficking) lap-dog. Oh, and
he ruled the USA can kidnap American citizens abroad and hold them at black sites
Kavanaugh hearings are just another episode of bad political theater.
Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him,
always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.
I find the charge that Kavanaugh was acting like a spoiled baby because he defended himself
outrageously shabby and undeserved.
So, trying to defend himself against the utter devastation of his character and reputation
is considered petulant? Absolutely not! He defiantly denied the allegations most indignantly
after Democrats made him and his family their outhouse floormat on which they continuously
wiped their feet. Instead of trying to defend his honor, his family, and his life, I guess he
was supposed to take it with groveling submission and withdraw his name in humiliation? To
the chagrin of the left he did not. He called Democrats out for what is patently obvious to
anyone with a thinking brain, this was a carefully orchestrated political hit job and he was
spot on in leveling the indictment.
As for Dr. Ford? I found her not credible. Her allegations were just plausible enough to
smear Kavanaugh, but Kafkaesque enough to deny the possibility of any exculpatory evidence to
clear Kavanaugh. Wouldn't it be nice if we could question the driver who took her home? They
could testify as to her state of mind, the location of the house, possibly the time, and
date. Or did she walk? She left without warning her best friend she could be in danger? Did
her sudden exit raise eyebrows? She remembers how many beers she had but not the house she
was drinking in? Was there not a down stairs bathroom? If you're going to put the mark of
Cain on somebody, you had better have something damn more credible than just a free-floating
assault story, because the bare allegation itself is not proof of truth no matter how
believable she tells it after thirty years.
And there are other troubling inconsistencies. She seemed confused by some of Ms.
Mitchell's questions. She could not arrive in Washington earlier in the week because she said
she had a fear of flying, but she flew to Washington and flies all the time. It's clear that
she was being heavily managed by her liberal handlers. She wasn't even told that Grassley had
proffered to come to her in California to take her statement. Of course, this would have
upset the objective to delay as long as possible. Her own witnesses cannot corroborate her
story. We can't check the veracity of her questionable lie detector test because her lawyers
won't cooperate in turning over any recordings. She supposedly turned over her medical
records to the WP, but refused to make them available to the Judiciary Committee. Just out of
curiosity, what PhD doesn't know the meaning of "exculpatory?" What PhD doesn't know how to
get in touch with her elected representatives? Meanwhile her social media accounts have been
scrubbed So we can't see the true extent of her political activism. A proper FBI
investigation of these allegations could have been done in due time had not Feinstein been up
to her skullduggery.
Now that they have their one week FBI investigation, look for the goalposts to move yet
again. Only an anencephalic would be fooled into thinking Democrats are operating in good
faith.
As someone (male) who has helped victims of sexual crimes, I did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's
accusation to be credible, nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation
will never reach the level of a charge because it lacks basic evidence. Further, the
accusator's tale remains just that without a proper interrogation. For instance, it is
improper to assume that Ms. Blasey Ford's demeanor is evidence of her "truth". Sure, she may
be convincing to a naive person, but how often have we been convinced by a sincere victim,
only to find out later that the accused was innocent?
The facts are:
At best Ms. Blasey Ford is a willing stooge, at worst she is a co-conspirator in a
political scheme to destroy the nomination of an innocent man to be a SC Justice. It is she
and her Dem. allies who need to be investigated.
All this could have been avoided if they had gotten the FBI to investigate from day 1. The
investigatin should be conducted by professionals not by amateur cops and lawyers who learned
it from TV. That would keep the theorizing at bay "We are waiting for their findings" is the
kind of response that does not raise hackles.
It would take a bit more time, of course, but it would not turn into a three ring
circus.
The greatest irony is that all those indignant Democratic Senators voted to return alleged
serial rapist and sexual predator, Billy Jeff Clinton, and his enabling wife, Hillary, to the
White House.
Like commenter Randy S Williams I "did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation to be credible,
nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation will never reach the level of
a charge because it lacks basic evidence."
Victor Davis Hanson (National Review, Sept 28) gives this succinct summary of the Ford
testimony: "The "process" of memorializing Ford's testimony involved a strange inversion of
constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate
testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity;
the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated
to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered
proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant;
the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state's investigation of the allegations; and
the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar
allegations."
The endless sympathy, empathy, claims of "sincerity", given to Dr. Ford are mystifying to me.
What, if anything, ever happened to her I don't know, but the possibility that NOTHING of
this nature, a sexual assault, has ever happened to her is certainly not one I can rule out,
and, as a adult woman, a citizen in this republic, that she should be showered with so many
calls of "respect", and hosannas to her "bravery" is bizarre and inexplicable. She has
PERMANENTLY damaged, irrevocably, the reputation, up to now a sterling one, of a sitting
United States federal judge with this reckless allegation of criminality of the most serious
sort. She has no sympathy from me whatsoever, no matter what her motives were, which I care
not at this point after watching such a sickening display of politically-motivated character
assassination in America.
Sure, concentrate entirely on the Democrats. Republicans are the soul of honor in this. They
know that former drunken frat boys have to stick together.
Here and there, but certainly not here at TAC, one can find posts which actually state
what is wrong with both sides in this typically American bipartisan idiocy. Here is one
--
Personally, I don't care a hoot who Americans appoint to their Supreme Court but the
political game is amusing to watch. Clearly, the target is Trump and the prize is the
midterms but what's amusing is that the Republicans have left themselves no choice but to
shoot themselves in the foot. The only choice being which foot they're going to shoot
themselves in! If they confirm Kavanaugh, they will alienate middle-of-road swing voters. If
they fail to confirm him, they will alienate Trump's core supporters. The latter aren't all
that numerous. Trump got only about 25% of the registered electorate in 2016 and part of that
will have been Republican loyalists. The loss of either of those groups could swing the
election. Trump needs a massive "October surprise" to overcome that and another "I'll
denuclearize when you do" meeting with Kim Jong-un will hardly surprise anyone. A war,
perhaps?
It is hard to believe that the shy, shrinking violet, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, could stand
before students at Stanford and Palo Alto and teach them. She came off as a case of arrested
development, hiding behind oversized glasses, like a 6th grade girl, so demure, timid, and
afraid of flying. Give me a break! She deserves an academy award for that performance!
For the Republicans and Trump to buy into her little act makes me gag.
@33 Jerry Springer and politics, true, and I'm glad we're finally getting to the nub of your
pieces: politics – and the mid-terms?
Meanwhile, I did a little more background reading on the latest round of accusations.
Witness number 2 confirms that BK was an obnoxious drunk at Yale, and very much a "man's man"
in the infantile sense of the expression. From CNN
"James Roche, Kavanaugh's roommate in the Fall 1983, also issued a statement saying that
Kavanaugh was a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time."
"(H)e became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk," Roche said.
One classmate who attended many of the same parties as Brett Kavanaugh but did not want to
be identified, says he was "aggressive, obnoxious drunk, part of the crowd he hung out
with."
Roche added that he became close friends with Ramirez in the early days at Yale and while
he "did not observe the specific incident in question," he did remember "Brett frequently
drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."
BK whipped out his male parts on at least one occasion, seems hopelessly immature, and
could be grabby and inappropriate. First time I've heard of that kind of behavior, ahem.
My own narrow experiences in this community as a youth were limited to middle-school
athletics. Members of the rugby team liked to pull down their pants when drunk. Even at
sixteen I could see that kind of behavior wasn't going to lead me to the promised land. That
said, after migrating into a much more mixed community, I distinctly recall being dragged
into a totally dark bedroom at a party and thrown down onto a bed in a manner quite different
to Ms. Ford. Lines blurred. I've known a number of women who owned to intimate contact with
two or more partners in an evening in high school and after, and who are now successful
parents and hold good jobs. People do grow and change.
Yet, it's clear BK and I would never have been at the same parties, but I'm not sure I've
read anything that makes him a sexual predator, (a charge you withdrew), or guilty of rape.
He seems guilty of nothing more than being an asshole to both girls and boys as a high-school
student, and an entitled and ugly drunk at Yale.
Rob
Holston Rachel Mitchell failed to cross examine properly.
Dr Ford gave credible testimony in her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and was seemingly
made more credible by an almost non-existent cross examination by Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell had
many failures but I'll just mention a couple. Dr. Ford testified that her life was so disrupted
after the alleged "attack" on her that she had a very difficult time with her first two years
of college. Here is where Mitchell dropped the ball. She had no idea of where the ball was, how
to pick it up or which direction to run with it.
Her immediate line of question should have been:
What grades did you earn in math, science, english, history during your freshman year in
high school. What was your freshman GPA. Could you please tell me the same answers for your
sophomore year? Your junior year? Your senior year? If the attack happened as you allege,
wouldn't your GPA in high school take a drop during your junior and senior year?
Of course I would recommend that Mitchell would know the answers before asking the
questions. The point is IF the attack happened as alleged between Ford's sophomore and junior
year then one would expect a dramatic change in her academic and social life during her junior
and senior years, NOT 3 & 4 years after the alleged attack. And IF Ford's GPA and social
life in high school DID make a dramatic change after the next two years, Ford should be able to
present teachers and high school classmates to testify as as to Ford's dramatic change IN HIGH
SCHOOL not 3-4 years latter in college.
Another line of questioning should have been questioning Ford's drinking habits: When did
you begin attending parties with boys and drinking beer. Did you ever drink to excess? Did YOU
ever drink so much that YOU didn't remember much about the previous night's party? Did your
drinking habits increase through the years? What years of your life has your drinking of beer
been the greatest. Were your drinking habits perhaps responsible for your failure at college
during your first two years?
I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford's testimony was NOT credible. It was in ways incredible, in
the positive meaning of the word. But I AM saying that Mitchell was obviously not the right
choice for the job of cross examination. Paul Dent I actually think Mitchell's questioning
was on the right track. She did not ask questions on the practiced lie, but rather on
peripheral details that the lying brain would not have stored in the hypothalamus. All of the
answers "I don't know" etc are proof that the main story is a big lie because it has no anchor
to surrounding realities. I would have loved to have asked how she dried her bathing suit after
swimimig
KCMark
Leader
2d
Mitchell's questioning was actually very good. She attacked Ford's credibility without
attacking her personally. Examples:
Ford alluded to a fear of flying caused by the alleged incident (PTSD), yet Mitchell
highlights how Ford has flown professionally any numerous times on vacation.
Mitchell demonstrated Ford's lack of recall when Ford could not remember if she
provided her therapist notes to the Washington Post.
Ford could not provide specifics in the polygraph test, and even had trouble recalling
the actual day.
Say It Ain't So
Johnny
Leader
Randall Dornier
2d
All this NEVER should have happened
It should have been dealt with weeks ago in private
This is a circus
And the democrat clown car was in full display
These are evil despicable clowns
Chuck Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Gillibrand ...... -evil, disgusting, skivey, rotten, despicable, CLOWNS!
RichardC
Leader
2d
Dershowitz has his strong opinions, and both the knowledge and experience to back them up.
That doesn't make him right in all cases, though. Would it have been better to push harder
and give Ford yet more sympathy? Would a different line of questioning have gotten her to be
more open? We will never know. All we really know now is that it is still an accusation
without supporting evidence.
Reply
Share
9
Likes
Say It Ain't So
Johnny
Leader
RichardC
2d
Calling for more investigation is nonsense
Tell you what though
The republicans better hire a private investigator to find out EVERYTHING about this accuser so that when the clown
democrats continue there are FACTS about what she has been doing for 30 years
Reply
Share
5
Likes
Wisconsin ex-Democrat
Leader
RichardC
2d
Agree that it was theater. But even if it was not, what 51 y.o. professional woman affects
a childish and sex-kittenish façade for any reason besides parody? And clearly, she was
not trying to present a parody of victimhood in this venue.
Then there is her appearance. A prudent, moderate lifestyle won't make you look ten years older than your chronological age,
no matter who your parents were.
Steve Scale
Leader
2d
But you are not allowed to question women. They are to be believed above all logic and
reason. Sic.
Reply
Share
8
Likes
Rumpelstilskin
Leader
2d
Edited
I thought Rachel Mitchell was effective in interviewing Ms. Blasey Ford. I'm not a lawyer,
but she was easy for me to follow, and she didn't offend anybody, and she stayed focused. I
felt like she disarmed Ms. Blasey Ford. I thought she got a lot more information out of her,
(in the time available) than the Republican Senators would have. (We saw how ineffective the
Democratic Senators were).
I felt sorry for Ms. Blasey Ford, she was a total mess.
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time,
not decades later. Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later,
but because real sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
If Blasey Ford was really attacked, she's in part responsible for the next attack,
having enabled it by her silence.
Not that, after the hearing, I believe she was really attacked.
Do you think the leadership of the Democrat Party care any more for women than Trump?
The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding
the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement
in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have
been sealed. Why?
Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.
The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding
the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement
in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have
been sealed. Why?
Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.
This of course is the way the whole "elite" in the Democratic Party is behaving towards
Russia in the accusations of interference in the 2016 election. The dozens of "sanctions" to
punish Russia for its alleged transgression are based on no real evidence. It is even more so
in the completely fabricated story of the Skripal poisonings in the UK, where no evidence has
been presented which would have any chance of standing up in a court, and the punishments
have been inflicted in droves on the "guilty party" which "everyone knows" is at fault.
Innocent until proven guilty????not in the 21st century, it seems.
backwardsevolution , September 26, 2018 at 11:26 pm
I don't even know what to say. Do we no longer believe in the presumption of
innocence?
"When political animus spills over into action in the real world such as repeated criminal
assault, as has been happening now with regularity and is being increasingly documented in
video form and in their own voices by the political left, there is a major problem.
When that sort of activity is intentionally amplified and permitted by major corporate
firms such as Facebook and Twitter while suppressing any sort of pushback whatsoever, you now
add an attempt to con the public into believing this is some sort of 'organic' series of
events -- when nothing of the sort is the case.
When Chuck Schumer states on CSPAN that "There is no presumption of innocence", then the
Rule of Law and due process are both dead and he is inviting, provoking and in fact inciting
civil war.
The conduct alleged is criminal; whenever one makes such an allegation due process rights
attach. If one cannot find recourse in due process before the law, then the only remaining
recourse is to the law of the jungle.
There are also those (Hirono) who have gone even further and stated that Kavanaugh is
presumed guilty because she does not like his written judicial opinions. This is exactly
identical to the Salem witch trials where one was presumed a witch because they had a black
cat and were unmarried, which certain people found 'distasteful'.
The media, specifically but not exclusively CNN, is even worse -- they are intentionally
lying and when the civil war they are inciting comes they are and should be first on the list
of parties held responsible for the outcome.
As just one example, in the context of Ramirez they have intentionally lied about the fact
that her attorneys have ignored and deflected seven separate attempts to obtain some sort of
formal statement of facts and allegations made under penalty of perjury; instead her
attorneys continue to insist on a trial in the media where there is no penalty for outright
lies. Why is this?"
What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?
Ford is a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. A
biostatistician, she "specializes in the design and analysis of clinical trials and other forms
of intervention evaluation,"
according to the university .
Her work has also been published in several academic journals, covering topics such as 9/11
and child abuse.
Ford has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, according to a
Holton-Arms' alumni magazine, the Bethesda, Maryland, school from where she graduated,
The Wall Street Journal reported . She teaches at both schools in consortium, according to
the newspaper.
The magazine also noted she is an "avid surfer, and she and her family spend a great deal of
time surfing in the Santa Cruz and San Francisco areas."
Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged
assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. During therapy, he said his wife talked
about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned
her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.
He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh's name. She said during the
session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme
Court.
Ford provided a copy of the therapist's notes to The Washington Post, which detailed her
recollection of being assaulted by young men "from an elitist boys' school" who would become
"highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."
Additional notes from a later therapy session said she discussed a "rape attempt" that
occurred when she was a teenager, The Washington Post reported. Ford is a registered Democrat
who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington
Post.
She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive
candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Once it was clear that Kavanaugh was President Trump's pick to replace retired
Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Ford contacted The Washington Post's tip
line, according to the newspaper.
She also contacted her representative in Congress, Democrat Anna Eshoo. She sent a letter to
Eshoo's office about the allegations that was passed onto Feinstein.
After she retained the services of Debra Katz, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, she
took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. According to the results shared
with The Washington Post, the test concluded that Ford was being honest.
(1) Kavanaugh is telling the truth and Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are lying.
(2) Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying.
Of course with four witnesses testifying there are many other possibilities, but I don't
think anyone here (me included) has patience for more than two hypotheticals.
Which of (1) or (2) one believes is largely subjective, the outcome of a life's worth of
cognitive experience. Myself, based on the balance of probabilities, Occam's Razor,
yesterday's testimony, and my personal political biases, I go with (2). Many others here go
with (1); I don't have a problem with that, individuals' beliefs cannot be adjudicated.
I think the problem is the people in general and the political sphere in particular have
never come to terms with unresolvable doubt. We may never know "beyond a reasonable doubt"
which of (1) or (2) is closer to the truth, and yet we must make a decision soon on whether
Kavanaugh should be appointed to the SC.
But it is not necessary for those who believe (x) to demonize those who believe (y).
Frank , September 28, 2018 at 3:22 pm
Andrew,
I agree with you about the need to stop demonizing friends and neighbors because they
disagree with us. I don't agree with your other point. There is actually quite a bit of
evidence out there already. Trained investigators face the problem of older evidence all the
time. Although the FBI does not have a good record with regards to objective and depolitized
work, I do think it is possible for them to reach a conclusion about who is telling the truth
here. Whether they will do an honest investigation is an open question for me, but they could
do one and we would have a well reasoned conclusion.
Realist , September 29, 2018 at 4:30 am
So, you say there are basically two possibilities with no way to objectively decide
between them.
What consequences should therefore follow from such uncertainty?
1. Destroy the man's career and reputation because???? Or
2. Ignore this undecidable issue with respect to his qualifications and appointment?
Now, which makes more sense and is closer to an approximation of justice?
Punish a potentially innocent man for??? Or
As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one
innocent be punished?
Miranda M Keefe , September 29, 2018 at 6:38 am
"As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one
innocent be punished?"
Uh, if he is not confirmed to SCOTUS he will go free. This is a job interview, not a
criminal trial.
Realist , September 29, 2018 at 9:49 am
Really, it's more than that. It's an attempted character assassination to achieve a
political goal. Don't pretend otherwise. Moreover, it's still a form of punishment to have
his reputation ruined even if he is confirmed.
Kim , September 29, 2018 at 10:30 am
What your equation ignores here is the harm to others that would ensue were the guilty man
to be free to impose his warped views on the nation's justice system.
Andrew Dabrowski , September 29, 2018 at 11:26 am
There are multiple evidentiary standards used in different contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
In the US, criminal cases use that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil cases the
standard is preponderance of evidence. That was why OJ Simpson could be held liable in the
civil case after having been acquitted in the criminal one.
Confirmation hearings seem much more akin to a civil case than to a criminal one; in fact
even less is at stake here than at many civil trials, where multi-million dollar penalties
are often sought. So I believe the correct standard should be preponderance of evidence, if
not an even weaker one.
You are so soaked in Rachel Maddow type kool-aide it is probably pointless to post this
for you but I will for others to read.
It is astounding to try to tie Russia and Putin as behind every perceived wrong in the world
,they ARE two separate things ya' know as in Trump is not America. However he does represent
it but with mask off, no charming words unlike Obama who spoke so well while bringing about
the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Libya or funding terrorists in an attempt at
another regime change so the U, UK and France can't loot the resources.
i guess you missed this "On Tuesday of this week, in a story that's almost impossible to
find anywhere, Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, agreed to cave in to Republican majority
leader Mitch McConnell so that they could fast-track 11 of the pro-corporate, anti-consumer
judges that Republicans are wanting to ram through the courts, or through the nomination
confirmation process, before the midterm elections. This is why people get mad at the DNC,
and the establishment Democrats, and at the Democratic Party itself in general. There was no
reason whatsoever for the Democrats to cave on this issue, none." https://trofire.com/2018/08/31/democrats-cave-agree-to-fast-track-trumps-corporate-judges/
I agree with your statement that "[the FBI] will try to figure out what will best serve
their interests. I believe in Michael Avenatti, however, and that he and his client will
prove to be Kavanaugh's undoing.
backwardsevolution , September 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Diana – Ms. Ford WAS NOT RAPED. She was GROPED.
If the incident occurred at all, could it have been done in jest? Ms. Ford, by her own
admission, said that the two guys who did this were maniacally laughing and very
intoxicated.
The groping probably lasted for all of about one second before the other boy jumped on top
of them, and they all fell off onto the floor, laughing. There appears to have been no
"seriousness" involved here.
Ms. Ford was not challenged at the hearing. In fact, Ms. Mitchell, the prosecutor brought
in specially to question her at the hearing, specifically said that she would not be asking
her about the allegations at all, and she didn't. What? She should have been strenuously
challenged.
The only things Ms. Mitchell brought out were:
– she established a potential political bias
– she established that even though the hearing was held up from Monday until
Thursday because Ms. Ford stated she was afraid to fly and needed more time to get to the
hearing, this turned out to be a lie. Ms. Ford DID fly.
Ms. Ford was not challenged. I say bring her back and put her under some serious
cross-examination.
"If he is rejected -- although his confirmation seems to be a substantial likelihood at this
point -- my only disappointment will be that Democrats think they won."
Illya's post on job interview vs. criminal standard is good
I respectfully disagree. Illya's post is naïve because the key problem with
this nomination is that it tips the scale in the Supreme Court. That's why we see torture
supporting female senator assaulting torture supporting nominee and rebuffed by the best friend
of Senator John McCain.
But I agree that the discussion is good and illustrate various point that are missing from
this thread, especially the fact that this creates a new standard that Dems will now face, if
they have a chance to nominate a new member of Supreme Court. They might regret about
elimination of filibuster. Now it is about vicious attacks in the personally of the nominee
with no stone unturned in his/her personal history.
I will provide some interesting quotes below. Not that I agree with them all (I would like
Kavanaugh to be derailed due to his participation in justifying torture in Bush II
administration)
No, but this isn't a job interview. A better analogy would be more like a TV interview. If
the interviewer is reasonably fair and asks sensible questions, it would be foolish to get
angry with him / her. But if the interviewer is obviously biased, asks loaded questions,
constantly interrupts your answers, and paraphrases your answers into the opposite of what
you said, then rather than sit and take it meekly, it may be more sensible to push back and
call the interviewer out.
Senators and Congesscritturs in committees have been allowed to get away with the pretense
that they are owed deference for their showboating and that people up before them must meekly
submit to the most egregious abuse. A nominee who tells them where to get off, in no
uncertain terms, is very welcome.
Miguel Estrada's comment that he would never accept a nomination because it might require
him to be civil to Chuck Schumer is one way out. The other is to accept the nomination and
forget about being civil to people like Schumer.
The discussion also raised the importance of the fact that the supposed assault
was reported so late and that there is a possibility that 2012 therapist session served as a
justification of creating a separate entrance to the master bedroom in order to rent it to Dr.
Ford students, the hypothesis that is now circulating at alt-right sites:
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time, not decades later.
Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later, but because real
sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
Another interesting point is that the potential benefits for Dr. Ford create a
perverse incentive in the future to come forward with false accusations with the expectation of
a huge monetary reward from "Me too" funding sources :
"I'm becoming convinced the only thing that will actually deter such unsupported accusations,
is to abolish the "public figure" rule for libel. Blasey Ford is already better than a half
million dollars richer having made this accusation, and faces a future of lucrative speaking
fees and possibly even a movie. And having carefully avoided any claims specific enough to be
proven false, she has no need to fear perjury charges."
"As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether
the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the
Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will
ask that of Christine Blasey Ford "
That's right: "No one will ask that of Christine Blasey Ford."
But why will no one ask that of her?
She knew that her accusation had the potential -- no, the certainty -- of tainting forever
the good name and the good reputation of another human being. But she was still willing to go
forward with her accusation.
And that's all there was, and all there is: Her accusation. To this day there is no
corroborating evidence. None. As Peter Van Buren lays it out:
"Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been
refuted by everyone she said was present at the party Ford admitted not remembering specifics
that could have formed the basis of exculpation, including how she got home from the party,
that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's condition and thus support or weaken her
story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged assault, Ford did not allow for
Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact couldn't say where they both
were supposed to be to begin with, apart from 'a suburban Maryland house'."
Again, there is only her accusation. There is no corroborating evidence at all.
Regardless of whether Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Ms. Ford's
accusation has tainted Judge Kavanaugh's good name and his reputation -- forever.
How does Ms. Ford get away with making an entirely unsubstantiated accusation that forever
taints a man's good name and his good reputation – yet not herself have to answer the
accusation that she is lying? Because the accusation that should be made -- that Ms. Ford is
lying -- is well-substantiated.
I believe, in this country, when an accusation is made we follow the evidence. Sometimes the
crime cannot be proven. Yesterday's hearing showed two troubling facts that no one seems to
think much of but I believe they lend credence to the Democrats making this a political hit
jobrather than trying to get at the truth. Mrs. Ford said at the end she wished she could
have done this in California as she would have welcomed the committee. Well, Chairman
Grassley offered her attorneys' that option for her. Her attorneys also said they couldn't
make the Monday hearing because Mrs. Ford was afraid to fly and would have to drive to
Washington. Another lie as she flies often. So who were the attorneys really representing,
Mrs. Ford or the Democrat party?
A DC Wonk said: "There might be corroborating evidence. But GOP refused to ask the FBI to
re-open the investigation."
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC, Thurs, Sept 28) to Judge Kavanaugh: Did you meet with Senator
Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?
JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein
GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?
KAVANAUGH: I did not know that.
GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this -- allegations for over 20 days?
KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.
GRAHAM [turning to the Democratic members]: If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could
have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope
you win in 2020. You've said that, not me This is the most unethical sham since I've been in
politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done
what you've done to this guy.
"... There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences. ..."
Identity politics is going to get us all killed or worse.
CitizenOne , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 am
Transactional politics or the nomination or promotion of any entity which supports the
political ambitions of political leaders has become a replacement for deliberative
jurisprudence of the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of government under
the rule of the Republican Party. The entire force of the Republican Party has become
focused on supporting special interests with one goal which is the disestablishment of
government. The Constitution of the United States is despised by the leadership of the
Republican Party and their aim is to make The Constitution null and void like a bad check
bounced by the banks which declare our constitutional democracy is a debtor to be
foreclosed on.
Every effort from shutting down the government to anointing a plenary president with
extra-constitutional powers to end our system of laws and replace them with a president
with plenary or absolute authority hinges on preserving the current president and his
powers to dismantle the government and all of the constitutional law which preceded.
Make no mistake. We face a constitutional crisis where our president backed by
republicans will seek to permanently control the three branches of government for the
benefit of the wealthy and the money interests. The banks and the stock market and the
billionaires in industry, securities and high finance see an opportunity to wrap up control
of the government which is a long sought after goal using the current administration to
close the deal to end all social programs. But that is not their real intent.
Their real intent is to end government abolish the defense budget along with social
spending, collapse the government by abolishing the income tax and establishing themselves
as the rulers of the land by controlling all of the levers of power which they will use for
their personal gain. Does this mean they will diminish our ability to defend the nation?
Yes.
There is nothing but profit for themselves if they are able to do it. How better to
clean up if there is a war in which the economy is collapsed and the nation divided just
like the Great Depression where labor is forced into servitude for the preservation of the
nation and all monies flow to the wealthy defense contractors and the investors as the
entire nation is plunged into a new global war.
This is a very old plan. Render the nation defenseless and filled with ignorant
propagandized paupers and wait for the inevitable external threat to attack. Then the
populace will be willing to rise against the foreign threat and sign up for war to preserve
their "freedom".
Here is a suggestion. Use the power of the vote to get rid of these plutocrats because
they don't give a damn if you live or die and elect some politicians who care about
preserving our nation and its Constitution before it is too late. When the next financial
collapse comes as it will and has done before many times do not fall prey to the propaganda
that it is our Constitution and our system of laws and our system of justice which is to
blame but focus efforts on removing the billionaires who wield too much power in government
and in our supposed free press to be able to spin us all to the "fight for the right" and
have us fight their battles and die for their monetary gain.
Already we have failed and the propaganda is winning. We need to see our current
situation for the ancient monster of unbridled greed in search of power that it is and vote
to protect our democracy and its Constitution founded on the principle that everyone is in
charge of where we go from here.
Where we go from here is up to the populace of this free nation.
Blame republicans all day long and it won't change the fact that democrats are and have
been accomplices to it all and worse.
Obama had the only chance we had to correct it and did what?Let the bush criminal cabal
walk and legalized their crimes.Worse he expanded their crimes and wars and let the
criminal banks keep their loot and continue their crime spree.
And then we get Hillary?Who is worse?
Democrats long ago abandoned any pretense of caring about the country or working people
who they are supposed to represent.They don't even pretend anymore.
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two
moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and
Illinois and Wisconsin."
Chuck Schumer
And you wonder why we have Trump?
Republicans control both houses and 2/3rds of the states?
And you blame republicans?
Democrats love republicans rule.Its empirical since they even rule like republicans when
elected.
We even got Romneycare instead of single payer healthcare that 80% of Democrats
wanted.
There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in
office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by
some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I
see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences.
Aw man, McGovern went full SJW .but don't believe me, I'm an evil white male.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm
Marc – this is what I said further down the page:
"The Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship. Unbeknownst to the Left, the
Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and conquer – get women, blacks
and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't look our way, says the Deep State.
Look over there to that "white man".
The white man is the new villain in town.
The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil."
O Society – the Left – or the Democrats, if you want to call them that
– are playing Identity Politics. The mainstream media is almost exclusively pro-Left
(or pro-Democrat).
Their aim is to get everybody focused on blaming the "white man". It's all over the
media – have a listen. You'd be surprised at how many times the "white man" is being
blamed for everything wrong in the country.
I know the Republicans and the Democrats are joined in a single uniparty, but the
average person doesn't know that. They think they're are on the Left or the Right.
The Democrat side of the uniparty is playing up Identity Politics in order to drum up
campaign contributions and get votes and take everybody's eyes off Clinton, Comey, McCabe,
Strzok, Page – the criminals involved in conspiracy.
This Kavanaugh business is being used to hide what's going on behind the scenes –
the unraveling of the criminal conspiracy to oust the President of the United States.
Mustn't let the Democrat voters hear about that!
Don't look at the conspiracy; look over here at Kavanaugh, the "white man".
In America, people use the terms "Democrat" and "Liberal" and "Left-wing"
interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing.
But if they mean the same thing, why would we need 3 different words for the same thing?
That's redundant.
Is this pedantic or semantic or picky? Well, no.
No because Americans lack the words to say what is wrong. If we don't have the words to
say what is wrong with America, we have a difficult time thinking about it and fixing the
problems.
The Ds blame it on the Rs and the Rs blame it on the Ds.
They are both wrong.
The problem is both the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt. The politicians
pretend there is no other way except the D way and the R way. They are lying.
Here's an example of actual left-wing people (socialists) calling out the Democratic
party for being in bed with the CIA:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as
Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history."
It is understood by the Super Rich that it is in their interest to corrupt, control, and
purchase every important institution of our society and government. They have been busy
doing that from the founding of America, and they have by now nearly perfect control of all
our affairs. There remains only the struggles between competing Mafias for dominance. But
they remain united in the goal of stripping our country and it's citizens of everything
they can get their hands on, by whatever means are necessary. If we don't stop them, there
will be nothing left soon but a ravaged planet and it's murdered human population.
mike k , September 30, 2018 at 11:27 am
I fully approve of the nonviolent harassment of senator Rubio, and whitehouse
spokesperson Sarah Huckabee in restaurants and public places. I think these criminals
should be called out whenever they appear in public. Let them cower together in their gated
enclaves with others of their sickening kind. We need to let them know what we think of
them. The rich do not deserve the deference they seek from others. In light of their crimes
against humanity, they deserve only our contempt. If you see them in public, let them know
how you feel about their despicable actions.
Ditto Clinton's who stole the nomination and gave us Trump who looked decent next to
them.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:32 pm
Ditto Maxine Waters, who doesn't even live in her own constituency. Ditto Pelosi, Diane
Feinstein, Chuck Schumer. But it's interesting that only those on the Right get
targeted.
Mild -ly - Facetious , September 30, 2018 at 11:15 am
This link posted by O Society is a disturbing indicator of a dire American future.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:26 pm
ML – with respect, you must have known different girls in high school than I did.
The majority were nice, but there were some who would do "anything" to be popular, even if
that meant having sex with the jock. They were bragging rights. I remember hearing them in
class, "I slept with so and so," and then they'd giggle. Years later, maybe feeling guilty,
they want to blame the guy.
I also remember hearing, "So and so got her pregnant." I used to speak up and say,
"Unless she was raped against her will, she had a lot to do with it." The guy always got
the blame, though, and I could never figure that one out.
How about we all take responsibility for what we've done, the situations we've gotten
ourselves into, instead of blaming someone else.
In Ms. Ford's situation, we don't even know if what she is saying is true as she can't
remember details. Again, if it did happen, was it done in jest? Was it done to take her by
surprise and scare her, as teenage boys would do, with no intention of rape? What was she
doing upstairs to begin with? Why didn't she use the bathroom downstairs? Did she continue
going to parties after this occurred? So many questions, but unfortunately she was not
questioned at all about what happened.
Ms. Ford was responsible for having the hearing postponed from Monday until Thursday
because she needed time to get there as she was afraid to fly. Then we find out she flew,
and she apparently flies a lot.
The Judicial Committee offered to fly out to California (where she lives) in order to
interview her there (to save her from having to make the big drive). She did not inform the
Judicial Committee that she was already back East, had been for quite some time, and was
only a few hours away from Washington by car.
These last two paragraphs add up to lies or omissions. What else does?
"Dr. Ford's poignant story"– that's exactly what it is–a story, unless there
is evidence to back it up. Dr. Ford is definitely a good story teller.
ML , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Nancy, Dr. Ford is believable, credible, and I and millions of others believe her
recounting of what happened to her. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is telling the
truth about this lying, arrogant, belligerent misogynistic man. But what we all should be
focusing on as well as his bad character, are his judicial opinions meant to lay waste to
what is left of worker's rights, women's rights, not to mention his disregard for
environmental protections. His position that the executive branch is infallible and
untouchable is also a grave threat to the country. I am neither a Democrat nor a
Republican, for the record. I dislike very much, both diseased and rotten parties.
Whether she is credible, believable or that you and others believe her is irrelevant;
she has no evidence or corroborating witnesses!
I agree that there are many reasons to oppose Kavanaugh, but he is right– this
spectacle is a circus. It just serves to distract the population from the real issues
Just like Russiagate.
Sifting , October 1, 2018 at 1:53 pm
Why not an FBI check on Ford, too? Unbelievably one sided!
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 3:30 am
The Rubin Report had on Claire Lehmann. She said that our educators are not teaching the
importance of institutions like due process and the presumption of innocence. There is no
history being provided as to why these institutions came into being and why they are so
important, or how they go against our instincts, our human nature.
She said there appears to be a collective punishment in society, that it's almost an
instinct to want to desire retribution and vindictive justice. It's part of our nature to
want to punish people and punish groups. If we've been wronged by a member of a particular
group, then, hell, they're all guilty and they're all going to pay!
Presumption of innocence becomes: just shut up, you're guilty.
How about the false resistance active at CN, pretending that Trump is protecting us from
the Deep State?
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:03 pm
Andrew – ha, the Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship.
Unbeknownst to the Left, the Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and
conquer – get women, blacks and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't
look our way, says the Deep State. Look over there to that "white man".
The white man is the new villain in town.
The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil.
The thing about the Trump family grifters is they are so blatantly corrupt. They flaunt
their graft and debauchery, so it cannot be ignored. We have to see it and talk about
it.
Therefore, we begin talking about the corruption of John Brennan, Paul Manafort, and so
on too. Obvious criminals whose social positions would keep them from being arrested in
normal circumstances.
These are not normal circumstances, so people begin hoping the whole building will come
down. Yes, Al Capone is a gangster. But so is Herbert Hoover.
Trumps, Clintons, Adelesons, the Mercers, the Kochs, the Pelosis, Ryan, Clapper,
Brennan, Kavanaugh they're all evil sons of bitches.
There are no good guys. People want to see them take each other out.
The real problem is Brett Kavanaugh's record as a judge shows "reverence for
authoritarian war powers, protecting government corruption and violence, and denying
justice to citizens and noncitizens alike."
9/11 war criminals, corporate malfeasance, unconstrained growth of the police state it's
all there.
"What I don't understand is: how did Kavanaugh's candidacy get this far? How did his bid
last long enough to get to the point where it was imperiled by #MeToo-related personal
misbehavior? Why didn't it founder first on the rockier shoals of his insane ideology?"
"Supporting torture. Undermining Congress and the rule of law. Contempt for habeas
corpus. Giving the president the powers of a king. Any of these are more than enough reason
to oppose Kavanaugh but Democrats ignored or barely mentioned them during judiciary
committee hearings. There were no rants, no floor speeches. Liberal protesters did not
gather to condemn Kavanaugh on torture. Liberal groups did not air ads about it."
Of course he is .All the more reason democrats should have picked a less despicable
candidate and risk it.Elections have consequences and democrats are to blame.
I think both the accused and the accuser exaggerated in their testimony. Ford did
everything possible to make sure her accusations were made public, and her use of the word
"terrified" rings hollow, given that she was coached on her testimony by the same woman who
coached Anita Hill. Ford does not seem, given her current academic position and family
life, as someone who has suffered emotionally for 35 years. As for BK, I doubt that he was
the altar boy he claims he was in high school. And his diary was not likely to include that
he went after Blasey during a drunken night in Silver Spring. Millions of boys, in the
past, have encountered alcohol in high school for the first time and have undoubtedly done
things they later became ashamed of. I can understand BK's emotions. He's forever tarred,
whether or not he's confirmed. The GOP, meanwhile, has learned how to handle things.
Sympathize with Ford while pushing the nominee slowly toward confirmation so as to offend
fewer women voters.
Now we're taking this to rape level, Dennis Rice? That's what I was saying, we have
reached absurd levels of discourse in America, and I wonder if 'God' can save America. What
I find astounding is that the #metoo women seem to have little or no interest in the wars
caused by the US, which have wrecked lives of millions of women and children, yet it's all
about 'me, me, me'. We're talking about white, privileged teenagers, sent to expensive,
exclusive private schools. This is a 'he-said, she-said' case about teens, no DNA, no
statement of rape, 36 years later, in the age when a women's 'sexual revolution' occurred.
Ms. magazine debuted about that time. Has rational thought disappeared? Looks like it to
me. And I am certainly not impressed with Trump's rational thinking, either. Nor Clinton's,
as she has blood of Libyans and Hondurans on her hands.
Groping someone over their clothes is not rape. Trying to remove their clothes while
groping is not rape. Agreed Mrs. Ford supplied little in the way of facts but those she did
supply do not constitute rape. Be careful.
My comment went down the rabbit hole again. To me, Jean's points are most important,
Kavanaugh has been part of coverups including Foster's 'suicide', Bush stealing the 2000
election and lying in runup to Iraq invasion. However, Ford made it through the rigors of a
doctoral program in psychology to become a professor at Stanford and published
biostatistician, so her story does not compute, either. The rest of the world must be
laughing at the teenage level of American discourse.
Mild -ly - Facetious , September 29, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Gregory Herr , September 30, 2018 at 7:48 am
Yep, and the circus that is the U.S. Senate "provides the ideal cover for a Democratic
elite that colludes with the Republicans on nearly every issue of corporate dominance of the
polity (both major parties oppose public financing of elections), coddling of the corrupt
financial elites, job-draining investor-rights ("trade") pacts like WTO/NAFTA, the omnivorous
national security state, the bloated military, and disastrous imperialist aggressions abroad.
Frantically wave the distracting handkerchief of concern over a high school party in 1983,
and then hope that the electorate won't notice your treachery on every other issue that
affects their economic and ecological well-being."
A short quote: "Kavanaugh seized the opportunity provided by the Democrats to portray
himself as the victim of a left-wing crusade. In fact, there is nothing left-wing about
either the use of sexual allegations to discredit an opponent, or the claim that all victims
must be believed regardless of evidence. The Democrats are embracing the arguments that were
traditionally those of the extreme right."
There are plenty of reasons to be against Kavanugh least of which is his enabling Bush to
steal the election.
Kavanaugh is a Bush criminal who stood by while Bush shredded the constitution and
illegally spied on us.
Why not go after his proven crimes?
Could it be democrats are complicit and are left with nothing but unprovable
accusations?
backwardsevolution , September 29, 2018 at 3:34 am
Dr. Ford's Go-Fund-Me account is now sitting at $530,000.00.
Her lawyers stated on record at the hearing that they are working pro bono (for free).
He is a qualified Bush criminal.He was part of the Starr investigation and helped Bush
steal the election for Bush in Florida and stood by Bush as he lied us into war and shredded
the constitution.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against him as a Supreme Court Justice .
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
anastasia says:
September 28, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT 300 Words They were too afraid of the women's movement,
and therefore could not bring themselves to challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the
prosecutors questions which did not have the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by
the democrats to the honoree.
But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean
up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her
handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little
girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later and
expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not
remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if
she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips
– all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to
see.
She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently needed
explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to explain her
inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later politicized the
confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her several go fund me
sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.
She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid
to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to
remain anonymous.
Ludwig Watzal says:
Website
September 28, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT 400 Words As a foreign observer, I watched the whole
hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up
by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As
their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will
do everything to prevent his confirmation. They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford,
not to speak of the other two disgraceful women that prostituted themselves for base motives.
Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which
seemed to make a great impression on the CCN tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks
of the hearing committee. It was a great TV-propaganda frame.
Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15,
and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart
from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after the
"incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as it is.
Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American youths should
not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of Penn for my M.A.
degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great experience. Every
weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed around like hell.
Nobody made a big fuss out of it.
On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a
state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions and
accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which only
happens in totalitärian states.
Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth and
humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in advance
of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham with his
outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they ought to be
ashamed of themselves.
This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence,
men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant
was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more
tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get
my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable.
Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM”
;
Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and
that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide
at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None
of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's
character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end
it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive,
because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas –
because that's what those people are."
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed
Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their
President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person,
but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement,
wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact
that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently
disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted
to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that
mold, IMHO.
One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended
rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to
me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e.,
molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once
more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not
remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not
remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself.
No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
@anastasiaI think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a
few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman.
The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix,
who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to
praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and
Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham
they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick
Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the
Senate.
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist.
Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.
It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking
bleak.
Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until
I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not
abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh
will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The
kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and
brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.
"... Christine Blasey Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak? "Deak is said, for example, to have handled CIA funds in 1953 when the agency overthrew Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne. In that instance, the money went through Zurich and a Deak correspondent office in Beirut. During the Vietnam war, Deak & Co. allegedly moved CIA funds through its Hong Kong office for conversion into piastres in Saigon on the unofficial market." ..."
Christine Blasey Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak? "Deak is said, for example, to have handled CIA funds in 1953 when the agency overthrew
Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne. In that instance, the
money went through Zurich and a Deak correspondent office in Beirut. During the Vietnam war,
Deak & Co. allegedly moved CIA funds through its Hong Kong office for conversion into
piastres in Saigon on the unofficial market."
It is all theater.
mike k , September 28, 2018 at 8:56 pm
What are you trying to imply, that Dr. Ford being someone's granddaughter makes her
somehow suspect? Isn't that a little ridiculous?
Deniz , September 28, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Not quite at the WMD or Gulf of Tonkein scale, but yes, a little ridicoulous is a fair
comment.
irina , September 28, 2018 at 10:40 pm
It has also been credibly stated that Dr. Ford runs
the CIA internship program at Stanford . .. .
"... If there is, say, a 25 or 30 percent chance that the nominee committed a crime as serious as sexual assault, that may be too much ..."
"... "In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them." ..."
But the problem is that these allegations are so vague, so far after the fact, and
lack any sort of substantiation, that what is to prevent EVERY candidate from having these
sort of allegations flung at them at the last second. If we set the precedent that you can
stop filling this job by waiting until the last second and then making accusations with no
way to even corroborate them, will we ever get the Supreme Court vacancy filled?
Presumption of innocence is more than a right or a legal standard, it's a principle. I
don't require everyone I interact with daily to prove that they aren't a rapist, I'm
willing to presume they're not a criminal without asking them for evidence. Basic trust is
the fabric of a functioning society.
What a lot of people don't realize, is that memory is malleable . The
first time you remember something, you're remembering what happened. The second time?
You're remembering some mix of what happened, and of having remembered it. The third time,
the original memory is even more contaminated.
Basically, when you obsess about a memory, keep recalling it over and over, you're
playing a game of "telephone" with yourself. The memory becomes more of a story you're
telling yourself.
It's sad, but people don't really remember the events of their long ago childhoods. They
just remember the stories they've told themselves about it.
If there is, say, a 25 or 30 percent chance that the nominee committed a crime
as serious as sexual assault, that may be too much
What is the percentage we assign to allegations when:
• the complainant cannot remember when or where the event took place (or even the
year)
• four witnesses (the number keeps changing) she names (including her "lifelong
friend") all deny any knowledge of it
• at one point she says she was in her "late teens" but then later that it happened
when she was 15
• she cannot remember how she got home
• her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of
support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband's side of the family
• she has demonstrated political opposition to the alleged perpetrator
• her memories are 35 years old, a period known for rendering memories suspect
• she denies knowing that she was offered the chance to testify privately, resulting
in greater delay (such testimony being rejected and even boycotted by the Democrats, who
want greater delay)
• she insists on greater delay by claiming a fear of flying but has a history of world
travel by air
• she has a Ph.D. but says that she didn't know how to contact the Senate Judiciary
Committee
• she says she wanted confidentiality but contacted the Washington Post with her
allegations
• the defendant has lived an exemplary life and supplies the names of 65 women as
character witnesses at the relevant time
What is the effect when Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor, said in her
report
that:
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly
difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other
witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to
corroborate them."
Mitchell cited details supporting these major issues:
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault
happened
• Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name
• When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to
become less specific
• Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question
• Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she
identified as having attended -- including her lifelong friend
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault
• Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her
allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her
memory
• Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions
• The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected
Dr. Ford's account
The job interview vs criminal trial meme is Dem/liberal misdirection to divert
your thinking away from what is actually happening, personal destruction. The Dems,
including those on the Judiciary Committee, stated from the moment Kavanaugh's nomination
was announced, that he needed to be defeated by any means necessary. Surfacing events
thirty years plus in the past, for which no actual evidence exists, is a technique to put
Kavanuagh in an impossible situation.
In a job interview, presumably the personal doing the hiring begins with an open mind
and a willingness to consider the candidate's point of view. Not so with Kavanaugh's "job
interview" the Dems have only one objective: prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed "by any
means necessary". Let's not dignify what is at work here by characterizing it is a good
faith job interview. There is/was no good faith here.
You seem to be comfortable with the proposition that a man's life can be turned
into a dumpster fire on a basis of an uncorroborated, unverifiable complaint going back to
his days in high school by an acknowledged political opponent, augmented and indeed
supervised by senators who not only prevented the charges from being presented in a timely
fashion but who have already vowed to do anything to prevent the nominee from being seated.
I wonder how quickly you'll be changing your sorry tune if you're ever picked for high
office with such enemies lying in wait.
The last few weeks and Kavanaugh's behavior during that time have led me to conclude that he
should not be confirmed, and the main reason for that is that he has lied repeatedly
under oath. Everyone that watched his testimony on Thursday was witness to it, and the
evidence
that he lied to
the Judiciary Committee
many times seems to me to be
overwhelming . For the purposes of determining whether he should be a Supreme Court
justice, it doesn't really matter why he lied or what he lied about. The fact that he knowingly
gave false statements under oath should disqualify him.
The hearing on Thursday was a spectacle and an embarrassment for the nominee. Judge
Kavanaugh comported himself poorly throughout, and during his angry opening statement he gave
the committee members and the public ample reason to doubt his fitness for the Court before he
answered any questions. Kavanaugh's anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who
aspires to sit on the highest court, but the real problem lies with the
multiple lies he told during his testimony. The judge has sought to present himself as
someone beyond reproach both now and in the past, but he has gone so far to whitewash his
excessive
drinking habits and crude yearbook references that he has blown up his credibility in the
process. Kavanaugh has gone to such lengths because he stands credibly
accused of sexual assault when he was 17, and so he has attempted to eradicate anything
from his past that might make that accusation seem easier to believe. His evasions and
misrepresentations on these other points have only made his fervent denials of the very serious
charge less believable, and in the process he has torched his reputation and rendered himself
unworthy of the Supreme Court.
"Almost twenty years ago, the House impeached then-President Clinton for perjury and
obstruction of justice."
Indeed. At that time, Brent Kavanaugh was working for Kenneth Starr. He wrote a legal memo
that argued forcefully that the President should be impeached for lying under oath to deny
allegations of sexual misconduct. Which is to say, the EXACT thing Kavanaugh did right in
front of the Senate last week.
By his OWN standards, Kavanaugh should be rejected.
And judging by the votes of Mike Crapo, Mike Enzi, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, James
Inhofe, Jon Kyle, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Roberts during the Clinton impeachment trial, they
agreed with Kavanaugh's position. So they should vote to reject him now.
I agree that there are plenty of reasons to reject Kavanaugh. Yet as it stands, if he is
rejected, it'll be because of vague allegations of sexual misconduct over three decades ago.
Now, it sounds like Kavanaugh was the sort of drunken, rich frat boy I could easily imagine
going too far under the influence of alcohol, so the accusation is plausible. However, the
basic details are lacking, not to mention anything resembling proof, so I wouldn't call it
credible. I bet the FBI investigation won't turn up anything either, because to really look
into "he said, she said" cases this old would take a time machine. People can be questioned,
but if they don't want to answer the question, it's trivially easy to claim they don't
remember, and very hard to call them out on that.
Depressingly, the way things are is that people need to choose between rewarding an unfit
candidate or an unworthy accusation. Both choices have bad consequences and will anger a lot
of people, for very understandable reasons. Pox on the house of Trump for putting up this
candidate, and pox on the house of liberalism for trying to take him out in this way.
I despise the idea that we are going to hold a grown adult liable for what appears to be
offenses in his high school year book. It really has no bearing on one's qualifications for
anything that I can think of.
And the lady making her claims of sexual molestation brought forward no evidence of same,
and it should be rejected out of hand. Because she could just be lying. There's no way to
know.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh's nomination should be rejected out of hand due to his
rulings on any number of topics which empower both government and corporations against the
best interests of the people. Of course this cannot be discussed in public.
However, our Republican Senators will approve of Kavanaugh's nomination. Because of those
rulings noted above. They could care less about the rule of law. And they know, without a
doubt, that their voters are so intellectually corrupt that they will vote them right back in
power, and do it with pride and joy. And I say that as a life-long, and disgusted,
Republican.
Seemed appropriate to me for someone falsely accused of sexual assault. Kavanaugh has a
wife and kids, coaches his daughters basketball team. What alternative did Kavanaugh have
other than assertively calling a spade a spade?
Moreover, apart for her own tearful histrionics, Ford's testimony was anything but
"credible" because she has not produced even one scintilla of evidence that she ever met
Kavanaugh and ever told anyone about the alleged assault before she told a therapist years
later.
Moreover, Kavanaugh presented implicit evidence of not being at some party attended by
Ford with his calendar. He noted parties he was to attend and they people we met with. If
those entries were listed as prospective, then Kavanaugh's attendee at the vague party in
question should be on the calendar. Where is it?
Hating on Kavanaugh is fine with me. But implicitly validating the rancid (hypocritical)
political machinations of the Democrats is not. Accusations are not evidence. Hysterically
confronting a Senator in an elevator is not evidence. That Kavanaugh drank too much is not
evidence that he assaulted Ford. Note that almost everybody in that environment drank too
much.
What Daniel Larison apparently does not get, is that Kavanaugh was correct when he said
that "advise and consent" has morphed malignantly into "search and destroy". If Kavanaugh is
rejected by the Senate, expect a repeat of Total War by pathetically sanctimonious Left for
the next candidate and the next candidate after that.
The Democrats assembled their M.O. with the targeted destruction of the women assaulted by
that sociopathic sexual predator Bill Clinton. 25 years later, everything and everybody is
fair game.
Kavanaugh's anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who aspires to sit on
the highest court
I admit never to understand this charge. If someone is accused of being a serial rapist
including being a gang rapist, wouldn't you expect them to get a little angry? Anger seems
the natural emotion to have. If a man didn't get angry over these accusations, I would
question his fitness for the court, and maybe even his innocence.
the main reason for that is that he has lied repeatedly under oath.
This is spoken of, like it's a fact. I have a hard time jumping from "yes, I drank in high
school" and references to drinking in high school to "this man was an alcoholic who blacked
out and couldn't remember events."
The emptywheel article linked to ("The Record Supports Christine Blasey Ford") cites as
evidence the fact that Blasey Ford was calm during her questioning. (Why wouldn't she be? Who
couldn't take 3 questions at a time of bland, trivial facts interspersed with 5 minutes of
Democratic senators stroking your ego? What would have constituted "breaking down"?) More
evidence is Ford's "normal amount of time" versus Kavanaugh's "45 minutes". Gasp! Practically
a confession! More assertions that Kavanaugh has admitted to "blacking out". (Not true, but
also wouldn't establish the "credibility" of the accusation. Just that he had blacked
out.)
Additionally, the proof of Kavanaugh's drinking problem on weekdays is the fact
that Mark Judge drank on weekdays. (How does the fact he drank on weekdays mean this is a
"credible" accusation again?)
Oh, and he attended a party that summer with the more boys than the party that
Christine Blasey Ford attended.
To cite accusations that he lied under oath as reasons for why his accuser is
"credible", then using that established "credibility" for why he would lie under oath is a
little circular, to say the least.
I'm not saying Larison's wrong for believing in Blasey Ford or that Kavanaugh lied
under oath. (Two different questions of course). But it's not exactly a slam dunk case. And
there's no reason to go around acting like it is.
It would be helpful to specify which lie is he guilty off. He said he is innocent (perhaps
he is not, but no evidence provided yet he did not say he doesn't drink, blackouts are hard
to prove) angry ok, is that deal breaker? vs 20+ years of service Still confused "
***************
I think I'd be a wee bit angry, too if I was accused falsely of a violent felony .
I don't know any of the individuals in this case & can't read hearts but as we must
first presume innocence under the law, Mr. Kavanaugh would have seemed far less credible to
me had he *not* reacted in the manner he did. Not that my feelings about either party amount
to anything.Due process isn't about feelings.
Has anyone here visited a college campus recently & observed what kind of drinking
goes on? I remember back in the 1980's students were drinking cheap grain alcohol &
falling off balconies. Beer was considered pretty mild stuff.
@SteveM What happened to "advise and consent" for these same Senators when President Obama
Nominated Merrick Garland for Supreme Court? Different standards for different parties?
Kavanaugh has at no point been accused of rape, gang or otherwise. He's been accused of
drinking too much and committing sexual assault, but never of rape. Ms. Ramirez described
gang rapes in her affadavit, but very specifically never claimed Kavanaugh (or Judge)
participated in them, just that they were at parties where they happened.
Just look at the lies he's told before this hearing about his actions in the Bush
administration. Exclude the ridiculous little lies about "boofing" "devil's triangle" and the
"Renate club" boast. Those previous lies about his work in the Ken Starr years disqualify him
here's just one example:
"Kavanaugh was asked if he was involved with a scheme to steal Democratic staff e-mails
related to judicial confirmations. He lied about it. E-mails showed that he was
involved."
Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been
refuted by everyone she said was present at the party when Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. Her "evidence" was she had told a similar story earlier to
her husband, friends, and her therapist (without mentioning Kavanaugh by name), repetition, not
corroboration. When asked about the possibility the assault took place but that she
misremembered the assailant as Kavanaugh, Ford just said no and things were left there.
Ford admitted not remembering specifics that could have formed the basis of exculpation,
including how she got home from the party, that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's
condition and thus support or weaken her story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged
assault, Ford did not allow for Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact
couldn't say where they both were supposed to be to begin with, apart from "a suburban Maryland
house."
The attorney speaking for the Republicans gently pointed out multiple inconsistencies
between Ford's previous statements and today's testimony, walking Ford back from assertions to
assumptions. The questioning was consistent with what is done in sexual assault prosecutions to
help evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Ford in the end presented a heartfelt but
ultimately general accusation, backed only by the hashtag #BelieveWomen that precluded any
serious questioning.
Brett Kavanaugh made clear Thursday none of what Ford (or his later accusers) said happened,
had happened. He was unambiguous. He left no wiggle room. He could add no additional details to
describe something that had not taken place. Clever lawyers created the appearance of a he
said/she said. These are typically a case of two contradictory versions of a single event, as
in date rape cases where sex is acknowledged by both parties who differ over the presence of
consent. Kavanaugh's situation is different; for the past four decades there was no "she said"
until a handful of Democratic senators standing behind a victim they may have outed themselves
forced Kavanaugh to deliver another round of "he said" denials today.
Kavanaugh showed real emotion in today's testimony, describing how he has been treated as a
political hit, before finally breaking into tears. He called out the media for slut-shaming one
of his female friends based on a vague high school yearbook reference. No mind, multiple
Democrats returned to the same accusations later anyway. Some women it seems testify, and
others play their role as sluts off stage.
About the only real question was whether 99.99% or 100% of the people watching today had
already made up their minds in advance. Ford was unable to prove the positive and Kavanaugh
could never prove a negative. Truth became in the end extraneous to what was really going on.
Ford was a prop used against Kavanaugh by Democrats seeking to change a confirmation hearing
they would likely lose into a referendum on mistreatment of victims they might win.
The strategy was clear as Democrats used their questioning time to make speechlets everyone
could agree with about sexual violence. Nearly every Democrat ceremoniously entered thousands
of letters of support for Ford "into the record." To make sure everyone really, really got the
point, Senator Dianne Feinstein invited #MeToo activist Alyssa
Milano to attend Thursday's hearing (and speak with the media, of course.) This was
theater.
At times things seemed one step away from bringing in Handmaiden's Tale cosplayers.
The once great Senator Patrick Leahy engaged in an argument about the meaning of slang terms
used in a 40-year-old high school year book with a nominee to the Supreme Court, as if proof of
immaturity was proof someone was also gang rapist. Another exchange focused on whether a word
meant puke or fart. For every careful courtesy shown Ford, Democrats treated Kavanaugh like a
punching bag.
A strategy seemed to slowly emerge after Feinstein failed to coerce Kavanaugh into
requesting an FBI inquiry. Senator Durbin next demanded Kavanaugh turn to the White
House Counsel present and demand an FBI investigation on live TV. Durbin told Kavanaugh
if he had nothing to hide, he had nothing to fear, a line often attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
Senator Klobuchar then tried playing good cop, trying to persuade Kavanaugh in a sisterly way
to call for the FBI. Kamala Harris went in as bad cop, shouting down whatever was said to her.
It was pathetic; Kavanaugh had been to law school, too, saw the trap, and refused to give the
Democrats the opening they needed – why even the nominee wants the FBI in, put the brakes
on this confirmation, maybe until 2020. To call it all a circus is a disservice to real
clowns.
How did the very serious business of #MeToo end up a political tool?
Only days ago, without the votes to reject Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats started throwing stuff
against the wall hoping something would stick. It started with Cory Booker's failed Spartacus
stunt. Kamala Harris demanded more documents, likely hoping there might be a perjury trapplet
buried in those 100,000 pages. Kavanaugh was accused of having a
gambling problem , and of being an alcoholic
(Senators Hirano, Klobuchar, and Booker accused him of having a drinking problem again today,
Klobuchar explaining she knew one when she saw one because her grandpa is in AA.) And how
had he paid off his debts after buying baseball
tickets for friends? The goal wasn't to show Kavanaugh was unqualified as a jurist. It was
to show he was unqualified as a human being. Yet in each instance Kavanaugh coolly denied the
accusations. Until
Until a 2018 strategy emerged. One can still these days deny being a drinker, or a gambler,
or stealing money, but one is no longer allowed to simply say no when accused of sexual
assault. The Democrats would box Kavanaugh in, demanding he #BelieveWomen and withdraw, or
somehow prove a negative to escape.
Ford was a near-perfect accuser for the Democrats' purposes, the archetype Clinton voter,
down to a photo circulating of her in her pink pussy hat. And when idea emerged really
"credible" cases had multiple accusers, the always-reliable Ronan Farrow and Michael Avenatti
dug around until they found more, upping the charges to
gang rape along the way.
The counter-narrative this was not a Democratic set-up with Ford as an unwitting victim is
everything emerged organically and righteously, albeit right on time. The accusers were never
compelled to speak up during Kavanaugh's years in the White House or on the Court of Appeals.
And the FBI, which conducted six full background checks on Kavanaugh over his decades of
government employment, had just plain missed it all. And Feinstein didn't request an FBI
investigation weeks ago because something, and Ford's identity was leaked by someone else, and
Feinstein never questioned Kavanaugh at his earlier hearings when she had the information
literally in hand because.
Something terrible happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she was in high school, there
seems little doubt, but it is quite unclear that that also involved Brett Kavanaugh. Ford,
despite her doctorate, came off as almost naive, claiming not to know what exculpatory evidence
was, testifying she didn't know why she took a polygraph test and had know idea who paid for
it. She appeared a bit mystified by the vast forces swirling around her, and seemed to trust
so-called honorable people would empower her, not use her.
As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether
the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the
Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will ask
that of Christine Blasey Ford.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He is permanently
banned from federal employment and Twitter.
mrscracker said: " As a Christian, I'd like to think there's the possibility Mrs. Ford's a
troubled soul rather than a cold hearted liar. I don't know how much she believes about her
accusations or how much consent she has had "
If someone is shown to have been actually coerced into committing a crime, we take that into
account when determining if charges should be laid. If someone has "a troubled soul" -- I take
that to mean is suffering from a certain type of severe, diagnosable mental disorder -- we take
that into account in determining if charges should be laid and, if charges are laid and there
is a conviction, in determining sentence.
Why are there so few conservative posters on The American Conservative?
As an attorney myself, Fords case is garbage. She has no case. It's old allegations with no
evidence, witnesses that don't back her and she's really hazy on the details. Its literally the
worst plaintiffs case ever. Yet democrats are trying to gaslight everyone and say that she's
credible, and brave, and truthful, and explain away all the inconsistencies and lack of
detail.
If this were a civil case it would be kicked out of court and her attorneys would have to
pay for kavanaugh's lawyers for a bad faith filing of a meritorious case. Instead of
acknowledging the utter deficiencies in her case the D are acting like it's a slam dunk. But
it's not.
It's a lie that everyone sees and half the population believes because they don't want Roe
overturned. It's a complete charade.
Chapter XX
Eighth Commandment
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Article II. – Respect Due To Reputation
1. Defamation.
#56. Is there not another kind of detraction besides slander and calumny?
Yes; it consists of those reports, true or false, which are spread secretly and, as it were,
in confidence, as to what some one has said or done against another. The purpose of these
reports is to sow discord between friends and embroil families. This species of detraction is
called tale-bearing.
#57. Is tale-bearing specially malicious?
It is the worst form of detraction, since it not only ruins the reputation of another, but
also destroys friendship.
But Republicans said they see signs that Kavanaugh's defiant testimony brought the GOP
together and fired up apathetic base voters the party needs to stave off a disaster in
November.
Conservatives cheered the judge's Trump-like denunciations of "the left," "the media," and
his claim that he was the victim of a "political hit" from opponents who wanted "revenge on
behalf of the Clintons."
"I think the Democrats' campaign to smear Kavanaugh has united Trump and Bush Republicans as
never before," said Cesar Conda, a former chief of staff to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. "The GOP
base will be energized to stop the Democrats from taking over the Congress."
Conda and other Republicans who spoke to NBC News pointed to recent polls by Gallup
and others that showed that the GOP's enthusiasm matched that of Democrats after months of
imbalance.
Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster with Public Opinion Strategies, said he'd seen a similar
trend, but couldn't predict whether it would last.
"There hasn't been any lessening in Democratic enthusiasm, but the gap between Democrat and
Republican enthusiasm has gone away," Bolger said.
While he acknowledged that women's antipathy toward Republicans, especially in the suburbs,
is giving a boost to Democrats around the country, Bolger argued that it would be hard to push
their turnout beyond its current highs.
"They're already angry at the president, they're already angry at the Republican Party," he
said.
...Josh Holmes, a former aide to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said the treatment of Kavanaugh
was a "grenade" that internal polls suggested could take out Democratic incumbents.
As was reported yesterday, a lawsuit against Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was filed by her former employer, Webtrends. The
documents from the case have been obtained and published by Big League Politics
. The accusations by Webtrends include Swetnick lying about attending Johns Hopkins University, fraudulently claiming unemployment
benefits, defaming the company, and that Swetnick herself was engaging in sexual harassment. The case was filed in 2000 in Multnomah
County, Oregon, home to everyone's favorite unhinged liberal paradise of Portland.
Brett Kavanaugh's third accuser Julie Swetnick was the defendant in a defamation case filed by her former employer, WebTrends.
Big League Politics has obtained the court documents from this case.
Webtrends, represented by Perkins Coie, sued Swetnick, who has multiple liens against her including a federal tax lien, and
whose ex-boyfriend filed a restraining order against.
"Swetnick began her fraud against Webtrends before she was hired. On her job application she claimed to have graduated
from Johns Hopkins University. That university has no record of her attendance. She also falsely described her work experience
at Host Marriott Services Corp Since this initial fraud and despite her brief tenure, Swetnick has continued over the last several
months, to defraud, defame and harass WebTrends and its employees, " the complaint reads.
"Shortly after becoming employed with Webtrends, a co-worker reported to WebTrends' Human Resources department that Swetnick
had engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct. Rather than accept responsibility for her actions, Swetnick made false and
retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her . Swetnick then began a leave of
absence for suspicious and unsubstantiated reasons and from which she has never returned. During her absence, Swetnick has engaged
in a campaign of false and malicious allegations with the intent to harm the reputations of WebTrends and its employees and in
the hope that WebTrends would pay her money rather than uphold and defend its reputation," the complaint reads.
The original complaint also includes:
Beyond deceiving WebTrends, Swetnick applied for an began collecting unemployment benefits from the Washington D.C. unemployment
office based on the untrue statement that she had voluntarily left WebTrends in September of 2000
Huetter receiver a complaint about Swetnick from Larry Hountz, a co-employee of Swetnick in June of 2000. At this point, Swetnick
had been employed for approximately three weeks and had worked only three days at customer sites. Hountz stated that Swetnick
had engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct directed towards himself and David Anish, another co-employee,
during a business lunch. Swetnick's inappropriate conduct occurred with customers present.
Swetnick also allegedly went on to claim a temporary disability for health problems while employed with WebTrends, but when she
failed to provide necessary information, she instead sent a "confrontational letter" to the HR department.
Kavanauch confirmation brought a very interesting set of female charaters (as his accusers). One of them is Julie Swetnick.
In her resume out of 12 former employers that are listed there are only few places where whe worked for more then a year.
Julie Swetnick_IDC.docx - Google Drive
. Despite more then two decades in Web business she does not list any scripting skills in her resume but lists "server tuning, hardening,"
which are impossible with shell scripting knowledge.
Notable quotes:
"... After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint. ..."
Swetnick's alleged conduct took place in June 2000, just three weeks after she started working at WebTrends, the complaint shows.
WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in "unwelcome sexual
innuendo and inappropriate conduct" toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint said.
Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, "in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate
behavior [made] false and retaliatory allegations" of sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.
"Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating
evidence existed to support Swetnick's allegations against her coworkers," the complaint said.
After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment
allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint.
In July, one month after the alleged incident, Swetnick took a leave of absence from the company for sinus issues, according to
the complaint. WebTrends said it made short-term disability payments to her until mid-August that year. One week after the payments
stopped, WebTrends received a note from Swetnick's doctor claiming she needed a leave of absence for a "nervous breakdown."
The company said it continued to provide health insurance coverage for Swetnick, despite her refusal provide any additional information
about her alleged medical condition.
In November, the company's human resources director received a notice from the Washington, D.C. Department of Unemployment that
Swetnick had applied for unemployment benefits after claiming she left WebTrends voluntarily in late September.
"In short, Swetnick continued to claim the benefits of a full-time employee of WebTrends, sought disability payments from WebTrends'
insurance carrier and falsely claimed unemployment insurance payments from the District of Columbia," the complaint states.
Swetnick allegedly hung up the phone on WebTrends managers calling to discuss why she applied for unemployment benefits, according
to the complaint. She then sent letters to WebTrends' upper management, detailing new allegations that two male co-workers sexually
harassed her and said that the company's human resources director had "illegally tired [sic] for months to get privileged medical
information" from her, her doctor and her insurance company.
WebTrends also alleged that Swetnick began her fraud against the company before she was hired by stating on her job application
that she graduated from John Hopkins University. But according to the complaint, the school had no record of her attendance.
An online resume posted by Swetnick
makes no reference to John Hopkins University. It does show that she worked for WebTrends from December 1999 to August 2000.
It's unclear what transpired after the complaint was filed against Swetnick. One month after WebTrends filed the action, the company
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.
"... "Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations," ..."
The Senate Judiciary Committee asked the FBI Saturday to
investigate a man who made an unfounded rape claim against Supreme Court nominee Judge
Brett M.
Kavanaugh and then later recanted, saying the man had acted in bad faith.
Chairman Charles E. Grassley said the committee had to waste resources tracking down the
claim by the man, who said Judge Kavanaugh raped one of his
friends back in the 1980s. The man said he and another friend went to beat Judge Kavanaugh up --
then said he recognized him recently when television showed Judge Kavanaugh after he was
nominated to the high court.
Mr. Grassley didn't name the man, but after reporters tracked him down he recanted.
"Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make
materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is
illegal to obstruct committee investigations," Mr. Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.
"... Frankly, observing the two parties under interrogation, Kavanaugh had the red eyes and facial contortions that suggested a true pain. Ford's eyes were cold throughout, and she maintained the simple character of a 16-year-old girl at her first job interview. ..."
"... I had to laugh at the moment that Kamala Harris called for the specially trained and effective FBI to investigate the matter. So, the noble FBI, "an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement" that produced Comey, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the Russiagate team more than likely has the investigation in the can, ready to be rolled out in 7 days. I guess we'll see. ..."
"... "Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including "surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands and French Polynesia to surf." Her response was to giggle inanely and nobody pressed the issue. ..."
"... Christine Ford testified she went to the country club frequently to swim. She may have forgotten how she got home after the alleged assault, but there is no way she could forget how she routinely got to the country club. Did she walk or ride a bike? Did she take public transportation or a cab? Did someone drive her there? If someone drove her to the country club, why didn't that person bring her home? This person was most likely her brother or her parents who have not come forward in a meaningful way. ..."
"... 'theater of dramatic distractions'... well said. all i continue to see is the political version of professional wrestling. no matter who 'wins' this or that match, the wwe always wins :) ... ..."
"... Brett Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team when Slick Willie was being investigated for consensual sex with Monica. Does anyone recall his position on these matters then? ..."
"... The omnipresent hysterical media is seductive; gossip appears elevated to the status of news. ..."
"... Enhanced protections for men from such a weapons in the post #MeToo age are badly needed. ..."
"... Am I to be believe that a women her age, a Prof, mind you, does not seriously reflect on the consequence of her letter and her accusation? Confidential or not given the context. ..."
"... And then, Leland makes a formal statement. She doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh! Party pooper! And she can't remember any such occasion. And the two of them never talked about any such horrific thing happening. All these years. ..."
"... But Ms. Blasey Ford does not think her best friend should be that concerned about her disappearing from a party, and is not surprised that she does not remember it happening. Why do I smell a strong odor of rat? ..."
Ford's pro-bono attorneys paid for the polygraph. She received advice on finding attorneys
from Sen. Feinstein and her social network. It was Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell who in
the end made the golden point that a) the 5-minute format for the panel's hearing was the
wrong way to go about getting testimony from a sex-crime victim and b) the right way, which
would have been a forensic interview, was not recommended by Ford's attorneys. So the expert
in the room in the end somewhat invalidated the proceedings.
The gotcha moment for me was Ford's response to a question in which she declared that she
wanted Sen. Feinstein's office to know about her story while there was still time to find
another candidate. Not political at all. So, while she implores the senator's office to
protect her privacy, she runs around telling her friends who, in turn, leak the story to the
press. Consistent more with willingly participating the orchestration of her outing. If so
many girls were subjected to the ravages of this roaming pack of predatory jocks, where is
the Weinstein effect of the numerous victims coming forward to support the courageous
one?
Frankly, observing the two parties under interrogation, Kavanaugh had the red eyes and
facial contortions that suggested a true pain. Ford's eyes were cold throughout, and she
maintained the simple character of a 16-year-old girl at her first job interview.
I had to laugh at the moment that Kamala Harris called for the specially trained and
effective FBI to investigate the matter. So, the noble FBI, "an agency of men and women who
are sworn and trained law enforcement" that produced Comey, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the
Russiagate team more than likely has the investigation in the can, ready to be rolled out in
7 days. I guess we'll see.
Perhaps you can answer some questions I have.
1 Was she told beforehand what questions would be asked
2 How many times did she take the polygraph
3 Did she take any medication the day of the polygraph
4 Have the raw results of the polygraph been released
5 Who was the psychiatrist that treated her in 2012
6 What techniques did the psychiatrist use to help elucidate her memories
7 Did these techniques involve hypnosis or "age regression"
8 Were any of the techniques similar to those used to "prove" alien-abduction
9 Were any tape recordings of the psychiatric sessions made
10 Will any of the relevant portions of the psychiatrist's note be made public
Ford also claimed to have a fear of flying. She refused to fly to DC and only did so when she
was told that her no show would not prevent Kavanaugh testifying and the committee
authorizing a vote on his nomination.
Then it emerged she has more frequent flyer points than than the pope:
"Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including
"surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands
and French Polynesia to surf." Her response was to giggle inanely and nobody pressed the
issue.
I agree that the FBI won't find much without additional witnesses. But I believe you are
overthinking the geography. (I know. That's what intelligence professionals do.) Teenagers
with beer and cars can turn up almost anywhere. I have (parental) experience of that.
Also, a key question the non-brilliant prosecutor neglected to ask: "You say you swam at the
country club. Then you went to a party at which you were still wearing your bathing suit.
Didn't it get wet while you swam? If so, why were you still wearing a wet bathing suit?"
Christine Ford testified she went to the country club frequently to swim. She may have
forgotten how she got home after the alleged assault, but there is no way she could forget
how she routinely got to the country club. Did she walk or ride a bike? Did she take public
transportation or a cab? Did someone drive her there? If someone drove her to the country
club, why didn't that person bring her home? This person was most likely her brother or her
parents who have not come forward in a meaningful way.
Perhaps, more specifically, this is all about: 1) Midterm elections, 2) Merrick
Garland.
The 2-party power struggle in its current guises. Sometimes it does seem like a theater of
dramatic distractions, doesn't it?
'theater of dramatic distractions'... well said. all i continue to see is the political version of professional wrestling. no
matter who 'wins' this or that match, the wwe always wins :) ...
She lied, that's my vote for multiple reasons. She should go to prison for lying to Congress.
There is too much anger to let the slander slide this time. There will be NO respect for
Congress or the Judiciary if she is not punished. This whole thing has been a morality play,
and you know how those are supposed to turn out. Quitacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree",
"silence implies/means consent". Whatever happened to Chrissy by some other boy in 1982 was
not what she claims.
Brett Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team when Slick Willie was being investigated for
consensual sex with Monica. Does anyone recall his position on these matters then?
If Christine Blasey is convinced an assault took place why isn't she filing a criminal
complaint? Why is Kavanaugh claiming that he wasn't a big partier in high school and college?
His good friend's book was all about the party lifestyle at school.
It seems all that can be accomplished with the FBI review is delay as there's no real
criminal investigation which would be problematic in the first place as there's no physical
evidence. At the end of the day will McConnell hold his caucus together on the full Senate
vote? Flake and Corker could vote against confirming Kavanaugh just to stiff Trump.
Though I admire your efforts to analyze and debunk Ms Ford's testimony, I feel that our
attention should remain focused on the bigger issue here. Guilt or innocence is the business
of the courts and no one else. Ms Ford may or may not be telling the truth. Kavanaugh will
now be confirmed, or not. All who respect the law have a duty to presume him innocent of any
charge until proven otherwise. These are the facts we should consider. Those who make
criminal accusations must be countered by our unanimous chorus of "prove it in court". Anyone
not joining this chorus, either willfully or otherwise, is potentially helping to undermine
the rule of law.
The omnipresent hysterical media is seductive; gossip appears elevated to the status of
news. It is not and we must resist the temptation to treat it as such. Until or unless Ms
Ford brings a criminal case against Kavanaugh I refuse to legitimize this spectacle as
anything other than just that by offering an opinion either way. I believe it would be wise
for us all to do likewise.
"Those who make criminal accusations must be countered by our unanimous chorus of "prove it in court". Anyone not joining this chorus, either willfully or otherwise, is potentially helping to undermine the rule of law."
Are you calling for a criminal investigation? Or to phrase it more accurately, would you
prefer that Ford contact the local authorities and file a criminal complaint?
I suspect that given the closeness of any Senate vote, that any ongoing criminal
investigation would cause the nomination process to be put on hold until the investigation is
finished, which could easily be weeks and week of delay.
The OP has called Ford a liar, effectively saying she committed a felony. By your standard
quoted above, it follows that there should also be a criminal investigation of her, that her
accusers should "prove it in court".
I have no opinion on whether Ms Ford should file charges or not, it
is up to her. But if ongoing criminal charges would cause a delay in the nomination process
one must question why Ms Ford's handlers council have not suggested such
action. I suspect it is an indication of the quality of the case - i.e. poor to non existent.
On the flip side, if PT is right and she is a fantasist (or worse) it is Kavanaugh's right
to sue Ford for defamation to prove as much and vindicate himself. However, I believe the
current law requires a very high burden of proof that her statements are both false and
malicious. Herein of course lies the value of such unprovable/refutable accusations as a
political weapon against a man.
The twist in this sordid tale is that if K is confirmed he may one day be in a position to
help set landmark precedent in defamation cases himself. I am no expert, but I think New York
Times Co v. Sullivan (1964)* was the origin of the 'actual malice' test in libel cases, for
instance. We have just witnessed a devastating weaponizing of First Amendment rights. It
would be justice of the most elegant kind if the victim were ultimately instrumental in
adjusting the scales. Enhanced protections for men from such a weapons in the post #MeToo age
are badly needed.
What I am wondering about ever since I heard the story and looked into it. Am I to be
believe that a women her age, a Prof, mind you, does not seriously reflect on the consequence
of her letter and her accusation? Confidential or not given the context.
*********
What's really bad about these stories and we had a prominent case over here. You can go to
court after you are acquitted of course. But you will never be able to clear your name. The
man in question was a rather prominent figure on TV over here. He was never able to return.
In the end he had to sell his company specialized in the field of weather.
What makes me slightly suspicious about Ford, admittedly, is that she seems to be both a
Prof and an activist.
The only way to end this charade and get the Dems to let off the gas peddle is for the
Republicans and/or Trump to start circulating the name of an even more conservative judge as
Kavanaugh's replacement.
Thank you for your good work. And by the way, are you a fan of John O'Hara? I hope we can get
more from you about those two country clubs. I perked up when you started talking about them.
Got out my O'Hara short stories. I haven't read this one, but isn't O'Hara's 'From the
Terrace' also about the cold, sex-haunted WASPS of country-clubland? Said it was his best
book. But isn't it non-u to say "wealthy"? Shouldn't it be "rich"? And are these club members
all that rich? How can you be rich if your wife works? Come on. Shouldn't she be a lady who
lunches? ('Answered Prayers'.) Doesn't she need to be a board member of a foundation or
museum that is a legit blue chip part of the Benevolent Empire?
But to business. Leland Ingham (Keyser) is one of Ford's best friends. She was a close
friend at prep school and she is her close friend even now. So how can Ford say: "I remember
.feeling an enormous sense of relief that I had escaped the house and that Brett and Mark
were not coming after me." Yet she has just left Leland in real danger with two physically
strong male teenagers who have suddenly become sexually violent, who are drunk/drugged,
dangerously out of control. And what could be happening to her friend even as she shoves off
down the street? Given what she has told us about how bad it was--leading even to her post--
traumatic flight to California--isn't it reasonable for her to suddenly come to her senses
and begin to consider what to do? Her friend Leland could even then be being beaten down,
swarmed over, torn, until she is suddenly a broken, bleeding corpse. Her body to be found
later on the Eastern Shore in a marsh? In the surf at Dewey Beach? What is she going to tell
Leland's parents? Just let it slide? It's a dadgum problem, sugarpie.
How can Ford be so out of tune with basic situational ethics that she doesn't seem to
realize that her million dollar story still needs to provide the public with a good reason
why she --the heroine--could feel so good after abandoning her friend. As a created fiction
the lady's story is unsound. She needs to read Tommy Thompson's 1983 novel 'Celebrity'.
(Three young men of great promise participate in the killing of a girl just when they are
ending their careers in high school. They make a pact. The secret must be kept. The secret is
kept. Each goes his own way. Each becomes wildly successful. Famous. Rich. And yet, and
yet...) Or did she read it? See the tv series? It was broadcast from February 12, 1984 to
February 14, 1984, on NBC. Bigly smash-hit.
And then, Leland makes a formal statement. She doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh! Party
pooper! And she can't remember any such occasion. And the two of them never talked about any
such horrific thing happening. All these years.
Additionally, having made good her escape, without anyone noticing, she says that she does
not expect best friend Leland Ingham (Keyser) to remember the party because from her friend's
point of view nothing noteworthy happened.
If I'm at a party with my best friend and he disappears without me knowing when or why he
did so, I regard that as very noteworthy indeed, and I become rather worried about my friend.
I certainly look him up the next day and ask what happened, and I certainly remember the
event when asked about it later.
But Ms. Blasey Ford does not think her best friend should be that concerned about her
disappearing from a party, and is not surprised that she does not remember it happening. Why
do I smell a strong odor of rat?
She is a delusional Flake. Any young guy reading this blog marry a woman from overseas. The
women here are miserable and rich. You will never be happy if you marry an American citizen.
"... All this being said Kavanaugh would probably be best served at a personal level by withdrawing from the nomination. His reputation is destroyed along with that of the Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... No competent attorney would advise Kavanaugh to sue anyone for libel. His entire life would be subject to the discovery microscope and, regardless of what sort of person he is, I doubt if he or anyone else would want that. ..."
Kavanaugh, as a public figure, would have a difficult time prevailing as he would have to surmount the very high standard that
the accusers acted with malice or reckless disregard of the truth. The least difficult case for Kavanaugh to win would be the
case against Swetnick (Avenatti) who has alleged under oath that,while a college student, she attended at least 10 parties where
gang rapes occurred, some of which were organized by Kavanaugh and Judge, and continued to attend such parties until, presumably,
she had been gang-raped herself. If none of the 10 gang-rape victims and none of the scores of asserted party-goers come forward
to support her claims, a jury would have little difficulty finding malice and/or statements made in reckless disregard of the
truth.
Kavanaugh's spouse and children would not be able to bring a case as they were not the direct targets of the defamation.
My questions: Does Kavanaugh have standing to sue these women for libel or defamation in any jurisdiction? Would someone else
have standing to sue them on his behalf? Pl
Morning Colonel. Your questions hinge of course on whether or not the FBI can produce evidence that disproves Fords assertions.
The nature of this could only be to show that she or Kavanaugh were elsewhere at the time of the alleged assault. Since Ford has
furnished no such information (she says she does not remember the date or location) disproving it will be nigh to impossible.
Though I am not a lawyer I would have thought that any legal action Kavanaugh might take would require this same information as
a minimum for action. He cannot prove that he was libelled or defamed unless he can show that the charges are false. Catch 22!
All this being said Kavanaugh would probably be best served at a personal level by withdrawing from the nomination. His
reputation is destroyed along with that of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
When unsupported accusations become accepted as evidence then all legal process as we have come to understand it in the West
ceases to be. It is the return to Salem!
Colonel,
Re a 3rd party standing and defamation....again, based on memory gonna say because Defamation law is considered a tort, basic
principles of tort law apply and something tells me the plaintiff must personally experience the injury/damages....
Hopefully someone not as far removed from law school will know the correct rule of law to the question.
Mac
Colonel,
Going on memory here from Defamation in law school many moons ago, something comes to mind that states the standard for persons
who are, like Judge Kavanaugh, public figures is 'knowingly false statements.' Or is "reckless disregard for the truth" types
of statement. Can't recall which. But these rules come from case law and change over time and I have not checked if this is accurate
still.
Mac
Would that not open a discovery process that would give her lawyers subpoena powers that they have not had up to now? I don't
know what they could find after 36 years, but he probably has some ideas.
No competent attorney would advise Kavanaugh to sue anyone for libel. His entire life would be subject to the discovery
microscope and, regardless of what sort of person he is, I doubt if he or anyone else would want that.
Plus, as in any litigation he runs the risk of losing since as a public figure the burden of proof is his to show actual malice,
and what then?
Losing the case would be taken as confirmation by the media of the truthfulness of the allegations against him despite the
fact that any verdict may only be based on his inability to meet that high bar.
Sir, As you know I'm not a lawyer. I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn recently. However, I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh is
personally barred from suing for reason of being a public figure, govt employee or something like that, that his wife and children
have a very real and viable cause of action for very real damages.
FACTS about this case--->Christine Blasey Ford - After 36 Years, she threw herself under
the bus for "the cause". Party was held; she forgot who she was with or how she got home;
she was drinking and said nothing to anyone. 1983, through to 2002 She said nothing. July
25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C Circuit...
She said nothing. 2004, 2005... She said nothing. May 11, 2006: The United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by
the United States Senate... She said nothing. June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice
Anthony Kennedy...
She said nothing. 2007, through to 2011... She said nothing. 2012... She remembered
'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to
authorities. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 -
She becomes an anti-trump activist 2018 - Now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS
confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh
regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals
herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?
Who does she think she is?.......and then there's this picture of her and George
Soros...hmmm....Can anyone else see what's REALLY going on here? and now the Corrupt FBI is
"Investigating" this? LOL!!!!
I was sexually assaulted by that woman. I talked to my therapist about it. It happened like
30 years ago and I couldn't remember her and then I remembered how she closed her eyes
weirdly and was always smiling like a psychopath and I instantly remembered her. Nobody saw
her do it but oh well. Now she needs to defend herself.
Unfortunately, Christie Setzer has sexually assaulted her own anus with her head and it's
contemporary! Using a stolen car as a metaphor, still asks the same question. "Prove the car
was stolen and not moved or reposessed!" The same asks the moron of accusations against
Kavanaugh, "show proof of allegations to sexual wrongdoing!" Without this, this becomes
nothing but a smear campaign designed to oust the credibility of an honest man for nothing
but political purposes. Shame on Frankenstein, Climate Change Harris and Spartacus Booker!
Low life animals!
Look at her body language when she answers Tucker's question. She knows how ridiculous her
answers sound. She can't even keep a straight face. The burden of proof is on the accuser,
and that has never changed. All the other grandstanding is just to take up time. It is very
sad that the Democrats will knowingly attempt to unjustly ruin this mans reputation with no
regard for him or his family. I believe the Democrats know full well that he is innocent and
just don't care. To them the end justifies the means no matter who gets hurt. How do they
sleep at night?
"... There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats' treatment of the sexual assault allegations, are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. ..."
"... A central aim of the Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has been to obscure the most important class issues. They adopt the tone of phony moral outrage over the three-decade-old allegation while expressing no similar anger or even concern over the crimes committed by the American ruling class throughout the world. ..."
"... Not a day goes by where the US military is not dropping bombs or launching drone strikes, with the death toll from the "war on terror" well over one million. Thirteen thousand immigrant children are currently locked up in internment camps. Thousands of workers in the US die each year from industrial accidents and work-related illnesses. When Democratic Senator Cory Booker complains about the "patriarchy," he looks past the fact that the fall in life expectancy in the working class is largely driven by alcoholism, drug abuse and depression among men. ..."
"... Kavanaugh is himself complicit in these crimes, from which the relentless focus on allegations of sexual misconduct is intended as a diversion. There is documentary evidence Kavanaugh helped author Alberto Gonzales' "torture memos" during the Bush administration. He is on the record praising the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. Email exchanges prove he advocates repealing the right to abortion for millions of women across the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party's refusal to address such issues is a deliberate decision. They are themselves guilty of involvement in these crimes -- and intend for them to continue, whether Kavanaugh or some other reactionary is on the court. ..."
"... twenty years ago Kavanaugh was a central player in the Republicans' anti-democratic use of sex scandals to attempt to bring down the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton ..."
After nearly nine hours of Senate testimony by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the public is no closer to knowing what did or did not happen
over thirty years ago, when Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh's future
as the nominee now depends on the outcome of an FBI investigation to which Senate Republicans
agreed on Friday.
The allegations of sexual assault have become the sole issue in Kavanaugh's confirmation,
and the Democratic Party and the media have presented Kavanaugh's guilt on this matter as a
foregone conclusion. The focus of the proceedings reflects the political priorities of the
Democratic Party and the interests of the affluent social layers to which it is appealing.
There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of
innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats' treatment of the sexual assault allegations,
are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. The ends, as the
saying goes, supposedly justify the means. They should be warned: This is bad politics, bad
strategy and even worse tactics. There are political consequences to such efforts to confuse
and cover up the real issues confronting the working class.
A central aim of the Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has been to obscure
the most important class issues. They adopt the tone of phony moral outrage over the
three-decade-old allegation while expressing no similar anger or even concern over the crimes
committed by the American ruling class throughout the world.
Not a day goes by where the US military is not dropping bombs or launching drone
strikes, with the death toll from the "war on terror" well over one million. Thirteen thousand
immigrant children are currently locked up in internment camps. Thousands of workers in the US
die each year from industrial accidents and work-related illnesses. When Democratic Senator
Cory Booker complains about the "patriarchy," he looks past the fact that the fall in life
expectancy in the working class is largely driven by alcoholism, drug abuse and depression
among men.
Kavanaugh is himself complicit in these crimes, from which the relentless focus on
allegations of sexual misconduct is intended as a diversion. There is documentary evidence
Kavanaugh helped author Alberto Gonzales' "torture memos" during the Bush administration. He is
on the record praising the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the National Security
Agency. Email exchanges prove he advocates repealing the right to abortion for millions of
women across the country.
The Democratic Party's refusal to address such issues is a deliberate decision. They are
themselves guilty of involvement in these crimes -- and intend for them to continue, whether
Kavanaugh or some other reactionary is on the court.
The Democrats are not even capable of addressing the fact that twenty years ago
Kavanaugh was a central player in the Republicans' anti-democratic use of sex scandals to
attempt to bring down the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton . To raise
this issue would expose the fact that the Democrats are engaged in the same methods today.
As part of their effort to center opposition to Kavanaugh on allegations of sexual
misconduct, the Democrats are utilizing the methods of #MeToo, which have consisted of treating
allegations as fact and the presumption of innocence as an unnecessary burden that must be
dispensed with.
The WSWS takes no position on whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations against
him. However, as a legal matter, all that has been presented are the uncorroborated assertions
of one individual. At Thursday's hearing, Democratic senators carried out a degrading
spectacle, poring over Kavanaugh's high school yearbook and his puerile, 16-year-old references
to drinking, flatulence and vomiting as though they prove he is guilty of sexual assault.
The media has followed suit. In an editorial board statement published Thursday night, the
New York Times presented Kavanaugh's testimony as "volatile and belligerent." The
statement makes no reference to Kavanaugh's political views, but concludes that he was "hard to
believe," "condescending," "clumsy," "coy," "misleading" and likely a "heavy drinker." The
reader is led to conclude that he must be guilty of the alleged crime.
Speaking on CNN last week, Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono said the presumption of
innocence "is what makes it really difficult for victims and survivors of these traumatic
events to come forward." New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer told reporters that there
is "no presumption of innocence" in Kavanaugh's case because "it's not a legal proceeding, it's
a fact-finding proceeding."
The character of the Democrats' operation in relation to the Kavanaugh hearing allowed this
arch-reactionary to present himself as the victim of what he referred to in his opening
statement as a "left-wing" conspiracy. The Democrats are, in fact, engaged in a highly staged
political operation. However, there is nothing left-wing about it. On the contrary, the
Democrats have adopted the political methods of the far-right.
The presumption of innocence is no small matter and dispensing with it has the most
far-reaching consequences. Socialists have always stood against efforts by representatives of
the bourgeoisie to obscure the class issues and undercut democratic consciousness. The causes
with which the left has been historically associated involve a defense of the democratic and
egalitarian principles established by the bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century,
including the presumption of innocence and due process.
The use of emotion and prejudice to weaken popular support for these rights, divide the
working class, and facilitate state repression, militarism and corporate exploitation is the
historical tradition of right-wing politics. Basic democratic principles are always most
vulnerable when the ruling class is able to play on moods of mass retribution against alleged
perpetrators of crimes, particularly sexual violence, due to its inherent emotional appeal.
The Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has much in common with these traditions.
Appeals to moods of vengeance and encouragement of visceral hatred of the accused are the
methods of medieval justice. They are being employed to advance the Democratic Party's efforts
to consolidate a political constituency among the affluent upper-middle class.
Socialists hold no brief for Brett Kavanaugh. But the tactics used against him will be
employed with a thousand times more force and power against the oppressed and those opposed to
the policies of the ruling elite. The case of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, persecuted for
years on the basis of trumped-up sexual allegations, is one such example.
The operation of the Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearing cannot be separated from the
character of its entire opposition to the Trump administration. It has sought to suppress and
divert popular opposition to Trump behind the reactionary militarist and anti-democratic agenda
of dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. In this conflict within the ruling
class, there is no progressive or democratic faction.
Kavanaugh is a political reactionary and an enemy of the working class. However, in waging
its opposition to this right-wing Republican and the Trump administration, the working class
must not allow itself to be subordinated to the agenda of the Democrats. To do so would only
disarm the working class, undermine democratic rights and facilitate the ever more right-wing
trajectory of American politics.
"... The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable. ..."
"... Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty. ..."
"... In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not for it. ..."
"... As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence. ..."
"... First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never saw him at any party? ..."
@Ron Unz Ron .Think harder. First the entire process is cynical. 45 Dems were going to
vote against him regardless, This is all about peeling off a handful of votes.
Its about black balling a SC nominee because something might have happened. Of course
those 45 Dems could care less why they vote against him.
The Polygraph, to the extent it means anything, can only test if she believes it happened,
And it was administered as paid for by her Lawyers.
As far as drinking, it is a tactic to increase FUD. If he ever drank to the extent his
memory was ever hazy, he 'could've done anything and not remember it.
Finally, she volunteered herself. Its not like she was was identified as someone that was
in Kavanaugh's circle. She may never have met him.
Finally, why was it so traumatic? Because he laughed? It is not unlikely that someone that
fought off a drunken groping would actually felt empowered.
Rape is now a social construct entirely defined by women. Its their right to enjoy BSDM
like that promoted in 50 Shades of Gray but more extreme. Yet it is weaponized. Its like
being a commie or homo in the 1950s. Now 1950s commies and homos are celebrated. Traditional
definitions of rape were stranger rape and it was a potential capital crime. Its been
conflated to include what would have been considered bad manners.
In the Court System, there are enough due process safeguards to have forced College
officials to set up their alternative adjudication procedures.
Sorry Ron the only people who believe polygraphs work is the industry trying to
sell them. Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer passed them. So did Aldrich Ames our own
Russian Mole spy. If a person believes something then her vitals like Ford may be in a
certain range not to make the examiner find anything out of the ordinary. The polygraph
theoretically measures the autonomic system response. Any nervousness, stress, blood pressure
etc. can change whether the person is telling the truth or not.. I believe there have been
people that have passed the test that claim they were abducted by Aliens and UFOs.
Ford's memories have little validity because these therapies often produce false memories
and fill in the blank episodes. The Repubs should have asked her if she was on any drug or
had taken drugs in the past. How much does she still drink because all of these could
influence memories. Instead they became a door mat for the sick Me Too movement. Her memories
could also be a form of release for guilt of her drugged laden sexual past which now lets her
not blame herself. It was all of those drunken white guys who did it not me I am not
responsible. Now I feel better.
@Nicephorus Freud is a perfect representation of the Jewish obsession with all manners of
sexual perversion. The man was seriously F in the head, a total fraud who plied his patients
with cocaine and morphine then faked his test results...
Does anyone among us think that the FBI that has vetted Judge Kavanaugh six times already
won't turn up something on their seventh attempt? After all, DJT has been at war with them
nearly since Inauguration Day and Rosenstein is still riding high...
@Ron Unz I haven't followed the proceedings myself – apart from anything else I'm
not American – but one of the blogs I follow is the Irish Savant and he has a short,
punchy article about this affair if you're interested. I find him generally quite reliable
– even though he's obviously quite annoyed in this particular posting, as opposed to
his usual more laid-back and witty self.
From my own point of view, she-said, he-said unsubstantiated stuff from people now in
their 50′s, talking about stuff that happened in their mid to late teens, is just plain
bonkers. Totalitarian states demand that the accused prove their innocence – I was
under the impression that Western jurisprudence found you innocent until proven guilty. So is
a mere allegation now considered proof?
Not a road we'd want to go down, surely. And there's probably good reasons why polygraph
tests aren't accepted in law courts, as a circa 80% reliability just isn't good enough.
@Ron Unz Her polygraph exam was a joke. She and her lawyer drafted a vague, one-page
statement that does not say "Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape me."
The test-giver then asked her exactly one question, in two different ways: (1) Is your
statement true? and (2) Did you make it up?
The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie
will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable.
Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies
she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic
skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty.
In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not
for it.
P.S. It's also entirely possible that she failed a prior (more rigorous) exam, and they
just threw it away and tried again. Because it is attorney work product they wouldn't have
had to disclose that.
P.P.S. I wish I knew how to grab and paste a link from my phone, but a copy of her
polygraph report with the written statements and examination questions is easily findable
online if anyone wants to see it.
I am pro-choice and anti-gun, Kavanaugh is not at all my ideal judge. But
truth and fairness is much more important than my personal views on social issues.
I watched the trial with an open mind, and I came away thinking that the whole thing was a
farce, an embarrassment not just to Ford and Kavanaugh, but to all of Congress and the entire
country. This is a hearing that never should've been in public, it should've been in private
between the two parties, but Democrats clearly manipulated the situation and wanted to use it
to destroy an innocent man whose only crime is harboring certain political views that they
disagree with. It is pure evil.
Ford probably had been groped or worse treated in her youth, partly thanks to her own hard
partying lifestyle(according to her yearbook she was a popular cheerleader with a reputation
for hard partying and chasing boys), but she's got the wrong man in Kavanaugh, and her
accusations are at least partially politically motivated. All 3 people she named as
witnesses, incl. her best friend, swore under oath that such a party never even took place.
What she has is a bullshit case.
As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to
have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out
squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of
these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence.
The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for such foul play, they are an
embarrassment to the whole country. Honor and integrity no longer matters to the left. They
have lost all sense of decency in their quest to hold on to power. The end justifies the
means. Flake the idiot needs to go ESAD.
Most of us would probably be far more upset if we were wrongly accused by a
bunch of crazy women whose only goal was to prevent us from getting that one job we worked
our whole lives for.
I am a woman and I think Ford lied through her teeth while Kavanaugh told the truth, and I
don't even like Kavanaugh's politics. Not a single witness she named corroborated her story.
She came across as someone who had one too many drinks in her life.
First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn
testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never
saw him at any party?
Second, even if this all did happen, which is a big IF, they were both underage. We're
talking about a bunch of teenagers here. He groped but did not rape her. Who among us have
not done stupid things we wish we hadn't done when we were young and stupid? Judge the man
for who he is today, not who he was when he was a kid. There's a reason why we allow people
to expunge their juvenile records when they reach 18.
This whole trial is a FARCE, an embarrassment to the whole country.
Well, here's my impression of a possible "bare-bones" version of the incident
At an unsupervised suburban pool party, a couple of drunken teenage football players
pulled a girl into a bedroom, pawed at her a little while they were laughing, then let her
run away. Since they knew they hadn't had the slightest intent of gang-raping her, they
didn't regard what happened as being a big deal. However, it's quite possible that the
15-year-old girl had actually been pretty scared, and she long remembered it.
Doesn't she claim she mentioned it to people years before Kavanaugh was nominated for the
SC? Didn't Mike Judge write a whole book about how he had spent years in crude drunken
misbehavior? Isn't he currently hiding so that he can't be called as a sworn witness?
Also, isn't Kavanaugh now claiming he remained a virgin all through HS and college or
something like that? Given that he and his friend Judge were drunken jocks and his yearbook
was filled with all sorts of crude sexual humor, is that really plausible?
I suspect that administering official polygraphs to Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge would soon
clear up the facts. We're not talking about trained spies or anything. And three polygraphs
would probably increase the likelihood of a solid result.
Since I haven't watched the hearings or paid much attention to the story, maybe some of
the above material is just erroneous. But offhand, I think it's more plausible than claiming
this is all part of a CIA plot.
Whether this is a good test of Supreme Court Justices is entirely a different story
The FBI is also investigating allegations by Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor
at Palo Alto University in California, whose tearful dramatic testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee this week nearly derailed Kavanaugh's nomination - that is, until he
stepped up and delivered an impassioned denial that satisfied President Trump and Senate
Republicans. Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s when they
were in high school in Maryland. Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh pulled out his
penis and shoved it in her face during a drunken dorm room party during their freshman year at
Yale.
Ramirez's lawyer confirmed that she would cooperate with the investigation, but declined to
comment further.
"We can confirm the FBI has reached out to interview Ms. Ramirez and she has agreed to
cooperate with their investigation," the attorney, John Clune, said in a statement. "Out of
respect for the integrity of the process, we will have no further comment at this time."
In addition to at least two of Kavanaugh's named accusers (two women more women have
anonymously accused him of misconduct though their claims are widely viewed as not credible),
several of the alleged witnesses whom Ford said also attended the party where the assault
allegedly occurred have agreed to cooperate.
But already, two potentially crucial witnesses have said they will cooperate with the FBI,
raising the possibility that at least more statements and recollections will be added to the
record, even if they're not ultimately definitive.
An attorney for Leland Keyser, a friend of Ford's who Ford says was at the party, said
Keyser also was willing to cooperate with the FBI investigation. But the attorney emphasized
that Keyser has no recollection of the party where Ford alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her.
"Notably, Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the
press that she believes Dr. Ford's account," the attorney, Howard J. Walsh III, wrote in an
email to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that
she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
question."
Judge, the high school friend of Kavanaugh who Ford says was in the room during the
alleged assault, has also agreed to cooperate with the FBI. His account has been particularly
sought after because, unlike Kavanaugh, Judge has not denied Ford's allegations but has said
he has no memory that such an assault occurred.
Ford told the Judiciary Committee that some weeks after the alleged assault, she ran into
Judge at a local grocery store where he was working for the summer.
As WaPo reminds us, the FBI's investigation is merely a background check, not a criminal
probe. Notably, sex crime prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both Kavanaugh and Ford on
Thursday, said she wouldn't be able to pursue an investigation or even request a search warrant
given Ford's testimony.
A background investigation is, by its nature, more limited than a criminal probe, and FBI
agents will not be able to obtain search warrants or issue subpoenas to compel testimony from
potential witnesses. The FBI's interviews, which will take a few days to conduct, won't turn
into a sprawling inquest of everyone Kavanaugh went to a party with in high school, said a
person familiar with the investigation.
The paper also reminded readers, perhaps with a dash of tongue-in-cheek irony, that the
results of the investigation would only be shared with a small group of senators and would not
become public (though we imagine they will almost inevitably leak).
The FBI's findings will not necessarily become public. When investigators have completed
their work, anything they've discovered will be turned over to the White House as an update
to Kavanaugh's background check file. The White House would then likely share the material
with the Senate committee.
At that point, all senators, as well as a very small group of aides, would have access to
it.
The White House or the Senate would decide what, if anything, should be released publicly.
The bureau's work will likely consist mostly of reports of interviews with witnesses and
accusers. The bureau will not come to a conclusion on whether the accusations are credible
and will not make a recommendation on what should become of Kavanaugh's nomination.
While Democrats heralded the probe as an unmitigated win for their stalling strategy,
there's still a solid chance that it could backfire. As Bloomberg's Jennifer Jacobs revealed,
high school friends of Ford and Kavanaugh say the investigation could uncover some "fairly
unpleasant things" about Ford's behavior. Despite the dramatic footage teased to the media by
Showtime, which recorded an interview with Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick, the third
woman to publicly accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct (she claimed that Kavanaugh and Judge
participated in the "gang rapes" of disoriented young women at parties back in high school),
NBC News and
the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday afternoon that the White House has limited the
FBI investigation to Ramirez and Ford, and has not permitted the FBI to interview Swetnick.
While some accused the White House of "micromanaging" the FBI probe, and a spokesperson for the
White House said the parameters of the investigation were actually set by the Senate, which
said it wanted to limit the probe to only "credible" accusers,
NBC reported that it isn't unusual for the White House to set these types of boundaries for
background-check investigations, since the FBI is conducting the investigation on behalf of the
White House.
Avenatti was, understandably, less than pleased.
"I don't know how this investigation could be called complete if they don't contact her,"
Avenatti said.
Here's the teaser of the Swetnick interview, which is set to air Sunday night:
Regardless of what Ramirez tells the FBI - whether it's stunningly revelatory or utterly
mundane - we imagine it will leak to WaPo or the New York Times by mid-week.
"... And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians. ..."
"... The fact that Brock... has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Hillary never forgets a grudge. ..."
"... @UntimelyRippd ..."
"... @UntimelyRippd ..."
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
"... The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate at all. ..."
"... @Fishtroller 02 ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The Washington Post. ..."
"... The therapist's notes, ..."
"... do not mention Kavanaugh's name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... one bit of advice ..."
"... to listen very carefully to the question, and answer it, and only it. ..."
After watching the whole miserable spectacle yesterday, I found neither Dr. Ford's nor Judge Kavanaugh's testimony particularly credible.
As a former trial attorney, it was clear to me that Dr. Ford had been coached on her answers in coordination with the Democrats on
the committee, with the tip off being Sen. Leahy stumbling through the printed setup question that elicited the canned 'laughter...uproarious
laughter' answer.
Another example of coordination is found in the strong objection by her attorney to questions regarding the polygraph test, followed
by her failure to recollect any details of how she came to take the test or who paid for the test. Apparently we have only her counsel's
word that she passed, as they have yet to release the actual results.
Regardless of her memories of the facts surrounding the allegations, the appearance of coaching and collusion with Democratic
politicians diminishes her credibility as an impartial witness and suggests political bias as a motive for her statements.
Then this happened:
I have no idea what was in that envelope (Lee claims they were only fan letters), but the mere fact that a furtive Congresswomen
is passing secret documents to the witness's counsel after the hearing is further evidence of the Ford team's less than forthright
political impartiality.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, came across as a mean drunk. While I believe his tears and anger were sincere (especially when talking
about his dad), I did not find them particularly dispositive of his innocence. He has obviously been put through the ringer by the
drawn out hearing, and frustration and impatience at having to endure this ordeal to gain a position he clearly believes he is entitled
to seemed to be more the motivation than outrage at having been falsely accused.
Once he calmed down, Kavanaugh spent much of the hearing too-expertly filibustering the Democrats (incredibly lame) questioning.
He was combative at times, but again, mostly out of anger at the process rather than the allegations. He also clearly liked (and
still likes) to drink, and his repeated statements about how much he loves beer left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to
post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years.
The whole thing left me shaking my head as to what really happened. Ford supplied no new factual corroboration or other witnesses
to back up her testimony, and indeed, when asked under questioning about her counselor's notes on the incident stating there were
four other people in the room at the time, she admitted that the notes contradicted her hearing testimony that there were only two
others. Another credibility strike.
Kavanaugh too, despite his protestations, was clearly no choir boy in high school. He was a smart jock who hung out with a pretty
fast crowd. I don't think he is necessarily lying about being a virgin, but as the hearing went on I started envisioning a scenario
where his party buddy 'Judge' saw an opportunity to alleviate that condition by exploiting a troubled girl who was having a tough
time fitting in.
So while the lawyer in me is still certain that the totality of evidence in no way rises to the threshold necessary to disqualify
Kavanaugh, after watching the hearing the 'juror' in me is left with more doubts than answers about what really happened.
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's
procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
that Ford claimed to be claustrophobic about flying, so she wanted to delay the hearing several days so she could drive,
then she turns around and flies to D.C. And as one would expect to find, it turns out she flies to all kinds of places.
Ford has been claiming a life-long condition of claustrophobia caused by K. She supposedly didn't want to fly because of this
condition caused by K. The entire confirmation process was held up because of this condition. Then, viola!! She has been flying
all along!
So, how credible is her claim that she has this condition?
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's
procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say
secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before
Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians.
In the email blasted out to Democratic donors on Wednesday, Brock writes that his organization American Bridge, which has
already raised $20 million this cycle , is launching a rapid response and polling operation specifically to counter Bannon
-- one that will test in real time any Republican lines of attack and try to quash them before they gain any steam. He is also
launching a digital advertising campaign across 70 House races.
...
Brock, who hosted a three-day donor retreat in Miami during Trump's inauguration last year to plot lines of attack against
Trump, has been less visible since the election. He shut down his organization Correct The Record, which served as an outside
press shop for the Clinton campaign in 2016. But he said he's been working just as hard behind the scenes, and sees the midterm
elections as make-or-break for Democratic chances in the 2020 presidential election.
The fact that Brock...
has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary
and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Hillary never forgets a grudge.
#6.1 OMG OMG OMG - K called
HRC a bitch (like who hasn't?), OMG OMG OMG, K was heavily involved in repub politics (just like prominent dems have been in
their politics).
internet censorship and mass spying on We the People, that's enough for me. Obviously if they were serious, the discussions
and debates would be about more than these allegations. This is such kabuki it reeks. Anyone who doesn't realize that is lost
in the wilderness. I get a kick out of some right wing/libertarian type friends and acquaintances of mine who complain about the
democrats and the left attacking this asshole, saying it's all a setup and all this. Then I ask them if they support someone who
wants to let the government spy on them, censor the internet and continue the war OF terror forever. Ooops, brain gears all fucked
up. The only answer, abolish the supreme court.
During the confirmation hearings, there was very little (none from the Rs) examination of his actual court rulings. Although,
I am guessing he would have provided evasive answers if called on those just like he did on the Roe v Wade questions. (His own
rulings and the precedence he cites both show which way the wind blows.)
Someone needs to start an Adopt a Right-Winger Program like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs.
trial attorney then you should already understand that first-hand professional experience in the American trial system is the
opposite of useful epistemological training, except as a negative case. the entire process is a ludicrous parody of truth-finding.
anybody with an adequate education (including an autodidact) in the processes of reasoning, investigation, inference and proof
should, when presented with the way our trials are conducted, and in particular the sorts of "arguments" that actually fly in
American courtrooms, dismiss the entire endeavor with unceremonious contempt.
you've provided us your interpretation of these events through the lens of a trial lawyer -- but that's a fun-house lens when
applied to anything that isn't actually a trial, which this was not.
or the legal system, trial procedures and rules are carefully designed to ferret out as best as possible, the objective truth
of the matter (ie., what actually happened). Although this was not a court proceding, the basic principles of what constitutes
probative evidence and credible testimony can be applied to any hearing. I figured it was far past time somebody around here did
that.
@Not Henry Kissinger
for example, it has generated considerable wealth and elevated social status for its initiates. and it manifests a set of accepted
social institutions to which the wealthy and powerful can point for justification in their depredations. and it satisfies the
public's thirst for justice/vengeance by providing a robustly "successful" means for blame-assignment -- regardless of actual
blame (that TRVTH thing) -- by being so fucked up that various socioeconomically marginalized citizens can be
cowed into false confession via the threat of merciless retribution should they choose the recourse of their constitutional right
to a trial. and, and, and. yes, very useful indeed.
Both sides fight to win. They don't care about either truth or justice. Prosecutors want to convict. They use any and all legal
tactics to win. Defense lawyers try to get their client found not guilty, or failing that, a hung jury or mistrial. Both sides
seek ways to suppress facts and limit the jury's access (if there's a jury) to key information if they can get it deemed inadmissible.
Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys want any facts that don't help their case brought into it, and will try every legal
tactic they can to keep them out.
The idea that they are seeking objective truth is obviously false. Justice is a bit more fuzzy of a concept perhaps, but from
my own experiences in court rooms, mostly as a juror, that's not the goal either. I was on one jury that ultimately acquitted
someone who we all believed to be guilty, but the prosecutor was unable to prove the case. So the defendant got away with the
crime. Is that justice?
On that case I did my civic duty and voted to acquit -- in fact, I was a voice in the deliberations on the side to find not
guilty, because that's the law. No proof, no conviction. Even though the defendant was pretty clearly guilty. The "but she's guilty!"
jurors, those who wanted to convict because thought it was about truth and justice, did come around.
We found out after the trial about some key evidence that had been suppressed due to legal technicalities, which we had not
even been allowed to consider. The thought that trials are about seeking the "truth" is clearly incorrect.
#8.1.1 You believe that our
whole judicial system never results in justice?
You keep saying this, but I am not aware of any witness that she "produced" nor of any witness who contradicted her. The only
actual witness is Mark Judge, and he refused to testify to support Kavanaugh. He said he doesn't remember. Dr Ford's friend who
she said was at the party also said she didn't remember it. That's not saying it didn't happen, just that she doesn't have memories
of that specific gathering. She did say she believes Ford regardless of her lack of specific recall. There's no witness that contradicted
her, that I know of.
Anyway, it's a bit odd how obsessed you are with attacking this woman, while you appear to have no issues or problems whatsoever
with Kavanaugh's many lies. Or his evasions, his obvious bias and partisanship, his odious positions like justifying torture and
literally unlimited presidential power, and the many other problems with his legal mindset as well as his entitlement and spoiled
frat-boy temperament.
And he's still going to end up on the Supreme Court anyway ffs. So don't worry, your idol will be in a position to ruin many
more lives very soon.
I think the poster is confused by K's claims that Dr Ford's allegations were "refuted" (he used the word every time he mentioned
them) by the three people she said were there. You are correct. They have said they do not remember which is not a refutation.
The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate
at all.
It remains remarkable that Kavanaugh has been allowed to repeat again and again that Christine Blasey Ford's high school
friend Leland Keyser had "refuted" her account of the party she was assaulted at. Viewers of this hearing would have no idea
that Keyser had in fact told The Washington Post while she does not recall the event, she believes Ford's allegation.
Not the same as saying that the witness contradicted her. Did you perchance read the article that I linked to? I didn't make
it clear that it's a link not just part of my comment. There are many tweets that have videos of key parts of testimony.
#9 people is not probative.
Anybody can say anything anytime.
She originally brought up K when he was on Romney's short list. So what? The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That
they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate at all.
mostly because of my own personal experience (with a federal suit/hearing). Personally, I don't believe that anyone in this
thread intends to be offensive.
BTW, Blasey Ford--according to The Washington Post --didn't name Kavanaugh to her counselor in 2012.
Here's the reporting,
. . . the therapist notes and the polygraph test results were turned over to The Washington Post.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.
The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not
mention Kavanaugh's name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on
to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."
The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist's part. Ford said there were
four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
As far as 'coaching' is concerned, my only personal experience did not consist of prompting me to tell a certain 'story,' or,
telling me 'what' to say.
Met with the hearing attorney for quite a few hours--two days in a row--with my local attorney, and his extensive files. What
the trial attorney did do, was question me extensively.My impression was that he was testing my veracity, partly,
by comparing what I said to the notes of the other attorney. (Who, BTW, had complete confidence in my integrity and accuracy--that,
I know for certain.) At times, he would jump back to a topic--sorta out-of-the-blue. (Again, trying to test me, I thought.)
I've always understood that attorneys don't want any 'surprises.' So, I'm 'guessing' that it's the reason that both of them
covered any and all possible venues of questioning/topics.
At any rate, I had no complaints.
We won.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
to answer questions you expect the other side to ask. Coordinating the questions and answers with hearing panel members (as
was clearly evident) is a whole different issue. Glad your case turned out so well.
I did hear all but the first 10 or so minutes of Kavanaugh's testimony. Sounded to me like he had an overdose of caffeine--not
beer!
I have seen coke users (no, not the soft drink) do this with their mouth and nose, It occurred to me particularly as he was
sniffing long before he started his crying scene.
I believe them no less that I believe history books written by survivors of their era, which form the foundation of a modern
Western education.
I also know a thing or two about how memories are stored when the brain is intoxicated -- and what three decades of living
life on earth can do to those memories. And I most fervently believe that the outcome of all of this has almost nothing to do
with those long ago events. Instead, I am certain that this moment is about one's current political and social desires, going
into the future -- because that's the only thing that really means anything.
It looks to me like maybe K has just now figured out that there ain't gonna be no forgiveness. Not anymore. For decades, much
male misbehavior has been predicated on the notion that hazing, harassment and even assault of women will always be indulged,
smoothed over, and forgiven, no matter how crude and cruel, on account of how cute us women find him and how we just can't do
without him. Except, we can. And K, and other men are hurt and angry and crying because Mommy isn't here anymore, and we, many
if not most women, are not in a forgiving mood.
As for the lady, using the term advisedly, my first reaction is that I am happy and grateful that my daughter has chosen to
raise my teenaged granddaughter in a small town where sleepovers are allowed only if Mom has met the parents and NO private house
parties at all. My second is that it is a hard and cold world and the Lord doesn't love stupid.
A Republican Party strategist was quoted as saying he would be willing to loose the House to get K confirmed and I think that
may have just happened. I suspect K did the Rethugs no favors at all, electorally speaking.
There are videos of his testimony in the
link
I posted in my comment. As I stated I don't want someone with his demeanor on any court. He seemed pissed that anyone would
question his integrity. He interrupted democrats and gave snide comments back. And what's with all that sniffling? Allergies?
She was only used to question Ford, but when she started questioning him and asked him about the people who were named in
his calendar where he mentions "PJ" the republicans stopped her right then. Ford mentioned "PJ" too.
Regardless of his attitude, his previous testimony when he might have perjured himself he is going to be confirmed. As many
have stated this is just a circus for the rubes. Democrats had so many chances to question him on more important topics, but
they had no intentions of doing so. Ringling brothers came to DC.
I recall a black co-worker who went into a meeting angry over a chimp poster he felt was racist. The women were scared of him
too and testified such. He eventually settled with the employer; his own boss testified on his behalf (and I was glad for him).
Alot of women, for all their tough talk and grrrrrrrl power, are snowflakes.
I am hired by attorneys to school witnesses on how to answer questions. Like, "I think, I guestimate, it might, maybe, " are
not answers to questions. You either know for sure and certain, as a fact witness, or you answer "I cannot truthfully answer that
question."
As to lie detectors. If the operator asks more than 5 questions, the results are a joke. That is straight from the Texas Rangers
who trained in DC. They are the damn best. I have no idea how many questions Dr. Ford was asked.
@Unabashed Liberal
Listen to the question. Formulate the answer before you respond. Keep it short. Do not hesitate to say "I do not know" or "I do
not understand the question." Stay on point, do not stray. Look directly at the jurors, or at the judge if it is a bench trial.
Do not show anger during cross examination. Smile. Voice low and calm. If your hands shake, sit on them.
Take your time. Think. Be sure, be truthful.
If that is "evil witness coaching", so be it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with telling a witness what to say.
It is coaching the witness on the best way to get the truth onto the record.
I have coached eye witnesses with low IQ's.
They sailed through.
The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few
100K under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this
racket.
It isn't under the table – it's over it. She has a couple of GoFundMe accounts that
have already racked up $ 700,000. Of course, the 6-7 figure book deal will follow.
The FBI is about to investigate something that
didn't happen somplace on some uncertain day in 1982 to see if someone did something that
contradicts a large body of evidence that shows this would be totally out of character. This is
considered rational thought in the public space!
I'm sorry you could not account for Graham's outburst. I thought it the only honest thing
any of the Senators did. It makies me think less of you that you didn't see the outrage of the
whole presumption that this could even be discussed.
And no I don't believe that preposterous [to think that] Blasey [is CIA] operative. She and
her whole family work for the CIA.
Jones is circulating what many may call a conspiracy theory that Ford's father is a previous
CIA operative and a heavy-weight in arranging many avenues for the CIA to launder illicit
money. He implies that this was a classic CIA op.
He doesn't say so directly in anything I've read, although I don't read everything he
writes or listen to everything he says. But he clearly implies this.
Trump is at war with the IC. So, it's not unimaginable that such a thing is happening.
"... By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore". ..."
"... However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions. ..."
"... What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism. ..."
"... Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism. ..."
"... I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature. That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded. ..."
"... Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth. IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth ..."
"... Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent". ..."
"... "It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. ..."
"... So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. ..."
"... Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this. ..."
"... This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. ..."
"... Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion. We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes. ..."
"... This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this. ..."
"... If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not? ..."
"... I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. ..."
In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual , period.
Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media
outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part
to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles (
Europe's Week of Human Sacrifice ;
A Cruel French Lesson ). Still, there's
only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.
Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating
fellow in his own right -- he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture -- though his insistence on anonymity constrains
what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's Galactus.
We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.
In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.
***
A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective
The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female
differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects. Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All
too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men. Women are looking for a balance between work
and private life, men are obsessed with status and sex.
Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the
society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the
long run).
It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately
charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear
purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate
effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing
harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair.
Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly
confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already
tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity
as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore
will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative
criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative
naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore
unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should
be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore
"true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision",
but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view
of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition
for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some
natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the
prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual
reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than
contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time.
And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired
engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed
to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative
as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic
model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is
indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and
housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our
options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and
culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural,
and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires
very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion.
Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating
true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate
degradation of the "superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist
revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting
the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview
is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.
It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call
them roles -- the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves
in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.
The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical
memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true
charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers
that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued
by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous
issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic
classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well,
given our current hostile relations, it's probably for the better.
Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult
to convey in English.
I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James
Damore got from Google.
Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.
If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center,
close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive
and legislative branches.
Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky
treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or
so by native born American White men.
The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages
for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.
I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.
He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the
only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly,
not part of a practical movement or party.
Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented,
but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the Russian nationalism.
"but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like
relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."
Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:
" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological
causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of
these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual
given these population level distributions."
The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM. Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people
not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals.
"Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each
gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions,
claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven
by objects and career."
He said no such thing. He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.
I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine,
irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature. That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue,
or invalid. Outmoded.
Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth. IOW, Google fired him
for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth.
A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.
Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the
space inside the box.
But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really
aware a box exists. They envision a new box. Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can
expand on and implement it. Build the box.
Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating
on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types.
But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.
Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing.
Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.
I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left
for being open to new ideas.
You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought
the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That
belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.
To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests.
"and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.
"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization
of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes
would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair
go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those
who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".
"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women
are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of
truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue.
This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all
insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.
It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.
It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the
MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most
of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting
us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they
envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.
After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a
monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change,
but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty.
"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity
as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."
Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to
accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it.
The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other
more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.
The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but
a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going
to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.
Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.
(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting
Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore
tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate
over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits
have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther
for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)).
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to
divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest
in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination
in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's
management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in
organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they
panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority
– is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself
to fit in American society.
Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and
therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor
of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all
of them away indiscriminately.
Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And
of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice;
on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so
he may not be aware of this.
Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most
importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question,
you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you
would have to get rid of human nature.
This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all
women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and
career.
I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical
averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".
However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just
biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist
functionalization of society.
So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting
at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture
, which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but
it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even
being a civilization worth living in while it lasts.
"Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames
of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations
who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and
replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East
Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur).
Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German
states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution
would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion. We still have
peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.
We know a lot about Martin
Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid?
Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social
default and requires very good reasons to justify. "
I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things
called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.
Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness
that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice
is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but
still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in
disaster "
Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.
The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's
supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee
to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies.
Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or
surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement
to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country?
This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These
corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely
vulnerable to this.
Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and
leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company
starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept
and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company
is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.
They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter
to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with
insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources
for their agenda.
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the
capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution
and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in
the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in
a footnote.
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by
empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.)
base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities"
field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist.
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the
capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution
and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all
school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political
crisis?
If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they
bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences
among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts.
Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives
should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall
Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda.
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement
to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the
basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it
isn't conservatism.
There's a lot to unpack in the national psychodrama that played out in the senate judiciary
committee yesterday with Ford v. Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford laid out what The New York Times is
calling the "appalling trauma" of her alleged treatment at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh 36
years ago. And Mr. Kavanaugh denied it in tears of rage.
Dr. Ford scored points for showing up and playing her assigned role. She didn't add any
validating evidence to her story, but she appeared sincere. Judge Kavanaugh seemed to express a
weepy astonishment that the charge was ever laid on him, but unlike other questionably-charged
men in the grim history of the #Metoo campaign he strayed from his assigned role of the
groveling apologist offering his neck to the executioner, an unforgivable effrontery to his
accusers.
The committee majority's choice to sub out the questioning to "sex crime prosecutor" Rachel
Mitchell was a pitiful bust, shining a dim forensic light on the matter where hot halogen fog
lamps might have cut through the emotional murk. But in today's social climate of sexual
hysteria, the "old white men" on the dais dared not engage with the fragile-looking Dr. Ford,
lest her head blow up in the witness chair and splatter them with the guilt-of-the-ages. But
Ms. Mitchell hardly illuminated Dr. Ford's disposition as a teenager -- like, what seemed to be
her 15-year-old's rush into an adult world of drinking and consort with older boys -- or some
big holes in her coming-forward decades later.
For instance, a detail in the original tale, the "locked door." It's a big deal when the two
boys shoved her into the upstairs room, but she escaped the room easily when, as alleged, Mark
Judge jumped on the bed bumping Mr. Kavanaugh off of her. It certainly sounds melodramatic to
say "they locked the door," but it didn't really mean anything in the event.
Ms. Mitchell also never got to the question of Dr. Ford's whereabouts in the late summer,
when the judiciary committee was led to believe by her handlers that she was in California,
though she was actually near Washington DC at her parent's beach house in Delaware, and Mr.
Grassley, the committee chair, could have easily dispatched investigators to meet with her
there. Instead, the Democrats on the committee put out a cockamamie story about her fear of
flying all the way from California - yet Ms. Mitchell established that Mrs. Ford routinely flew
long distances, to Bali, for instance, on her surfing trips around the world.
Overall, it was impossible to believe that Dr. Ford had not experienced something with
somebody -- or else why submit to such a grotesque public spectacle -- but the matter remains
utterly unproved and probably unprovable. Please forgive me for saying I'm also not persuaded
that the incident as described by Dr. Ford was such an "appalling trauma" as alleged. If the
"party" actually happened, then one would have to assume that 15-year-old Chrissie Blasey, as
she was known then, went there of her own volition looking for some kind of fun and excitement.
She found more than she bargained for when a boy sprawled on top of her and tried to grope her
breasts, grinding his hips against hers, working to un-clothe her, with his pal watching and
guffawing on the sidelines -- not exactly a suave approach, but a life-changing trauma? Sorry,
it sounds conveniently hyperbolic to me.
I suspect there is much more psychodrama in the life of Christine Blasey Ford than we know
of at this time. She wasn't raped and her story stops short of alleging an attempt at rape,
whoever was on top of her, though it is apparently now established in the public mind (and the
mainstream media) that it was a rape attempt. But according to #Metoo logic, every unhappy
sexual incident is an "appalling trauma" that must be avenged by destroying careers and
reputations.
The issues in the bigger picture concern a Democratic Party driven by immense bad faith to
any means that justify the defeat of this Supreme Court nominee for reasons that everyone over
nine-years-old understands : the fear that a majority conservative court will overturn Roe v.
Wade - despite Judge Kavanaugh's statement many times that it is "settled law."
What one senses beyond that, though, is the malign spirit of the party's last candidate for
president in the 2016 election and a desperate crusade to continue litigating that outcome
until the magic moment when a "blue tide" of midterm election victories seals the ultimate
victory over the detested alien in the White House.
"I'm going to rely on all of the people including Senator Grassley who's doing a very good
job," added Trump.
During meeting with the president of Chile, President Trump says he found Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford's testimony "very compelling." https:// cbsn.ws/2Oj63Rs
Meanwhile, CNBC reports that an attorney for Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's high school friend said
to have been in the room during an alleged groping incident, says that Judge "will answer any
and all questions posed to him" by the FBI.
"If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr. Judge's cooperation, he will answer
any and all questions posed to him," Judge's lawyer Barbara Van Gelder told CNBC in an email.
-
CNBC
Accuser Christin Blasey Ford says that both Judge and Kavanaugh were extremely drunk at a
1982 party that she has scant memories of, when Kavanaugh grinded his body against hers on a
bed and attempted to take her clothes off. She testified that it was only after Judge jumped on
the bed that the attack stopped.
Of note, four individuals named by Ford have all denied any memory of the party - including
Ford's "lifelong" friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, who says she has never been at a party where
Kavanaugh was in attendance.
American Dissident , 7 minutes ago
The same FBI that couldn't get to the bottom of the Las Vegas mass shooting in a year is
going to uncover new information about a 1982 high school party in a week - Right.
didthatreallyhappen , 13 minutes ago
the democrats are moving the goal posts to infinity. that was their plan all along. This
will never stop. Due process in this country is OVER, DONE, GOOD BYE
"... even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true ..."
"... Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC . ..."
"... "The Democrats have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him [Kavanaugh] answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's ridiculous." ..."
"... It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has consistently defended -- or believed -- women. ..."
"... I don't know that we are "revictimizing victims". There is no evidence that either of these ladies are actually victims. Just hazy memories, or possibly just partisan lies. There's no way to know. ..."
"... Judge Kavanaugh, like him or not (and I don't), appears to be the real victim. ..."
Christine Blasey Ford (CSPN) There are many reasons members of the U.S. Senate might object
to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Take, for instance, the decisions he
handed down from the D.C. Court of Appeals, where he substantially affirmed the Patriot Act,
the surveillance state, and a broad use of executive power.
Instead of discussing Kavanaugh's controversial decisions, however, Americans are currently
transfixed by salacious stories of alleged 35-year-old sexual assaults committed by the
alcohol-addled teenage children of Washington's elite. As legislators ponder whether to place a
man in a permanent position of power, like salivating characters from Idiocracy, we remain
entranced by the hazy memories of women who allege that Kavanaugh assaulted
them.
Kavanaugh's accusers not only did not report the assaults, some 35 years later, they
are unsure of the dates, times, other people present, and even the locations where it happened.
Kavanaugh
categorically denies them. And now two other men have stepped forward to say
they were the ones who assaulted accuser Christine Blasey-Ford in 1982, not Kavanaugh. That
isn't to say the women's stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the fact and
without
corroborating witnesses , it is virtually impossible to disprove them.
Yet even before the facts were in, both the right and the left reached for well-worn
storylines, seemingly
eager to touch off a gender war. As a rumor that someone had accused Kavanaugh of sexual
misconduct emerged, some swiftly seized hold of a "boys will be boys" defense for Kavanaugh.
Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono, meanwhile, declared
that half the human population -- men -- should "shut up." Congresswoman Jackie Speier
warned Republicans to "beware the wrath of women scored. It will be your party's downfall."
To some supporters of the #MeToo movement, casually destroying an innocent man's life is an
acceptable price to pay "
in the process of undoing the patriarchy."
The question of whether the women accusing Kavanaugh should be believed should turn on the
credibility of the stories rather than on the gender of the accusers. The hyper-partisan
handling of the allegations, starting with Senator Diane Feinstein's decision to sit on
Blasey-Ford's accusation until the eleventh hour, helped the perception that Democrats
would go to any length to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination. Citing the obviously advantageous
timing, and the fact that
Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill Clinton's accusers , many
Republicans quickly called into question the veracity of Blasey-Ford's and Deborah
Ramirez's accounts.
Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual
harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen by the political parties as
nothing more than a means to advance the left's and right's familiar narratives. Both the ready
rape apologists and the myriad misandrists herald a scary new world, one where nearly 30
percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be confirmed
even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true .
One wonders how that
is possible.
Supposedly, the purpose of the #MeToo movement was to give enhanced visibility and
believability to victims of sexual assault. Yet the very opposite is achieved when political
parties callously parade alleged victims before the kangaroo court of public opinion as nothing
more than a prop to gain political advantage. Throwing reason, logic, and the presumption of
innocence out the window can only cause cause a serious backlash against victims -- not that
the monkeys in the Senate circus care about that.
The partisan political score has gotten pretty off-kilter when CBS News takes to
quoting a "moderate Republican living in the Boston suburbs" named Alice Shattuck, a mother
of four:
she's disturbed by the allegations Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez have made
against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and says that if there's proof the alleged attacks happened,
he's disqualified for the Supreme Court. "I don't care if he was a teenager or not."
But ask her what she thinks of the way the Kavanaugh case has been handled: "The Democrats
have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him [Kavanaugh]
answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's ridiculous."
Politico even ran an
article admitting that the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's "illustrious family --
let's be honest -- includes men who have done as much damage to women as they have done good
for the country, with offenses including serial infidelity, an affair with a babysitter and
even deaths, including that of Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned when Kennedy drove a car off a bridge.
Kennedy and his pal, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, were notorious for alcohol-infused
misbehavior that, by one account, included a game of 'waitress toss,' which is just what it
sounds like."
It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the
mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has
consistently defended -- or believed -- women. The reason for that is, of course,
partisanship.
Regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh, this massive circus has contributed to the
revictimization of victims everywhere. And because the partisanship has become so rank, that's
made victims less likely to be trusted rather than more.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has
been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics,
and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War
II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
I blame the GOP for trying to rush through Kavanaugh without releasing all his papers and
allowing the Senate to examine them closely. As for the accusations of sexual misconduct,
there are enough voices speaking about his drinking and crude behaviour to discredit all his
denials. I simply don't think he's honest, he seems to be slippery with the truth.
You lost me when you gave any credence to the two men who came forward to claim
responsibility for Ford's assault. The problem is that the crime that was committed is not
some light weight sexual assault but in most jurisdictions an incredibly severe felony.
In Louisiana (where I practice law) they would be charged with Attempted Aggravated Rape.
The underlying crime Aggravated Rape is subject to a minimum of life in prison without the
possibility of parol, so since it was 'just' attempted they would be facing 10-50 years in
prison. And of course there is no statute of limitations.
The idea that two men are going to voluntarily come forward and subject themselves to the
rest of their lives in prison is so fanciful it really cannot be believed absent so
incredibly compelling factor.
"That isn't to say the women's stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the
fact and without corroborating witnesses, it is virtually impossible to disprove them."
***************
It's worse than that. They also left out any detail that could be disproven through
criminal investigation: the time, exact locations, etc.
I know how investigations for sexual assault work when the crime's been committed years or
decades earlier. I had to give evidence to a detective to help prove victims were with an
offender on various occasions. I had to provide law enforcement with those physical addresses
& approximate dates. Other witnesses had to come forward & testify to back that up.
However terrible the accusation, the accused has rights to due process as well.
Thankfully he's behind bars now.
It's really appalling to me that young girls who are assaulted by non-celebrities have to
endure months & months of testimony & evidence gathering to be judged "credible". But
accuse someone in the public eye when it's politically expedient & all the rules
change.
[ ] and the fact that Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill
Clinton's accusers [ ]
To be fair, neither did Kavanaugh.
a scary new world, one where nearly 30 percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be
confirmed even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true.
One wonders how that is possible.
If you're wondering, it's because you haven't been paying attention. Just about any time
some well-liked guy gets accused of this stuff, there will be defenders who say various
shades of "she lead him on", "she was asking for it", "how dare she ruin a good man's life",
and so-on. There is a significant number of people in this country who see being
accused of rape/assault/harassement as worse then doing it .
There's a reason so few women come forward with these stories. Because they don't get
believed, and when they do, they get blamed for it happening in the first place and then
blamed for ruining the life of a "good man".
So I'm not saying you should understand why some people think this way. But you shouldn't
wonder how it's possible because it's been evident that a large number of people just don't
care about abusing women for a very long time.
"It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the
mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has
consistently defended -- or believed -- women. The reason for that is, of course,
partisanship."
The reason for that is, of course, the pervasive enabling of men to be violent towards
women in our society. Couple that with the immediate move to blame the (female) victim. Toss
in the outcomes of cases like Brock Turner. Small wonder so few women report right away, if
at all. At some point, we husbands and fathers are going to have provide what the justice
system cannot or will not.
"Democrat Senators seem to genuinely think hiding allegations of rape and then springing them
in public are equivalent to the Republicans refusing to consider Merrick Garland for the
seat."
You think a two week delay is some sort of momentous thing? If the Dr. hadn't wanted to
testify, then there was serious debate as to whether the letter should be released
The fact that Kavanaugh and republicans see this as some sort of Democratic huge action is
just a partisan attack. He got accused of some stuff that became more credible with
publicity, because she decided to pursue it, and lots of corroboration happened. None of that
is the democrats fault
I am not so sure partisanship will do this. In reality victims of sexual abuse have never
been believed unless there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that could not be ignored. In
which case very often the victims were blamed for the abuse instead of the perpetrator(s), at
least when they were adults instead of children and adolescents.
So maybe partisanship is helping victims of sexual abuse in the sense that there is at
least one party that will lend them an ear.
Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of
sexual harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen byone and
only one ofthe political parties as nothing more than a means to advance the left's
and right's familiar narratives.
Fixed it for you, Ms. Boland.
This war against men must stop. The Democrats started the Culture War. Can they stop it or
will they continue to the bitter end? When the Left and their useful idiots ruin the USA they
won't like what replaces it.
"The Democrats have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make
him [Kavanaugh] answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's
ridiculous."
Ford's attorneys asked for Kavanaugh to go first in a letter they wrote to the committee.
I haven't seen any Democrats endorse that idea. Barbra Boland doesn't name any Democrats who
endorsed the idea. Boland never the less tosses the quote out there as though it indicated a
problem with Democrats rather than with the conservative propaganda machine.
It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to
embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that
has consistently defended -- or believed -- women.
What's next, a reminder that southern Democrats supported slavery in 1850? The #MeToo
movement would not be necessary if we weren't talking about a widespread problem, one not
confined to any particular party or group. I suspect that Boland is engaging in this straw
man because she doesn't want to discuss question of which party supports the #MeToo movement
today. The Democratic party does, by and large, and not just in the context of the Kavanaugh
nomination. The Republican party is led by Donald Trump.
",Kavanaugh -- and Hatch, and Lindsey Graham -- seemed [bent on] exterminating the faint
notion that a massively successful white man could have his birthright questioned or his
character held to the most basic type of scrutiny"
Well, I am going to take issue with your dismissal of context. And note, I have routinely
maintained that youth male or female are measured by a different standard -- because they are
-- in fact youth. The attempt to make them into adults is the flip side of youth seeking
adult "pleasures." I am not going to be at linear to the rules of conduct of a young woman
who beds around in HS as I might adult women who bed around. Such context matters. There's a
reason we increase our expectations of children as they grow older to adulthood. And frankly,
it makes sense. This business of holding a sixteen year old to that of a thirty year old is
simplistic nonsense. Now each child is different, but children are in fact, children despite
the differences between them.
I agree, that this is not a boys will be boys matter. It is accurate that most boys seek
relationships with girls. It is not accurate that most boys seek to sexually accost women.
The pursuit of girls is not by definition accosting girls. When people say boys will be boys
-- they are not saying -- boys should get drunk and attempt sexual assault.
Nor do I buy that the story is credible therefore, such and such should happen. These
issues get played out in the political arena as if there some level of human perfection that
frees others to go crashing into people lives -- who reflect a level of humaness, that
plagues all of us. I have never been drunk. I can't even remember being invited to a party
where drinking was part of the main -- that did not include adults. And yet I am keenly aware
of at least one incident that plagues me to this day – it did not involve alcohol or
sex. And I can think of numerous events in which others were both verbally and physically
abusive -- teens in HS can be a mean, brutal, etc., etc. sort. And most of that is boy to
boy. The level of potential humiliation that teens are exposed to laughingly has no end
– the pecking order, is far less excruciating than the process is used to establish it.
And in that the girls can be as vicious. Needless to say, most boys exit HS virgins and I
suspect more exit college virgins more than we know. But the number of boys assaulting women
-- is nothing to the numb er of assaults that go one between boys. I won't even hazard a
guess how many of those had to do with girls --
High school is supposed to be figuring out the rules. I was teaching when Columbine
occurred. During that week, students expressed their HS days -- and very few would return it.
I cannot think of a single student who saw HS as a safe place -- yet, every year there are
thousands of HS reunions. So excuse me, if I am jaded to the tales of the privileged and
their Peyton Place dramas. I would that members of Congress would be so inclined.
Where this particular story falls apart for me, besides, its inappropriate introduction into
the process, hence the attempts to link her performance in college, some two more years
afterwards with no trauma reflection through HS --
The men and one woman she claims is her best friend, lifelong friend, whom she referenced to
support her story, does just the opposite. That does not mean what she experienced in her
mind was not real for her. But it does lend serious question as the events in reality. Then
she proceeded to throw her lifelong friend under the bus by suggesting her illness had
effected her mind.
I am fuming my housemate pestered into watching and listening -- laughing -- it's all her
fault. Jesting.
I think you are correct, this re-traumatizes women, discourages men or women who would serve
consider the matter not worth it, if every event in their lives can be used as claw hammer in
public castigation.
I also agree that the real issues are his views on the law, governance and the consitution
– and those areas you note have some serious concern for me. That our judiciary has not
had a clear eye on holding off government intrusion and the various order tactics in the name
pf the law that are in themselves unlaws and worse unethical is disturbing. But in truth,
Congress as a whole has not come to their senses that 9/11 was but a blip and a lucky strike
due to a lot of carelessness on the part of our agencies responsible for our security. To
this date not a single foreign state has been implicated in the planning or operation of
those events. But twenty years down the road the US has manged to topsy bturvy more than four
stable states. Making more room for discontented opponents. So its interesting that they did
not use this opportunity to enlighten the public on the issues that most to the the citizens
of this country will be impacted as to policy and polity. Some discussion of the games played
and court complicity in circumventing the law and ethics to obtain warrants.
I have no doubt that this woman as most have experienced some painful HS experiences and
more since. But it's hard to square, whatever she claims as traumatizing had no effect until
college and even more thirty years later while remodeling her house. But unlike some people
in HS her enemies, if she had any, did not follow her seeking to make hay of her life –
there are people who experience that level nastiness.
Nothing prevented her from escaping a home-life, education and community she didn't like
and head off to the beaches of California. Where she dumped the rigors of math for something
she liked better. In all that time she never once sought to redress what she thinks happened
to her. Now one might give room for people without means, connections and privilege brio, but
this young lady had all that and more and did nothing. There men and women in with nothing
who fight everyday for some relief from wrongs done to them.
Note: I am not referencing the escape clause of it's past the dead line – so the
injustice must stand -- that's a rather tawdry mechanism – in view of the integrity
demanded by government. Statute of limitations is often a management dodge. Government and
the powerful stonewall, but if that limit is to the benefit of a target, they move heaven and
earth find ways around it or manipulate by changing it outright.
I don't know that we are "revictimizing victims". There is no evidence that either of
these ladies are actually victims. Just hazy memories, or possibly just partisan lies.
There's no way to know.
Judge Kavanaugh, like him or not (and I don't), appears to be the real
victim.
But we no longer live in a great country. Just a place where people will happily perform
any unethical act in hopes that their team will win. On both sides of the aisle.
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
They were too afraid of the women's movement, and therefore could not bring themselves to
challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the prosecutors questions which did not have
the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by the democrats to the honoree.
But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean
up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her
handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little
girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later
and expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not
remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if
she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips
– all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to
see.
She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently
needed explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to
explain her inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later
politicized the confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her
several go fund me sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.
She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid
to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to
remain anonymous.
As a foreign observer, I watched the whole hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For
me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated
itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the
nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will do everything to prevent his confirmation.
They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford, not to speak of the other two disgraceful
women that prostituted themselves for base motives. Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played
to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which seemed to make a great impression on the CCN
tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks of the hearing committee. It was a great
TV-propaganda frame.
Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15,
and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart
from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after
the "incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as
it is. Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American
youths should not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of
Penn for my M.A. degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great
experience. Every weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed
around like hell. Nobody made a big fuss out of it.
On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a
state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions
and accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which
only happens in totalitärian states.
Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth
and humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in
advance of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham
with his outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence,
men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant
was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more
tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get
my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable.
Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM”
;
Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and
that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide
at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None
of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's
character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end
it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive,
because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas –
because that's what those people are."
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed
Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their
President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person,
but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement,
wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact
that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently
disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted
to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that
mold, IMHO.
One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended
rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to
me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e.,
molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once
more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not
remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not
remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself.
No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
@anastasiaI think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a
few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman.
The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix,
who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to
praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and
Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham
they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick
Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the
Senate.
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist.
Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.
It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking
bleak.
Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until
I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not
abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh
will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The
kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and
brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.
The hearing about potential Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh is still going on, but the
hearings have clearly missed 90% of key material facts that as always - as we have explained in
our books Splitting Pennies and
Splitting Bits , the world is not as it
seems; and certainly, not ever - as seen on TV. The peculiar thing about this particular
political circus is that the GOP is allowing this to happen, as if there's nothing they can do
to allow the left to manipulate the masses before the elections coming up, all we need after a
victimized woman by an old, respectable white man is another school shooting, this time with a
white rich kid holding the gun at a minority school. Having said that, if you do have children
at public schools, it might be worth considering home schooling or private school at least
until the swamp is drained, if it ever will be (or consider a remote rural public school where
staging such events is less likely). As these deep-state nut jobs will stop at nothing to
acheive their ends, which seem simple but evil: vindicate the Soros - Clinton Mafia (which is a
multi-family 'faction 2' power center that goes well beyond Bill & Hillary) and in the
process destroy Trump and everything connected to it.
Why wasn't this 'accuser' vetted, as one would be in a court case? This is after all the
'judiciary committee' we know the answer to that, this is political theater of the worst kind.
However if this were a court case, and the complaining witness were to undergo
cross-examination and deposition, they should ask the following questions:
What is Dr. Ford's relationship with the CIA, and with her father?
The importance of noting the CIA banking connections of Ralph G. Blasey Jr. , this
report explains, is due to the outbreak of what is now known as the " CIA
Bank War " -- and whose start of, in 1982, a CIA seized from publication news report
( Declassified
in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/05: CIA-RDP90-00965R00150010-7 )
describes as: " This is Wall Street, the center of the international banking system, a
system on the edge of a crisis so severe that the Central Intelligence Agency is
preparing drastic measures. Something must be done to avert the breakdown of the Free
World's monetary system. "
Who paid for her lawyer, lie detector test, and other items related to her
testimony?
Was she offered a book deal?
What is Dr. Ford's association with the Soros foundation, directly or indirectly?
What is the association with Frederick_T._Melges and specifically,
did they collaborate on work involving mind control, memory, and time while at Stanford, or a
CIA think tank, or any other time?
What is the explanation that no other witness can testify to verify the statements of
what happened that night, combined with the lack of other physical evidence, and even
evidence to the contrary? (Such as Brett Kavanaugh's diary/journal he kept)
What are the political associations of Dr. Ford, specifically are there direct
connections to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, including but not limited to
when Clinton
was the Secretary of State ? (For those of you who don't know, the State Department is
the political cover for CIA operations globally.)
This staged, orchestrated, and artificial testimony is no doubt the creation of deep-state
actors connected to Soros/Clinton/CIA et. al. The GOP doesn't want to mention MKUltra in a
public hearing as this would take things in an entirely different direction. If this was a
court, it is highly doubtful that a jury would convict Kavanaugh based on he said she said with
no evidence for the complaining witness but an overwhelming amount of evidence for the defense.
Not only the hundreds of character letters of support, the diaries/journals, and all the work
Dr. Ford has done over the years on mind control as a qualified and practicing Dr. of
Psychology (Edited 10:00 am 9/28/2018, it was misreported "Psychiatry" Dr.
Ford works as a practicing psychologist in Stanford's department of Psychiatry ); but the
fact that Kavanaugh has actually worked for the Federal Government and the White House
specifically on a number of occasions and has gone through a Congressional confirmation many
times - why now? Something is fishy here, just as it was proven that several of the 'victims'
of Trump were actually paid actors, the mere accusation is enough to cast doubt on the whole
topic. And this accusation isn't from a poor helpless child, it is from a Dr. of Psychiatry
that has authored more than 50 papers on the topics of behavioral science, including topics of
great interest to the CIA such as:
Ford has written about the cognitive affect of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, too. She and her co-authors wrote, "[Our] findings
suggest that there may be a range of traumatic experience most conducive to growth and they
also highlight the important contributions of cognitive and coping variables to psychological
thriving in short- and longer-term periods following traumatic experience."
Finally, why is the GOP so defenseless as to allow such a show to occur, which will do much
greater damage to the mind of the Sheeple than it will to actually affect the appointing of
Judge Kavanaugh or not. Whether he is appointed or not, the damage to the minds of the masses
is done - this further polarizes an already polarized country divided between the 'sane' and
the 'insane.'
Article update 9/28/2018 - We have updated the article to reflect change in name, we wrote
'Psychiatry' which should have been 'Psychology' this was a mis-read on our end, in a rush to
publish quickly. Mistakes happen in quick sloppy journalism which operates under real-time
market conditions like trading. However, we do not believe it significantly impacts the
argument here, however, if we are to publish an article about misrepresented facts we better
have all of our facts right! Other elaboration will come in another article, to be composed
over the weekend. Stay tuned. www.globalintelhub.com
Requiem To Marion Barry: The Kavanaugh Sex Spectacle
By Robert Willmann
Update (Friday, 28 September): It looks like Senator Lindsey Graham (Repub., South Carolina)
might be reading SST. On the radio shortly before 9:00 a.m. central time, he was talking,
probably in the hallway, and was saying that there is no statute of limitations on rape in
Maryland, and so if someone wanted to make a complaint to start the investigation of a criminal
case, that could be done. There are additional issues to research, such as whether a person to
be charged was a juvenile or adult for purposes of crime at the time of the alleged offense,
its effect on the statute of limitations, and so forth, as mentioned below.
-----
As a coincidence theorist, I find it mathematically interesting that accusations against
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh began when they did, and continued in sequence spaced out
up to and including yesterday.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California) is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is
also, surprisingly, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, given the financial investments and
activities by her husband Richard Blum in China. Right on cue, after the Kavanaugh confirmation
hearing ended, Feinstein began Act 1 of the three act play you could see coming from a mile or
kilometer away, with its three act structure: the set-up, conflict, and resolution--
In Act 1, Feinstein revealed a mysterious letter that she would not disclose to her
Democratic colleagues about an unnamed accuser who did not want to be known or get involved. In
Act 2, the accuser "comes forward" and her name becomes known and there is the demand that
there be an investigation, that she testify before the committee, and that any vote be delayed.
Act 3 is played out today.
Having been involved in the prosecution and defense of criminal sex cases, I am not watching
the contrived spectacle now underway, which is political maneuvering and propaganda. But I have
seen an image of the goings-on, and am wondering who did Christine Blasey Ford's hair this
morning and picked out the clothes she is wearing for her role as accuser.
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee scuttled around and painted themselves into a
corner by tentatively agreeing on Saturday, 22 September, to a hearing of sorts for Thursday,
27 September, at which Ms. Ford would testify [1]. Then, by coincidence, of course, up popped a
story in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday, 23 September, that a female named Deborah Ramirez
claimed that in the 1983-84 school year at Yale University, Kavanaugh exposed his male sex
organ to her at a drunken dormitory party [2]. Waiting until the seventh paragraph of the
article, authors Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer begin the disclaimers--
"Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and
that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will
inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned
about her memory, given her drinking at the party."
In paragraph 10--
"The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the
party."
Then on Wednesday, 26 September, purely by coincidence, and the day before the new committee
hearing for Ms. Ford, up pops Julie Swetnick, with her written statement--
Since some writers and commentors and certainly some readers here on SST have spent much
time at work analyzing information, statements, and situations -- especially when soldiers'
lives are at stake -- I do not have to take apart the Swetnick statement and discuss its
unusual characteristics. It is so full of holes you can drive an 18-wheeler truck through it,
and readers can see for themselves. Yesterday, 'Publius Tacitus' examined her "declaration" in
a posting on this site.
An easy example: notice the contradiction in paragraphs 11 and 13 in which Swetnick claims
that in 1981-82 she purposely avoided drinking the punch at the parties because Kavanaugh and
others made efforts to "spike the punch", but that in approximately 1982 was gang raped after
being incapacitated by "Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking".
Swetnick's salacious statement seeks to make a direct criminal accusation against Kavanaugh
by saying, in paragraph 12, that she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and
others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so that they could then be 'gang
raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys". She continues: "I have a firm
recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties [when? where?]
waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett
Kavanaugh".
This accusation crosses the line into what is called in Texas the "law of parties" and
"criminal responsibility for the conduct of another" [3]. In the federal court system the
doctrine is referred to as "aiding and abetting".
In her crafty little statement, Ms. Swetnick is deliberately vague about where these
"numerous" parties that were a "common occurrence" and "occurred nearly every weekend during
the school year" actually took place. She says in paragraph 2 that she graduated from
Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which tells us nothing about the location
of the alleged bad conduct. In paragraph 7 she said that she attended "well over 10 house
parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the years 1981-83 where Mark Judge and Brett
Kavanaugh were present". She further says in paragraph 9 that she "witnessed such conduct on
one occasion in Ocean City, Maryland during 'Beach Week' " [what conduct? that claimed in
paragraph 8?].
Every District Attorney "in the Washington, D.C. area" (as Ms. Swetnick likes to say) can
research the law to see what the statute of limitations is as to rape and other possible crimes
alleged by Swetnick in her statement. A "statute of limitations" or "limitation of actions" is
the time period in which a civil or criminal case can be filed. If the time period has expired,
a case cannot be brought. Some crimes have no statute of limitations. The age of the
participants is also part of the research. There will be an age at which a juvenile becomes an
adult as far as crime is concerned. In Texas and likely in other states, criminal cases against
juveniles are handled differently than those against adults. In some instances, a juvenile can,
after a hearing, be designated as an adult, or "certified to stand trial as an adult", for a
crime allegedly committed as a juvenile. How this is affected by the statutes of limitation is
also an issue that can be researched.
I see that the University of Maryland has a law school [4]. With the privilege of available
time in the academic world, a professor and perhaps some students could do this research and
easily write an article on the issues of what the law says about the statute of limitations,
possible crimes for investigation, and their relation to the matter of juveniles and adults,
relating to this Swetnick matter.
Washington, D.C. itself is a separate entity, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia prosecutes both federal and "serious local crime committed by adults"
there [5]. It is interesting that the Justice Department website does not refer to juvenile
offenses committed in Washington, D.C. They may be handled by a locally elected D.C. "attorney
general" [6].
If politicians want an investigation, let one begin by the District Attorneys in the area
and the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. So far as is known, Ms. Swetnick has not approached any
of them with her dramatic complaint.
As a final note, why a requiem to former Washington, D.C mayor Marion Barry? Not publicized
much, if at all, were his academic accomplishments, as he had a master's degree in chemistry,
which is not an easy thing to achieve. He was a formidable politician and activist. He was
interrupted by an FBI sting operation in 1990 and arrested for a drug offense in the presence
of a female in a hotel room. Now with the current ongoing revelations of hostile attitudes and
even actions by personnel of one or more federal agencies against candidate and now president
Trump, the targeting of a politican with real charisma might be more than a coincidence. The
undercover FBI video of the event recorded for posterity the immortal words of Marion Barry,
candidly repeated in paragraph 3 of this Washington Post story--
If I may address this as a lifelong feminist roughly the same age as Ford, here are my
observations from yesterday:
Women are very susceptible to groupthink. I wish it were not true, but it appears to
be hardwired in us to be empathetic, and this makes us prone to mass movements of many
different sorts, from belief in witchcraft (usually by other women, of lower status) to
belief in epidemic levels of sexual assaults (mostly experienced by others, but if we
lower the bar to touching, rubbing, or unwanted passes, we all get to play).
Men are expected to "shut up" and take it in the era of MeToo. Which is very
interesting because it assumes (even demands) the maintenance of a chivalric code of
honor amongst men, whilst destroying the comity between the sexes that has prevailed in
the West since it was revived and democratized in the 19th and 20th centuries. What we
saw yesterday in the impassioned (yet reasoned) testimony by Kavanaugh and his savior,
Lindsay Graham, was a crack in that comity.
MeToo is undermining the tacit agreement by men and women to play by rules agreed to
long ago, rules that suspend the age old logic of "might makes right" and has enabled
women to tread a long road to something like equality of opportunity. I read the results
of a poll this morning that strongly suggests the only group that changed its mind as a
result of the testimony yesterday was college educated men. They swung significantly into
Kavanaugh's camp. I can tell you that my own husband, a kind and committed feminist of
many years who finds Trump repugnant has followed this trajectory as well.
The Democrats have thus pushed many men out of their camp. They are now the party of
women. Of angry women. Of hateful women. Let's see how that plays out in November.
I am a 75 year old male, raised Republican. I have been voting Democratic for several
decades. The past ten years my voting pattern has been mostly anti-incumbent. This
display of dishonoring the democratic process has returned me pretty firmly to my
Republican roots.
When the Weinstein and Cosby issues created the #metoo movement, I was on board. This
event was the last straw in driving me into the camp that considers the movement a power
struggle, one which has as its sole purpose the total subjugation of the male gender. All
of which would seem to bolster your point.
It's like all the anti-Putin accusations. Personally I think it's wrong to get into the
minutiae of this or that detail: more "details" are easily created and it all serves to
keep the smear alive. A robust contempt is best, I think.
Patrick, #babbling: probably the most manipulative woman I ever experienced, pretty close
up, was engaged with a lawyer, who also wrote her thesis, while she slept with all of his
friends. One thing he manged to accomplish otherwise after he left was that he made her
aware of evidence apparently: Keep and store your calendar, it's evidence. Always be
prepared.
Kavenaugh: The only thing that doesn't quite fit into my own stored memories is the
fact that the mother was the lawyer and the father did this as did he tells us. he did
following tradition. Thus is life. But the father may have done on the mother's advise,
or may have been a descendant of lawyer family?
There was this odd tongue signaling during his "testimony" I have never seen before.
We have a politician who as a tic on the nose It reminded me of it.
The investigations issue not only arose in the "hearings" but was a Democratic cudgel at
great length, and Democratic supporters are pillorying Kavanaugh because he "refused 16
times to agree to an FBI investigation." Apparently that proves his guilt.
The Democrats, of course, want an investigation to delay a confirmation vote. With
some luck and the cooperation of the FBI, that delay could last until the midterm
election, after which the confirmation vote might go against Kavanaugh. He knows this
very well, and did not agree to any such delay, which might allow the Blasey Ford
accusation to succeed indirectly in derailing his confirmation.
So even if he is innocent of what the woman accuses him of, the delay of a lengthy FBI
investigation proving that (or failing to prove guilt) might still serve the purpose for
which the accusation was made, which is keeping him off the Supreme Court. And Democrats
accuse the Republicans of engaging in dirty politics.
I don't think this was as purposeful as ringing Fort Sumter with artillery. But, if
mankind survives, this hearing will be identified as the start of the globalist verses
nationalist Civil War in the West. Democrats don't have the votes and are powerless to
halt Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court. Rather than addressing issues
and serving the people; they used a gender canon to try to derail the nomination because
he is a Donald Trump selection.
Brett Kavanaugh is a mean drunk. He has not done the 12 Steps. He showed his anger
when he said he is a victim of revenge on behalf of the Clintons. If the GOP rams this
through today, comity and compromise are gone. Equal justice for all is dead. This is
power for power's sake. Damn the Torpedoes. Full Speed Ahead.
Hi VietnamVet, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that "Brett Kavanaugh is a
mean drunk". I am just wondering how you would react if someone you don't even know that
well accuses you of attempted rape or mental anguish for 36 years? It is possible that
Dr. Ford might have confused Bret Kavanaugh for someone else. it seems that you have
watched the TV yesterday, please tell me how can a professor of Psychology and with years
of experience in teaching doesn't even know who and how to contact her representative for
some 36 yeaars? Also it seems to me that she didn't even know that Chuck Grassley offered
to interview her since she claimed that she didin't know about the offer to interview her
in Palo Alto Ca? Are we supposed to be that she is that dumb? If so we sure have
professors in Palo Alto and Stanford Univ who are not worth a dime. God help us if these
world famous institutions are employing such people to educate our future leaders. Never
mind the excuse that she was afraid of flying when she was taking various trips for fun
and other activities. I just can't believe that people are falling for such a confused
person. I am not saying that she didn't experience sexual assault, I have no idea but it
seems to me that she was confused about the perpritrator of that assault. Thanks
One possibility say's Kavanaugh and Ford BOTH are telling the truth. Seeing that
Kavanaugh more less admits to heavy drinking during this time in his life, he could quite
possibility have been drunk enough that night to have no recollection of specifically
what went down that night - especially seeing that all might be endemic of these rich
kids mode of "party on" at the time.
Where are all the other examples of him being a mean drunk in his life? How about an
example from last month, last year or even sometime in the last decade?
But, what's this habit of his of sticking his tongue into his cheek? Never seen it
before. We have a CSU politician over here that cannot speak without twisting his nose
once in a while. By now I find him quite amusing to watch. Is this a stress symptom or
does he do it all the time. I wonder?
Just assure me it's not unusual. Will you?
Things that stick out tend to draw my attention. And yes for a second, I wondered if
he was signalling.
That must be more common in Germany than it is here. As a sitting federal judge he has
the advantage of writing his opions out and not being required to perform theatrics when
making legal judgemets.
A Marion Barry reference is better than discussing accuasations against Congerssman Keith
Ellison, the same kind that got Senator Franken to resign. Interesting to note that
Senator Feinstein not only had the letter from Dr. Ford, both as forwarded by
Congresswoman Eshoo and later by Dr. Ford herself; did nothing with it but wait for
weeks, then had her staff advise Dr. Ford on which attorney to hire, then claim neither
she (the senator) nor her staff leaked the thing to the press, thus not only throwing Dr.
Ford under the bus with the leak but running her over with the denial. Unless it was that
other Democrat, Congresswoman Eshoo, did it.
Great script writing. Worthy of an Oscar. Justice Kavenaugh of course gets to play the
role assigned by Alinsky: "make them live up to their rules". I wonder how many votes the
"blue wave" picked up with this performance?
A powerful man as "victim" is somewhat unbecoming...Kavanaugh's "judicial temper tantrum"
was a little "hot" by Marshall McLuhan standards. I sure wouldn't want him on any bench I
was standing before in court.
A man is not made of stone, but flesh and blood. The law is the law, but judges are human
beings, and human beings feel attacks upon our person and our families very deeply. No
one is pure intellect. We knew he had the intellect to do the job. We did not see until
yesterday that he had the backbone to do it well. And Lindsay Graham channeled the
righteous outrage of millions of Americans perfectly in his supporting role. I was
pleased. You, of course, are free to disagree.
I don't agree. How should he have defended himself, objectively speaking after 35?
years? ...
She may, subjectively have experienced real danger at her age. I admittedly was a bit
startled when she told about her fear in the WP, more precisely about one word, she felt
she could have been "accidentally", interestingly enough, killed/murdered. ... I wondered
about it. And she repeated it precisely that way.
Although yes am heavily aware of something that may be a female shortcut, rape,
decision between surrender and murder. To shut you up. But accidentally?
Now put on your common sense hat. It is a hot Saturday afternoon. You are hanging at the
pool. She goes to a "small" party. Where did she go? She does not remember. What we know for
certain is that none of the three boys she identified being at the party did not live in
Bethesda/Chevy Chase. Kavanaugh and Smith lived near the traffic circle at Western Avenue and
Massachusetts Avenue, NW. That is almost four miles from the Columbia Country Club. Mark Judge
lived quite aways outside the beltway (I-495) in an area between Potomac and Rockville. He was
a good 12 miles away.
Who was the mystery fourth boy? She cannot remember. Maybe he lived near the Columbia
Country Club.
The house was not the home of her friend Leland Ingham either. Ingham actually lives within
a mile of Georgetown Prep.
None of the four people identified by Blasey Ford corroborate her account. None recall such
a party. Most damning is the fact that Leland Ingham says she did not know Brett Kavanaugh.
While she reported has told Blasey Ford that she believes Ford's account, she herself failed to
provide any supporting testimony.
According to Blasey Ford, Kavanuagh and Judge were very intoxicated. Okay. How did they get
to the mystery house? Did both drive drunk to the location? More importantly, Kavanaugh was not
a member of Columbia Country Club. He was a member of Chevy Chase Country Club (which is about
two miles south of Columbia). Although the two clubs are in the same general vicinity, the
members of these clubs did not interact/socialize with one another. Those hanging at the Chevy
Chase Club pool were not on the phone with those laying around the Columbia Club pool.
The Democrats are pinning their hopes on an FBI magic bullet. They will be disappointed.
Here is what the FBI will do and discover:
They will interview Christine Blasey Ford, but she already has provided her sworn
statement. If she starts changing her tune then she has new credibility problems.
They will interview the four people she identified as allegedly being at this party. All
four are already on the record with sworn statements that no such party took place and no
assault occurred.
They will be able to use Kavanaugh's calendar to check all possible dates where such an
event could have taken place and interview the persons listed by the Judge.
Since Ford cannot identify the location where the alleged assault took place it will be
impossible for the FBI to visit the scene of the supposed crime and interview owners and
neighbors.
It is possible that the FBI will interview the two men who came forward claiming they may
have been responsible for the assault the Blasey Ford is claiming.
The FBI will submit the 302 reports and will note that there is no corroborating evidence
or testimony to back up Blasey Ford's allegations.
At this point the Democrats will probably begin insisting that the FBI was under duress and
did not conduct a proper investigation. They will call for a Special Prosecutor and independent
investigator. This is not about discovering truth. This is all about thwarting Donald
Trump.
This looks like a modern reincarnation of inquisition.
Notable quotes:
"... this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009. ..."
"... the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction ..."
"... [Some] Women if you reject, or even if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary. ..."
"... A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing. ..."
"... I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen. ..."
"... Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and didn't report it. This is mass hysteria. ..."
"... When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually a lot of pleasure to be around. ..."
"... I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off. ..."
"... Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts. ..."
"Besides filing
a federal civil lawsuit against police officers, prosecutors and other witnesses in his case, Filler
filed a complaint about former prosecutor Mary Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which resulted in Kellett
becoming the first prosecutor in recent memory to be publicly sanctioned by the state over prosecutorial misconduct. Kellett, who
now works as a defense attorney,
prosecuted Filler at his first trial in 2009.
Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, was contacted via email but declined to say how much money he is getting in the settlement.
"I am grateful to all my attorneys but most of all I am grateful for my strong family and my two amazing children who I
have been blessed to see grow up," Filler wrote in a statement Monday night." Bangor Daily News
------------
Ok folks, this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine
for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009.
The review process decided that his wife lied about him to gain revenge in a custody case over their two children and that
the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction
. A friend of the wife, a female RN, coached the wife to cry in court so as to make "it seem more real." The RN has been sued by
the now vindicated ex-husband. I hope she loses every cent she might ever have.
Several here on SST have maintained that women seldom falsely accuse men. What a joke!
"... the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male." Kipling
Every guy worth his salt knows this to be true. Even most women know this to be true. There was a reason for the line "hell hath
no fury like a woman scorned."
Most not ALL women are extremely emotional and not rational. The average IQ is 100. So 50% of the women are below that but
I am supposed to believe that any accusation is 100% to be believed.
It's such a joke as to bring contempt upon the part of society who is pushing this. [Some] Women if you reject, or even
if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary.
Men murder women at an obscene rate and it is probably hardwired into them for protection. That part I can understand and emphasis
with strongly.
However, these stories such as this poor guy endured are nauseating. A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps
for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing.
I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women
are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for
the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen.
How about the UVA rape case rolled out by the Rolling Stones? Just another delusional female that the press demanded we believe.
How about the Duke Lacrosse team? Another false accusation pushed by the female dominated press who dominate their SJW warrior
co-workers and secretly have contempt for them being so feminine. Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport
and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and
didn't report it. This is mass hysteria.
The number I am sure is in the millions now so there are millions of women in America mostly who have been raped and not reported
it. I call bullshit.
Why do women hate other women? Why can't we discuss the truth anymore?
When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually
a lot of pleasure to be around. I should have never left regardless how bad the air was.
Years ago I attended Medical School and 50% of the students were female. And normal, fun, and I miss them. Maybe it is intelligence
and not the gender. They were certainly as smart or smarter in many cases than us guys. Top 2 students were female. So I am not
an ogre. But stories like this piss me off.
Not surprised. I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score
points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off.
Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts.
... it appears that 21st century sexual politics now affords women the best of all worlds. She may now participate as an equal
in dorm party drinking games with men.
And yet she remains so vulnerable that 35 years later an alleged incident involving the exposure of a (presumably flaccid)
male member - as a result of such activities - seemingly merits serious investigation as an 'assault'...
"... Of course women can be just as cruel, heartless and power hungry as men. It is rather ironic that the Dems are relying on the attitudes about women 100 years ago... that women are the fairer and gentler sex and need to treated with kid gloves. Oh, and they are more moral too! Once upon a time feminism was about aiming for "equality" but it has devolved into victimhood and power games. ..."
"... Oh the poor babies! I'm sure such party changes have never happened in history before (/snark). The difference this time is the losers are acting like children having a tantrum because their mommy won't buy them the toy they want. And the Republicans don't know how to handle the tantrums. ..."
"... Trump and Trump supporting candidates to give a voice to the conservative/libertarian/independent opposition to the establishment RINOs. There is a civil war going on within the Republican party. ..."
"... The Walkaway movement is only one of several movements taking place on YouTube encouraging independent thinking and analysis versus unquestioning submissive loyalty to a power hungry political party. ..."
"... The Kavanaugh situation is just a symptom of the partisanship tearing America apart. ..."
"... I know many of your will argue that we are a Republic and majority opinion in America as a whole is irrelevant. That being the case maybe Americas has gotten too big for its britches. Would it not be better for an amiable Divorce where Red states and Blue states can build their own countries and see how things shake out for their respective peoples. ..."
"... Obviously the country cannot be divided by counties. My point was that if you look at NY state for example you will find that most of the state is red. ..."
"... Women often lie about men because they are angry at them or resentful of rejection or some other reason. "those few?" Surely you jest . It happens a lot. ..."
Yes, I know you are not supposed to say things like that, but, it happens to be true that
women are not semi-divine beings, born with few traces of original sin. Like men, they lie,
fornicate, cheat and steal. US senators are apparently constrained by politics into adopting a
rhetorical position in which they pretend that women are better and more filled with integrity
than men. To hell with that! Such a position is so obviously untrue as to be absurd. I am not
going to soften my words by whining about all the wonderful, brilliant, adorable, madonnesque,
but still desirable women I have known. (so to speak). In the present circumstance such an
attempt to mollify the harridans, male and female, is just weakness.
It is clear to me that a silent coup is underway, a coup against the conservative/deplorable
side of America. This is a coup that seeks to deny the Republican Party the ability to govern
by abandoning the customs and norms of civility that lie at the center of the US form of
government while reverting to the law of the jungle "red in tooth and claw." In US government
it has been long understood that recognition of the fragility of the Union within the framework
of the constitution should be accepted as a basis for what people are wise to say and do to
each other.
There have been rash actions in recent years, actions that have damaged the comity that once
prevailed in places like the US Senate. McConnell's decision to deny Merrick Garland a hearing
was a terrible mistake which provides the Progresso Democrats with an excuse to stonewall any
and all Republican nominations for the judiciary. Harry Reed's decision to abandon the 60 vote
rule for cloture in judicial appointments was very short sided.
The Progresso Democrats are delaying the Kavanaugh confirmation in the hope that they will
recover one or both houses of congress. If they control the House, they will pass bills of
impeachment against Trump and probably Kavanaugh as well. If they also control the senate then
one or both of these might result in convictions and removals. This would not be politics. It
would be war conducted as politics. The Progresso Democrats should not expect that such actions
would be meekly accepted.
The Republican leadership in the senate looks weak as it seeks to placate the Progresso
Democrats over proliferating and shaky claims of molestations leading to wounding of the female
soul. There is no reason to think that procrastination will not continue endlessly if this is
allowed to govern Republican actions. Why should conservative/deplorables turn out to vote for
weaklings afraid of being called misogynists by people like Senator Blumenthal?
The Judiciary Committee should have voted him out today and the full senate should have
confirmed him on this Wednesday. Every day that passes without that confirmation is a victory
for the Progresso Democrats. pl
I wouldn't call it a coup, it's politics in a new form. The new form is brought about by
social media mobilization boosting tribalism and an unprecedented form of gender
politics.
There's a big gap between reality and what the media reports on any gender issue.
When I was practicing criminal law, it was accepted in the courthouse halls that women
lied to put their partners in jail, usually in domestic abuse cases. The motive was often
revenge for cheating or breakups. There were also bad dates, cheating relationships, and
one night stands without a callback that turned into rape cases. Talk to bailiffs/court
security officers in any criminal court about this issue.
Women and men are different. Their fundamental goals, sexual and otherwise, are just
attenuated, obscured and expressed in politics. Otherwise, we're on the plains of the
Rift Valley, 10000 BC.
This guy explains a lot of it and its political expression pretty well. He calls it
"the Feminine Imperative." Maximum constraints on male sexuality, maximum freedom for
women to trade up. Evolutionary psychology.
Some of my best friends cannot stand Donald Trump but voted for him only because
of the power the POTUS wields when it comes to the federal judiciary. So far, they've not
been disappointed.
I can't fault Grassley's indulgence entirely, since the GOP has such a slim,
unreliable majority - he HAS to tap dance for the benefit of Flake, Corker, Collins and
Murkowski or else there aren't enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh. The delay of a few days
has allowed time for the accuser's OWN WITNESSES to refute her claims. Delicious!
The fact that Democrats had another dubious claimant come forth just as Ford's claims
crumbled only succeeded in proving how craven and sleazy their game plan is. I may be
wrong, but I suspect the Democrats are performing a GOTV service for the Republican Party
by reminding hitherto complacent voters just how much is still at stake. This has been a
blaring wake-up call if ever there was one.
To the right of me - spineless, cowardly Republicans.
To the left of me - anti-American socialist Democrats.
If Kavanaugh is not appointed, there will be many Republican FORMER office holders.
A shame that Grassley (Feinstein's bitch) can't be one of them.
Sen. Chuck Grassley in trying to be open and run a "fair" hearing has instead created
a circus. Exactly what the NeverTrump media want.
Both Chrstine Blasey and Debbie Ramirez have provided names of corroborators to the
assault, who have all denied any knowledge. Sen. Feinstein sat on Blasey's letter for 2
months and did nothing until the vote was scheduled. As you rightly point out this is
just drive-by-shooting by the Democrats and their allies in the media to create the
necessary hysteria. Their hope is that this will wake up their supporters to turn out and
vote for their candidates in the mid-term.
We'll see if Grassley and McConnell schedule votes this week.
Of course women can be just as cruel, heartless and power hungry as men. It is rather
ironic that the Dems are relying on the attitudes about women 100 years ago... that women
are the fairer and gentler sex and need to treated with kid gloves. Oh, and they are more
moral too! Once upon a time feminism was about aiming for "equality" but it has devolved
into victimhood and power games. This is why the young Youtubers are increasingly
adopting anti-feminist rhetoric (anti this current sick wave of toxic pseudo-feminism).
It has been surprising to see how many young women (20's and 30's) have become
ex-feminists.
This is the Democrat party fighting for its life. If it loses this, then the walls will
tumble in. They went from a shoe in candidate to the implosion of their party inside of
24 months.
Oh the poor babies! I'm sure such party changes have never happened in history before
(/snark). The difference this time is the losers are acting like children having a
tantrum because their mommy won't buy them the toy they want. And the Republicans don't
know how to handle the tantrums.
Fighting for it's life? ROTFL... That's basically similar to saying a corporation is a
person. It's the party leaders that are fighting to maintain their power - their jobs and
influential roles. They are fighting for gov't power, dominance and control for their
donors and fellow elites just like the Republicans are. They still have lots of it, but
are not satisfied and are willing to go to disgusting lengths to maintain and increase
it. At least on the Republican side there is Trump and Trump supporting candidates to
give a voice to the conservative/libertarian/independent opposition to the establishment RINOs. There is a civil war going on within the Republican party.
This behavior as poor losers, their increasing nastiness and obvious authoritarian
ways have triggered huge numbers of people away from the Democrat party. I have been
following trends on YouTube, which is where all the interesting political trends are
playing out these days IMO. I have been listening to #Walkaway stories. The MSM does not
want to talk about these, and has been trying to actively suppress the info. Facebook
"conveniently" banned the gay leader of the #walkaway movement for a nothing-burger
recently, for a month, just before their rally in DC end of October. I think some
conservative groups such as Turning Point USA are having rallies at that time as well.
Alex Jones is planning on reporting on it all. I'm sure Antifa won't be able to resist.
That's good news because they simply trigger more people to walk away. Should be really
entertaining.
What's fascinating to me is that they aren't leaving over policy or political platform
issues as has been typical of politics in the past. They are leaving because of the
nastiness, the intolerance of any dissent from the narrative
(authoritarian/totalitarian), and the over the top propaganda/lying. Some are becoming
independents that will be voting Republican for the time being because of their current
disgust with the Dems but have not joined the other tribe. However many have become
conservatives and they have been welcomed with open arms. Especially the black, Hispanic
and gay #walkaway folks who are all pleasantly surprised by that. There are even a few
Republicans in the movement who are walking away from their party to being an independent
voter while maintaining an identity as a conservative.
The Walkaway movement is only one of several movements taking place on YouTube
encouraging independent thinking and analysis versus unquestioning submissive loyalty to
a power hungry political party. It is overall a right leaning trend which is a reaction
to the cultural over reach of the left. There is a New Right emerging culturally. They
are young, hip, witty, insightful, and real (as opposed to news anchors on MSM). They are
not at all like the old school Repubs. They use humor and memes to mock which is very
effective. So of course, the MSM is starting to write hit pieces about these influential
YouTubers. The elites want the masses controlled, not laughing at them and thinking for
themselves.
These young smart Youtubers give me hope and often make me laugh. Much more fun and
enlightening than MSM propaganda.
There sure is a lot of anger out there. The Kavanaugh situation is just a symptom of the
partisanship tearing America apart. Both the left and the right consider themselves
aggrieved and thus justified in their anger. We have some elections coming in less than 2
months. This should provide some clarity in what most Americans want. I suspect the
Democrats will take back the House but the Senate probably will be evenly divided. Is
that not how Democracy should work?
I know many of your will argue that we are a Republic and majority opinion in America
as a whole is irrelevant. That being the case maybe Americas has gotten too big for its
britches. Would it not be better for an amiable Divorce where Red states and Blue states
can build their own countries and see how things shake out for their respective
peoples.
This is a FEDERAL republic. A unitary republic like France is equally possible. If you
are thinking of an "amicable divorce," you need to look at election results by county. To
get any kind of uniformity of political opinion it would be necessary to divide many of
the states. These would include California and New York.
Pat - I was merely being practical when I suggested state divisions. Chopping up America
into really small county divisions would yield entities that are too small to be
self-supporting along with transportation issues of crossing boundries. Perhaps some of
the big states could be split into a few new entitties and still be economically
feasible. I would hate to see this but I have no answer to the anger which seems to be
roiling the country.
I am still stunned to see that each side of our political divide seem to think they
have the only true answers to our issues and the other side are idiots.
Obviously the country cannot be divided by counties. My point was that if you look at NY
state for example you will find that most of the state is red.
Yes but most of the population in those states is Blue and that is an important economic
factor. GNP figures are only available at a state level but Blue states are still
producing most of America's GNP. When I have mentioned this fact to some people the
retort is how are blue state people going to eat. The answer obviously is there are lots
of places in the world willing to import food to blue states.
How many of the 22+million illegal immigrants live in those states? How many additional
members of Congress do they have as a result and for how many years? (Based on the basic
math that's enough people to account for 30 seats in the House) Why should any American
citizen want to put up with that disparate impact on representation any longer?
See the Yale study updating the illegal immigrant numbers here:
https://insights.som.yale.e...
Livia Drusilla. Ancient sources claimed she murdered all her stepsons or other family
members by poison who were a threat to her son becoming Emperor of Rome. Human nature
doesn't change. My guiding light when dealing with most women is to remember Livia.
Are you familiar with the story of Athalia?
2 Kings 11
For a really splendid musical depiction of (parts of) the life of Athalia, watch the fine
McCreesh-conducted version of Handel's Athalia : Play
Hide
"From the very first, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, inimical to woman than
truth.." (BGE §232) seems appropriate here.
Nietzsche's view of women is perhaps most generously described as 'old fashioned',
though he was right to identify femininity as the eternal source of female power.
Nietzsche saw a trade off of femininity in exchange for emancipation. But instead it
appears that 21st century sexual politics now affords women the best of all worlds. She
may now participate as an equal in dorm party drinking games with men. And yet she
remains so vulnerable that 35 years later an alleged incident involving the exposure of a
(presumably flaccid) male member - as a result of such activities - seemingly merits
serious investigation as an 'assault'. Germain Greer was wrong too - it is the male that
has been emasculated.
"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is
more "natural" than man's, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the
tiger's claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and
inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and
virtues."
"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than
truth -- her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and
beauty."
' "goodness" in women is a sign of "physiological degeneration", and that women are on
the whole cleverer and more wicked than men'
"the emancipation of women, and feminists, was merely the resentment of some women
against other women, who were physically better constituted and able to bear
children."
"Woman's love involves injustice and blindness against everything that she does not
love... Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or at
best cows..."
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she
needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as
divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming
the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests,
against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"
I imagine that a lot of Democrats secretly wish to be done with this mess lest
the fingers start pointing to themselves. A spate of sexual/financial accusations
against them just might restore some sanity. But of course I daydream, since we all know
that our elected officials are pure as the driven snow.
Bill Clinton and Keith Ellison are 2 Dems that have had credible accusations from women.
What's happening with those? Crickets, except for Fox News and alternative media. Dem
women seem not to care about women who've been sexually harassed when defending their own
tribe.
I suggest that each of you ask every woman you know if she has ever been sexually
assaulted...by HER definition. You might be surprised. Start with your daughters.
FWIW, in college my wife was the victim of a sexual assault from a drunken classmate, a
muscular member of the wrestling team, which she managed to fight off, though not without
him almost doing what he had in mind (I'll spare you the details). At her 35th college
reunion, which we both attended, that former classmate shamefacedly came up to her and
tried to apologize for what he'd done back then, saying that after graduating he realized
that he was an alcoholic. Her response was reserved but cool, and I didn't quite get what
had just gone on there until she filled me in. She'd never mentioned the incident to me
before. She's a strong woman; call her "poor baby" at your peril.
Do women lie? Of course they do; they're human beings; we all lie. Do they lie about
being sexually assaulted? In those few cases where the goal is extortion or where the
accuser is just nuts, yes. Otherwise what's the point, given what is, to this day, the
typically quite negative upshot for the accuser of making such an accusation?
Why, you ask, did she not report this assault at the time? See the last sentence of
the previous paragraph, plus there's the sense of shame and shock that one can feel in
the wake of such an assault and the resulting desire to just escape from it and go on
with one's life.
You say that her experience is the outlier here? Not by the testimony of many of the
women she knows quite well.
Women often lie about men because they are angry at them or resentful of rejection or
some other reason. "those few?" Surely you jest . It happens a lot.
"by her definition" - exactly! .....And that definition is as changeable as the wind. I
am 68 years young and on reflection even my occasional innocent amourous behaviour, when
unmarried, is quite capable of being construed as sexual assault if taken out of context.
Even something as simple as an arm around the shoulders and a peck on the cheek. All men
know what I am talking about; ask your sons.
"Why should conservative/deplorables turn out to vote for weaklings..." spot on sir. It
is one reason Flake and Corker are retiring, right along with Paul Ryan. In addition the
white male Democrat is going to be an endangered species. (It isn't helping the image of
white female democrats either.) Black male democrat turnout isn't going to be any higher
because to the incumbant democrats 'white women come first' is the latest democratic
party objective. Senate Republicans don't need to wait any longer on a vote on Kavenaugh
for the voting pattern shift in the mid-terms to happen but the longer they do your
prediction of "deplorables" viewing incumbant Republicans as weak and not to be voted for
is going to bear more weight.
I mean I support chemical castration for all rapers, BUT, BUT all crimes committed lose
their validity or what is the exact jurisdicial expressions if not reported. except
crimes against humanity. In Hungary it is 5 years.
Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF Support BPS via Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ✅ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: [email protected]
✅2nd Channel- Navy Hato: ... Black Pigeon Speaks September 22,
2018 (8:02) 95,236 Views 1
CommentReply
Email This Page to Someone
Old, unproven, timed to ruin: Kavanaugh accusations perfect example of all that's wrong
with #MeToo Published time: 19 Sep, 2018 22:08 Edited time: 20 Sep, 2018 07:35 Get short URL The
out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming
aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political
divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others
weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett
Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the
damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary
There is no direct, or circumstantial evidence, or eyewitness statements proving that a
drunk teenage Kavanaugh really pinned down Blasey Ford on the bed, and tried to rape her while
covering her mouth with his hand, during a house party. In fact, other than this vivid scene,
the accuser has failed to remember the dates or places or context of the events. Beyond that:
as soon as the story broke, when the details were still just anonymous Beltway hearsay, for
some that was enough to disqualify the nominee.
Brett Kavanaugh
during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters
Now, if, out of the blue, I accuse a colleague of stealing my lunch sandwich, people will
ask for evidence or an explanation. The burden of proof will be on me. No one will simply brand
Alex from HR a thief or fire her on my word, and no one would want to work in an office where I
would have such power over another human being. This is fundamental justice, developed over
thousands of years in societies throughout the world. Even Elon Musk doesn't get to accuse
someone of being a "pedo" without consequence.
That such an obvious thing even needs to be said out loud is a testament to how far the
accusations against Kavanaugh, and other #MeToo cases, stray from these principles –
farcically so. Sexual assault is inherently murkier than lunchtime comestibles theft, yes, most
victims have no reason to lie, but most would prefer to live in a society where a random person
can't destroy someone else's life at will, even if that means that some rapists go
unjailed.
Other examples: most #MeToo accusations aired on social media, the Inquisition, medieval
witchcraft trials, neighbors' denunciations in Stalin's Russia.
No legal case
While reputation has always mattered, a person used to be able to clear his or her name with
law. The #MeToo movement insists that even those who have been accused or convicted of no
crimes can be just as guilty.
It doesn't matter that there was no police report in the Kavanaugh case, no investigation,
and that the FBI has repeatedly insisted that there is nothing to investigate, despite demands
from Blasey Ford's legal team.
Kavanaugh's only recourse is to accuse her of slander, and hope that the ensuing process
doesn't bring out more unflattering claims, while knowing for sure that those who considered
him guilty in the first place will likely not change their mind.
Ronan Farrow /
Reuters
Other examples: Woody Allen was investigated for molesting his pre-teen daughter and no
charges were filed, and was able to continue working freely for another 25 years. After his
son, Ronan, became a leading #MeToo accuser, he is unable to release his already-finished film,
and will receive no further funding for projects.
Accusations from decades ago
Previously, the strength of a case would grow weaker the longer ago the alleged crime was.
Evidence was impossible to collect, social mores changed, people grew and reformed. The statute
of limitations is a legal reflection of that.
Christine Blasey
Ford in her school yearbook.
#MeToo has turned this on its head.
Charges from the distant past are harder to disprove, it is easier to paint the 1980s as a
warzone of sexual abuse (just look at that Sixteen Candles ending – very "problematic")
while if you squint hard enough you can picture the white-bread square Kavanaugh as a marauding
party-boy.
Brett Kavanaugh, on
the right, in his high school yearbook.
The result: any questionable, misinterpreted or altogether fictitious incident in your
teenage years (Kavanaugh was 17 at the time of the alleged assault) will forever hang over
you.
Other examples: Plenty, but equally interesting is the revisionist history even in cases
where the truth was widely known at the time, such as Monica Lewinsky, an adult engaged in a
consensual relationship, suddenly re-emerging as a #MeToo victim.
Timed to destroy
Yet, however, long the traumatic memories are kept private – and there is no doubt
that is a genuine reaction of many victims – they seem often to emerge just at the right
time.
There is of course, genuine concern about rapists taking up Supreme Court seats, but perhaps
it wasn't quite necessary for the Democrats to wait until less than a week until Kavanaugh's
appointment, considering the information has been in their possession since July. And then to
pretend to be surprised when their motivations are being questioned.
While revenge is a dish best served cold, it is also not a good look for a justice movement
to appear as if its participants are waiting for the targets to become important and successful
before sticking the knife in.
Other examples: Often the best time to come out of hiding is when someone is on their way
down. There is no risk to being the twentieth person to accuse producer Harvey Weinstein in
2018, even if doing that two decades earlier could have helped dozens of other
women.
Transparent self-interest
The mention that the accusers are motivated by money, hunger for publicity, career
ambitions, personal grudges or political views is impermissible within the #MeToo
conversation.
What Dianne
Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters
But even if Blasey Ford is a true victim, pretending she is some neutral vessel of justice
is laughable: she is a long-time Democrat donor, who has signed petitions against Trump, and
wrote on her Facebook that "'a basket of deplorables' is far too generous a description" of his
staff.
As is claiming that this is a purely criminal matter, not a calculated attempt by a
political party to exploit a scandal for its own ends: #MeToo is a social movement weaponized
for politics.
Pure motivations:
Asia Argento / Reuters
Other examples: Actress Asia Argento went out with Weinstein for several years after he
allegedly raped her, then garnered sympathy and attention as she described their relationship
as "re-victimization" since 2017, all while reportedly arranging a confidentiality
payout with an underage man she had sex with.
Social media & activists decide
Unless you have backing from the electorate and your own party (Donald Trump has both, so he
stays, Al Franken had one but not the other, so he had to go) in the absence of any due
process, it will be social media that decides your fate.
Are these the people who should handle justice?
The efforts to railroad Dr. Blasey Ford and rush Brett Kavanaugh's nomination through as
she faces death threats are reprehensible. This process was clearly not designed to get at
the truth. Dr. Blasey Ford deserves better. #StopKavanaugh
I really take issue with the description of Kavanaugh as an "attempted rapist." It wasn't
an attempted rape because he started and then decided to stop. It was an attempted rape
because *she got away.*
Brett Kavanaugh is not a mediocre man. He's an extraordinarily talented agent of radical,
right-wing forces. He will dismantle the modern regulatory state with frightening
efficiency.
It's also worth nothing that even men who openly treat women like shit for years are
believed over their accusers. I mean, consider President Pussy Grabber.
It doesn't matter how men treat women - in a rape culture, they're always given the
benefit of the doubt.
The Kavanaugh nomination is a good reminder that in the Republican Party, there are
rapists and rape apologists. There is no one vehemently opposed to rape.
What is the first thing anyone can tell you about Clarence Thomas, the most senior justice
on the US Supreme Court? Anita Hill, "larger than normal penis" boasts, pubic hair on
a Coke can.
Whereas, as Thomas before him, Kavanaugh will likely be approved, he can never wash away the
image of his lunging body from the public's mind, nor will he ever be completely believed. The
cost for Blasey Ford will likely be as high.
In the era of ersatz and ad hoc #MeToo justice both of their names forever linked together,
and forever stained.
But another running disaster is the feminists' attempt to derail nomination of Judge
Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may
wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl
while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so
many (and more) years ago!
Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I'd find him not
guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or
not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token
force. "No means no" was a totally unheard-of idea.
Prosvirnin
is the most talented writer.
Limonov
has by far the most colorful personality.
Dugin
has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name
recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes.
Krylov
provided the esoteric flavoring.
And yet out of all of Russia's
right-wing intellectuals
, there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.
This
is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the "golden mean" of the Russian
nationalist memeplex.
He is a realist on Soviet achievements,
crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia
of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox
Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the
esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom
hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.
Instead of wasting his time on
ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and writes
reviews
about it on his website.
And about 224 other books
.
And this brings us to what makes
Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.
This allows him to write informed and
engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.
In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the
best modern Russian right-wing
intellectual
, period.
Unfortunately, he is almost entirely
unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like
Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very
small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles (
Europe's
Week of Human Sacrifice
;
A Cruel French Lesson
). Still, there's only so much one blogger with many other things to write about
can do.
Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of
Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in
his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on
anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's
Galactus.
We hope to make translations of
Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.
In the meantime, I am privileged to
present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.
***
A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective
Google fires employee James Damore
for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.
– You persecute your employees for
having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.
– No, we don't. You're fired.
A conversation just like or similar to
this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google
Corporation.
Illustration to the Google scandal.
James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
Google knows almost everything about us,
including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples (
OK Google
), our favorite
stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the
world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably
temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been
discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central
House of Cards
plotline.
Conversely, we know next to nothing
about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of
corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and
American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology,
suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.
The story goes this way. In early
August, an anonymous manifesto titled
Google's Ideological Echo Chamber
was circulated through the
local network of Google. The author lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of
so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far
as to appoint a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white
cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track
promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.
The author argues that Leftism and
"diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber" within the company, where a person only talks to
those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their
beliefs are the only ones that matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines
work efficiency, with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.
In contrast to Google's buzzwords of
"vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed
ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.
As Google employs intellectuals, argues
the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist
clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the
Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.
The central Leftist idea is the class
struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of
struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White
oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently,
the US presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing the
"diversity" policy.
The critic argues that the witch-hunt
of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job,
is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes
not to the best there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation
programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men
from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning
out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of
class struggle.
What is the proposed solution?
Stop diving people into "oppressors" and
"the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an
immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.
The diversity of opinion must apply to
everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that
needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages,
such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only
those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.
End diversity programs discriminatory
towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.
Have an unbiased assessment of the costs
and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company's
employees against the other.
Instead of gender and race differences,
focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss
facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.
Admit that not all racial or gender
differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.
The last point proved to be the most
vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences
that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are
as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men
are more interested in objects.
Women are prone to cooperation, men to
competition. All too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men.
Women are looking for a balance between
work and private life, men are obsessed with status and
Feminism played a major part in
emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks
to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken
society in the long run).
It was the think piece on the natural
differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with
propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with
a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a
programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of
the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our
workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age,
that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a
typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google
implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely
on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to
fired Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore
Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and
Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass,
Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity
notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism.
Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural
constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible
viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and
therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and
should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the
opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true",
and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor
of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls
for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with
an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is
quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon
tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google
Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If
both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that
the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective
consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such
circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is
shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most
importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A
fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James
Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to
diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind
obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a
country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of
our prejudices and their efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender
relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of
maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own
way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that
all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as
Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him
or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles
historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not
give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social,
cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same
form without any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an
ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires
very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution",
only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in
public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees
the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the
"superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the
Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender
Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in
abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere
of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative
worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative
solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It
should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and
stereotypes (let's not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players)
would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine
calling and talent.
The art of war is not typical of a
woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art
of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness
but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads
to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it
being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian,
Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an
enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against
one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is
already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it's
probably for the better.
A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global
hyperpower.
Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age.
So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he
will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for
women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was
a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."
The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights.
Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more
under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst
"fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for
women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.
Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify
what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild
comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.
What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when
McEnroe/Connors did.
Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is
fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in
America so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not American
exeptionalism.
Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Americans, but by American training of
the best players regardless of their origination
"... "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] ..."
"... "I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too,' ..."
"... "Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?" ..."
"... "we cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court." ..."
After being penalized for calling chair umpire Carlos Ramos a "thief," Williams
summoned up the evil spirits of political correctness to plead her case. She was heard
telling officials
that many male tennis players have done "much worse" without any sort of retribution.
In other words, Ramos was a cave-dwelling "sexist" put on earth to thwart the progress
of womanhood.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here,
fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think
that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] .
There were faint echoes of Oprah Winfrey's famous speech
at the Golden Globes in that it was the right message delivered at exactly the wrong time and
place.
So now, America's dethroned tennis queen, playing the gender card game instead of tennis, is
acting spokesperson for downtrodden women everywhere. Yet certainly Williams has heard of John
McEnroe, the former American tennis star whose on-court temper tantrums are now legendary. In
1990, for example, this loudmouthed male was tossed out of the Australian Open – not
just penalized – for verbally abusing the chair umpire, much like Williams did.
Since it may come off as chauvinistic for me – a burly male – to criticize
Serena, perhaps it would be more appropriate to quote Martina Navratilova, 61, one of the
greatest
female tennis players of all time.
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' Navratilova
wrote in a New York Times op-ed regarding Williams' epic meltdown. "Rather, I think
the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our
sport and to respect our opponents?"
The Czech-born American went on to comment that "we cannot measure ourselves by what we
think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should
be engaging in on the court."
Eureka! Navratilova – who hails from a bygone era when the vision of political
correctness, 'virtue signaling' and 'social justice warriors' was just a flash in the pan
– nailed it. Instead of looking to some external other to explain our life circumstances
– like losing a tennis match, for example, or a presidential election (wink, wink)
– people should look to themselves as the agents for proactive and positive change. Such
a message, however, would quickly sink the Liberal ship, which is predicated upon the idea that
the world is forever divided between oppressor and oppressed. What the Liberals fail to
appreciate, however, is that they are becoming the real oppressors as they continue to sideline
anybody who does not think and act exactly as they do.
Following Serena's epic meltdown, the Melbourne-based Herald Sun published a cartoon by Mark
Knight that shows the American tennis star as she proceeds to stomp on her racket, mouth open
and hair going straight up. It was not a flattering or subtle drawing, but given the
circumstances, that should probably come as no surprise.
2015: 12 Charlie Hebdo illustrators shot dead for depiction of prophet Muhammad -
thousands line streets demonstrating for freedom of sattire & humour
2018: Mark Knight draws caricature of Serena Williams - thousands shout racist &
demand his removal from Twiter and the media pic.twitter.com/NDpFrbigca
The Liberal outrage came fast and heavy as critics slammed the caricature as racist and
offensive. It would take hundreds of pages to recite them all, but as one example, CNN
columnist Rebecca Wanzo
labeled the cartoon as an example of – wait for it – "visual
imperialism," which is manifest by "a black grotesque seeming natural."
Never mind that the behavior of Serena Williams was "grotesque," which is what
inspired Knight's unflattering drawing of her in the first place. That is what is meant by a
'caricature', where the artist attempts to convey the essence of an event through imagery. Yes,
sometimes brutal imagery.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The
Moscow News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in
2013.
A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global
hyperpower.
Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age.
So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he
will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for
women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was
a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."
The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights.
Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more
under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst
"fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for
women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.
Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify
what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild
comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.
What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when
McEnroe/Connors did.
Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is
fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in
Amerikkka so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not Amerikkkan
exeptionalism.
Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Amerikkkans but by Amerikkkan training
of the best players regardless of their origination
As commented elsewhere, all her screeching about double standards for women are utter BS. She
broke the rules while playing against another woman and not a man. The men's tennis league is
utterly irrelevant since she may as well have compared her league to men's football. She
failed by the standards of her league and not those of another. It was clear that she was
breaking the rules of her league and she was the one that escalated the conflict. It has
nothing to do with women's rights.
The PC drones are rather mentally deficient. They respond to trigger phrases and not to
concepts or principles.
Australian cartoonist Mark Knight is in trouble with J K Rowling and other self-styled
guardians of who may portray Serena Williams in meltdown and who may not. The offending
drawing below:
I agree with Martina Navratilova on Serena Williams conduct
" Navratilova went so far as to write an editorial for the New York Times in which she
claimed that, in complaining post-match that Ramos would not have reacted the same way to an
argumentative male player, Williams was "missing the point" and would have been better served
conducting herself with "respect for the sport we love so dearly."
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' " Navratilova said of Williams in her editorial. "Rather, I
think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor
our sport and to respect our opponents?"
Serena Williams behaviour ruined the experience of victory for Naomi Osaka, if you get a
chance to see film of the whole debacle with the booing crowd! She looked like the most
miserable winner in ever.
Another issue is that Williams deliberately puts on a tantrum and then claims the tantrum is
normal emotional behaviour. On top of that, she tries to pass off this spoilt-brat outburst
as characteristic of how strong, feminist women behave. All done as much to deny Osaka the
joy of winning her first major championship as to attack the umpire.
And people who should know better swallow Williams' idiocy hook, line and sinker.
Very apt: "So we excuse the
rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people"
I suspect nationalism or ethnocentrism were also factors, not only identity politics. Selena has ungly history of tantrum thouth
and that might point to poriblems with performance enhancing drags (she did have a unexplained meltdown in Wimbledon 2014)
Notable quotes:
"... Drama and literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their application." ..."
Serena Williams Serves Tantrum, Scores for Identity PoliticsSo we excuse the
rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people
Drama and
literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger
truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it
provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my
former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus
cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their
application."
Indifference to behavioral regulations and standards of practice had become common to the
point of banality, Ward argued, subjecting anyone who attempted to enforce the rules to
vilification.
For those who do not closely follow professional tennis, here's a review of the controversy.
Serena Williams, undoubtedly one of the greatest players in the history of the game, was facing
a rising superstar from Japan, Naomi Osaka. Williams is only one grand slam championship away
from tying the all-time record, but has recently struggled to triumph over her younger
opponents (most tennis players retire in their early to mid-thirties; Williams is 37). Osaka
had already defeated Williams with ease at the Miami Open in March.
It appeared that the U.S. Open was headed for a repeat early in the match, with Osaka
asserting swift dominance. Early in the first set, however, the linesman, Carlos Ramos, called
a court violation on Williams' coach because he was signaling her -- an illegal activity in the
sport of tennis. Rather than accept the warning, Williams unleashed a reality TV-style tirade
on Ramos, excoriating him for "misreading" her coach's hand gestures and making bizarre
reference to her daughter: "I never cheat I have a daughter, and I stand for what is right for
her."
(Immediately following the match, in a rare and refreshing moment of honesty, Williams'
coach admitted that he was signaling her the entire time, making Williams look both deceitful
and foolish. Most post-match commentary has conveniently omitted the coach's confession from
the record.)
After Williams lost the opening set's fifth game, she slammed her racket into the ground,
causing its frame to bend. Intentional damage to a racquet is a code violation, and Ramos
penalized her a point, the standard punishment for a second offense. Osaka quickly won the next
game, making her the winner of the first set with a lopsided score of 6-2.
Williams then began screaming at Ramos, telling him that he was wrong to penalize her and
protesting that the warning she received should not count as a violation because she was not
cheating. Ramos sat silently as Williams ridiculed his performance as linesman and demanded
that he apologize.
The second set advanced quickly with Osaka continuing to make fast work of Williams. During
every break in play, Williams continued to badger Ramos, indicating that she would not stop
until he announced over his microphone that he was sorry for what he did to her. He ignored her
expressions of anger.
After Osaka pulled ahead 4-3, Williams again berated Ramos for his monstrous failures as a
human being. Bringing her rant to a climax, she called him a "liar" and a "thief."
To impugn the character of a linesman violates the code of conduct governing play in
professional tennis. Ramos flagged her for the third time, issuing the penalty of a forfeited
game, making the set score 5-3. Williams pleaded with supervising officials of the tournament
-- one man, one woman -- to overturn Ramos' calls, and they refused. She then made the
contemptible claim that excited countless social media users and political commentators around
the country: "I've seen men get away with his all the time. Just because I'm a woman, you are
going to take this away from me."
Osaka won the second set, 6-4, and in doing so, became the first Japanese champion of the
U.S. Open. The audience loudly booed and jeered throughout the awards ceremony, and the
commissioner of the U.S. Open disgraced herself by saying, on air and in front of the rightful
champion, "This isn't the end we were looking for." Williams made an attempt to recover some
dignity by instructing her vulgar fans to stop heckling, but the entire event had already
transformed into an ugly American extravaganza. Most infuriating was that Osaka looked
dejected, unable to enjoy her first grand slam victory.
The next day, USA Today ran an opinion piece with the headline "Sexism Cost Serena
Williams Tennis Title." Many other writers and TV analysts, none of whom seemed to know
anything about tennis rules or history, began reciting from the same fatuous and phony script.
A few have even tried to racialize the story, though given that Osaka's father is Haitian, that
narrative has failed to gain traction.
Acting as though Ramos were self-evidently a misogynist, most media mouthpieces ignored that
throughout the U.S. Open, male players have been called for 86 violations and women only 22.
Nine of the 10 largest fines in tennis history for on-court violations have gone to men. Ramos
himself has earned the wrath of men's champions Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer
for making calls they felt were too rigid and punitive.
The mob has also compared Williams' tantrum with the boorish imbecility of 1980s tennis
stars John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. While it's true that both players often acted with
disrespect more reminiscent of barroom drunks than professional athletes, they also benefitted
from terribly lenient regulations of professional tennis. The ATP did not standardize the rules
or crack down on outlandish player conduct until the late 1980s. Not coincidentally, McEnroe
was ejected from the 1990 Australian Open after his fourth violation in a single match.
And yet arguing about the rules and pointing to the score of the match -- it is almost
certain that Osaka would have won regardless -- feels oddly archaic. Many of Williams'
desperate defenders are acting in emotional accordance with some strange, eschatological
commitment to identity politics, and no amount of factual information will dissuade them.
Another term my friend was fond of using was "biased apperception." The critics who call Ramos
sexist without giving him the opportunity to defend himself have adopted a position and are
working backwards to validate it. To pull this off, they have no choice but to excuse the rules
and condemn their application. There is no debate that Williams broke three different rules,
yet the lineman is sexist because he chose to apply them.
Rebecca Traister, a leading feminist writer for New York , begins her boring and
predictable interpretation of the events with the following admission (which negates all the
subsequent sentences in her essay):
I don't care much about the rules of tennis that Serena Williams was accused of violating
at Saturday night's U.S. Open final. Those rules were written for a game and for players who
were not supposed to look or express themselves or play the game as beautifully and
passionately as either Serena Williams or the young woman who eventually beat her,
20-year-old Naomi Osaka, do.
Overlooking Traister's weird disparagement of every women's champion who proceeded Williams
and Osaka as ugly and impassive, and her incoherent grammar (how is a game supposed to "express
themselves"?), it is revealing that she prefaces her entire argument by saying that rules do
not matter if the right people did not author them. The crime is not the transgression, but the
enforcement.
The "excuse the rules, condemn the application" mentality is a societal sickness responsible
for much that troubles our body politic.
To begin with an example that will interest those who practice identity politics, President
Donald Trump has thrived on condemning those who enforce the rules. Though he regularly
demonstrates a daunting pattern of dishonesty, is an unnamed co-conspirator in a criminal
indictment, has seen several of his associates indicted or convicted of crimes, and continually
makes a mockery of decorum and etiquette, whenever he is caught in an act of wrongdoing, his
immediate response is to spit a venomous stream of clichés: "fake news," "deep state,"
"witch hunt."
Another example is the bailout of the big banks that followed the 2008 financial crisis. Few
disagreed that the world's major financial institutions violated the rules, but the idea of
accountability was suddenly radical and unthinkable.
If a connection between corporate malfeasance, presidential malpractice, and a tennis
champion's childish outburst seems tenuous, consider that in all three cases the
get-out-of-jail-free card is an appeal to ideology. Rules, we are asked to believe, are
irrelevant, and even themselves infringements on belief systems like populism and feminism that
are regarded as more important.
The self-involvement and extreme subjectivity necessary for such a destructive belief
permeates into non-ideological aspects of culture. Grade inflation in higher education, as any
instructor can attest, exists largely because students cannot fathom suffering consequences for
lazy or mediocre work. The issuance of assignments and exams is fine, but to actually grade
them according to an objective standard is evil.
America needs a serious dose of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. One should act only
in such a way that one would approve of everyone else acting in a given situation.
Writing for The New York Times , retired tennis champion Martina Navratilova wisely
states, "We cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with.
In fact, this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court. There
have been many times when I was playing that I wanted to break my racket into a thousand
pieces. Then I thought about the kids watching. And I grudgingly held on to that racket."
Obvious to anyone but the willfully ignorant, this is a far better formula for a healthy
society than "I don't care about the rules."
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) released the following statement relating to
umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women's final:
"Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos'
decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open's
decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences. It is understandable that this high
profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to
remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule
book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity."
"The Grand Slam Rule Book can be found here. Player on site offences including the point
penalty schedule used in this instance can be found in Article III."
ARTICLE III: PLAYER ON-SITE OFFENCES -- pages 36-48
I follow tennis and am not a feminist. There were two things the ump should have done. First, everyone knows that all players
in tennis are getting coached. If ump was going to call it, he should have warned both players and coaches before the match.
Second, when Serena was mouthing off during the changeover, he should have told her: "you've made your point, one more insult
and you're going to get a penalty" and then, just ignore her. If she keeps it up then you dick her.
As for Serena, she is a brand. Which is why she blew up for being caught cheating. It was more important for her to defend her
image than to win the match
Kalmia, September 15, 2018 at 9:17 am
Serena Williams is not unusual in being a world-class athlete/competitor who is also a very very bad loser. Her behavior
wasn't that unusual and the punishment in the game was appropriate, it should have ended with that. In my view, it's the crowd
and her supporters who are the real villains here for letting their bias towards her (and identity politics) warp their sense of
justice and fairness. Poor Osaka deserved much better than the booing and rash of hot takes.
Jeeves, September 15, 2018 at 4:36 pm
Rat: Williams was livid because she was getting her tutu kicked all over the court. Desperate and depraved gamesmanship was
all it was.
Although you'd never know it from the terrible reporting in this article, following the game-penalty imposed by Ramos, Osaka
intentionally gave Serena the next game by missing returns of Serena's serve -- I suppose hoping to calm down the woman who was
her tennis idol growing up. It didn't work, though, because Serena was unappeased–and outplayed. (To top it off, the stupid TV
commentators wanted to give Serena kudos for her quieting of her booing fans at the awards presentation. No-class athlete,
no-class fans.)
Sisera, September 15, 2018 at 10:16 pm
@WorkingClass
Agreed & isn't it funny how in the world of many centrist 'apologist' types, fighting back against identity politics,
entitlement of elites, etc. is in and of itself identity politics?
I mean it's like the grade school insult of 'I know you are but what am I'….and many (albeit not this author) say it with all
the smugness and gotchaness in the world.
They adhere to identity politics and have no self awareness and hence can't recognize it.
Ivo Olavo Castro da Silva, September 16, 2018 at 12:31 am
The fact that Serena's fans and the media supported her disgusting actions only confirm their total absence of any moral
standard.
Tennis Fan, September 16, 2018 at 10:05 am
In response to "Rat says…Why did the judge decide that the final was the time to start applying an otherwise-ignored rule?
Sure, it would have been preferable for her to keep her cool, but it's understandable why Williams was livid."
It may be that coaches get away with coaching quite often, however, IMHO the umpire happened to actually catch the coach
right in the act of coaching (and if you see the video of the supposed incident, her coach, Patrick, actually gives two head-nods
in that very brief moment and to me, the head-nods acknowledge that they made eye contact-my personal opinion only).
The umpire immediately decided to call it out... Who knows, maybe in that very moment, he felt it wasn't fair for her to
be getting coaching, he actually caught the coaching, and his gut instinct was to make the call on it. I don't fault the umpire
one bit. Had Serena accepted the call and moved on, the entire tide of the match may have taken a different turn.
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... "Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." ..."
"... "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times ..."
Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer
to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal
democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book
Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm
Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and
respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said
the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to
segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the
Times of London.
"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom
risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned
by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for
rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken
up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."
"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain,
injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview
with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the
highest order." ( Sacks:
Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October
2007 ; emphasis added)
So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving,
self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably
divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as
subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a
gentile society.
Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the
"identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and
American ,
Australian ,
French and Swedish
politics too).
By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by
the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that
Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed
that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy
Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.
Fourth Wave Feminism:Why No One EscapesToday's outsized Femocracy is more
desperate and (self) destructive than it's successful progenitors. By JOANNA WILLIAMS
• September
4, 2018
Feminism, in its second wave, women's liberation movement guise, has passed its first half
century. And what a success it has been! Betty Friedan's frustrated housewife, bored with
plumping pillows and making peanut butter sandwiches, is now a rarity. We might still be
waiting for the first female president, but women -- specifically feminists -- are now in
positions of power across the whole of society.
Yet feminism shows no sign of taking early retirement and bowing out, job done. Instead, it
continues to reinvent itself. #MeToo is the cause du jour of fourth-wave feminism but,
disturbingly, it seems to be taking us further from liberation and pushing us towards an
increasingly illiberal and authoritarian future. It's time to take stock.
Over the past five decades, women have taken public life by storm. When it comes to
education, employment, and pay, women are not just doing better than ever before -- they are
often doing better than men too. For over a quarter of a century, girls have outperformed boys
at school. Over 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees are awarded to women. More women than men
continue to graduate school and more doctorates are awarded to women. And their successes don't
stop when they leave education behind. Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in the
number of women in employment and many are taking managerial and professional positions. Women
now comprise just over half of those employed in management, professional, and related
occupations.
Women aren't just working more, they are being paid more. Women today earn more in total
than at any other point in time and they also earn more as a proportion of men's earnings. For
younger women in particular, the gender pay gap is narrowing. Between 1980 and 2012, wages for
men aged 25 to 34 fell 20 percent while over the same period women's pay rose by 13 percent.
Some data sets now suggest that women in their twenties earn more than men the same age.
Although high-profile equal pay campaigns appear to suggest otherwise, when we compare the pay
of men and women employed in the same jobs and working for the same number of hours each week,
the gender pay gap all but disappears. Four out of every 10 women are now either the sole or
primary family earner -- a figure which has quadrupled since 1960.
But this is not just about the lives of women: it is feminism as an ideology that has been
incredibly successful. For over four decades, feminist theory has shaped people's lives. Making
sense of the world through the prism of gender and seeking to root out sexual inequality is now
the driving force behind much that goes on in the public sphere.
Back in 1986, in one of the first examples of new legislation explicitly backed by
feminists, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. This
has had a profound impact upon all aspects of employment legislation. As a result, a layer of
managers and administrators, sometimes referred to as "femocrats," are employed to oversee
sexual equality and manage sexual harassment complaints in workplaces and schools.
Elsewhere, the influence of feminism can be seen in the expansion of existing laws. When
Title IX of the Education Amendments was passed in 1972 it was designed to protect people from
discrimination based on sex in education programs that received federal funding. It was a
significant -- and reasonably straightforward -- piece of legislation introduced at a time when
women were underrepresented in higher education. It first began to take on greater significance
following a 1977 case led by the feminist lawyer and academic Catharine MacKinnon in which a
federal court found that colleges could be liable under Title IX not just for acts of
discrimination but also for not responding to allegations of sexual harassment.
Not surprisingly, definitions of sexual harassment began to expand in the late 1970s. In
education, the term came to encompass a "hostile environment" in which women felt uncomfortable
because of their sex. By this measure, sexual harassment can occur unintentionally and with no
specific target. Furthermore, a hostile environment might be created by students themselves
irrespective of the actions of an institution's staff. As a result, colleges became responsible
for policing the sexual behavior of their students too.
Pressing forward under the Obama administration, sexual misconduct cases on campuses were
tried under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a higher standard of clear and
convincing evidence. Within these extrajudicial tribunals, students -- most often young men --
could be found guilty of sexual assault or rape and expelled following unsubstantiated
allegations and with little opportunity to defend themselves. Although current Education
Secretary Betsy DeVos has revoked the Obama-era guidelines that instituted these kangaroo
courts, many institutions under pressure to react have expanded their zero tolerance policies,
often at the expense of basic due process and fairness.
In the 1970s, radical feminists opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it
individualized and deradicalized feminism. "We will not be appeased," they asserted. "Our
demands can only be met by a total transformation of society, which you cannot legislate, you
cannot co-opt, you cannot control."
Yet today, a feminist outlook now shapes policy, practice, and law at all levels of the
government, as feminists seek to transform society through the state rather than by opposing
it. Most recently this has taken form in the demand for affirmative consent, or "yes means
yes," to be the standard in rape cases. This places the onus on the accused to prove they had
sought and obtained consent; in other words they must prove their innocence.
This is a radical shift, yet it is being enshrined in legislation with little discussion.
California and New York have passed legislation requiring colleges to adopt an affirmative
consent standard in their sexual assault policies. In 2016, the American Law Institute,
influential with state legislators, debated introducing an affirmative consent standard into
state laws. The proposal was ultimately rejected but the fact that it was even taken seriously
shows feminism's growing legal influence.
History tells us that legislation driven by feminism can have unintended consequences. The
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton's massive $30
billion crime bill, aimed to put 100,000 police officers on the street and funded $9.7 billion
for prisons. VAWA sought more prosecutions and harsher sentences for abuse in relationships.
But a more intensive law enforcement focus on minority communities, coupled with mandatory
arrests of both partners on the scene of a dispute, resulted in unanticipated blowback. Police
were accused of over-criminalizing minority neighborhoods; critics said women were disinclined
to call the police for fear of being arrested themselves. A 2007 Harvard study suggests that
mandatory arrest laws may have actually increased intimate partner homicides and, separately,
women of color have described violence at the hands of the arresting police officers.
Ultimately, the crime bill merely punished; it didn't help prevent domestic abuse against
women.
♦♦♦
Although all women have in some way benefited from feminism's decades-long campaign against
inequality, it is clear that some -- namely middle- and upper-class college graduates -- have
been more advantaged than the rest. Feminists in the 1960s argued that all women had interests
in common; they shared an experience of oppression. The same can hardly be said today. An elite
group of women with professional careers and high salaries has little in common with women
juggling two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Yet the feminist voices that are heard most
loudly continue to be those of privileged women.
High-profile feminists like Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy
planning at the State Department, and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, sell books and make headlines
for criticizing family-unfriendly employment practices and the gender pay gap. Good for them!
But remember that these women have incomes and lifestyles that put them in a different league
from the vast majority of women -- and men. They identify more closely with the tiny proportion
of male CEOs than they do with women who have jobs rather than careers, who wear uniforms
rather than dry-clean-only suits to work, who have no time to hit the gym before heading to the
office. Their push for "lean-in" circles appeals more to young college grads than women
struggling just to put food on the table. Their vociferous feminist call to arms falls flat in
Middle America -- yet we are told they speak for all women.
In 2018, feminists do walk the corridors of power. But in order to maintain their position
and moral high ground they must deny the very power they command. For this reason, feminism can
never admit its successes -- to do so would require its adherents to ask whether their job is
done. For professional feminists, women who have forged their careers in the femocracy,
admitting this not only puts their livelihoods at risk, but poses an existential threat to
their sense of self. As a result, the better women's lives become, the harder feminists must
work to seek out new realms of disadvantage.
The need to sustain a narrative of oppression explains the continued popularity of the
#MeToo phenomenon. In October 2017, The New York Times ran a story alleging that
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make and break careers, had committed
a number of serious sexual offenses. (The allegations against Weinstein mounted and he is now
being charged with sexual assault and rape.) Over the following weeks and months, accusations
of sexual misconduct were leveled against a host of other men in the public eye.
Such serious accusations need to be dealt with in the courts and, if found guilty, the
perpetrators punished accordingly. But rather than arrests, trials, and criminal proceedings,
#MeToo has gathered pace through social media. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter on October
18 and asked women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to "write 'me too' as a reply to
this tweet." Thousands of women came forward to call out their own abusers or simply to add
their names to a growing list of victims. #MeToo took on a life of its own; it readily lent
itself to an already-established fourth-wave feminist narrative that saw women as victims of
male violence and sexual entitlement.
Women in the public eye are now routinely asked about their own experiences of sexual
harassment. Some have publicly named and shamed men they accuse of sexual assault or, as with
the case of comedian Aziz Ansari, what can perhaps best be described as "ungentlemanly
conduct." Others are more vague and suggest they have experienced sexual harassment in more
general terms. What no woman can do -- at least not without instigating a barrage of criticism
-- is deny that sexual harassment is a major problem today.
The success of #MeToo is less about real justice than the common experience of suffering and
validation. It is a perfect social media vehicle to drive the fourth-wave agenda into another
generation. Hollywood stars and baristas may have little in common but all women can lay claim
to having experienced male violence and sexual harassment -- or, failing that, potentially
experiencing abuse at some indeterminate point in the future. Statistics on domestic violence,
rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are used to shore up the narrative that women, as a
class, suffer at the hands of men.
But scratch the surface and often these statistics are questionable. In recent years, at the
hands of femocrats, definitions of violence and sexual harassment have been expanded. On
campus, all kinds of behaviors, from touching through clothes to non-consensual sex, are
grouped together to prove the existence of a rape culture. When sexual harassment is redefined
as unwanted behavior it can encompass anything from winking, to whistling, to staring, to
catcalling. There is little objectively wrong with the action -- it is simply the fact that it
is unwanted that makes it abusive. Today, we are encouraged to see violence, especially
violence against women and girls, everywhere: in words that wound, personified in a boorish
president, in our economic and legal systems. This is violence as metaphor rather than violence
as a physical blow. Yet it is a metaphor that serves a powerful purpose -- allowing all women
to share in a common experience of victimhood, and, as such, justifying the continued need for
elite feminism.
Problems with #MeToo are too rarely discussed. Violence and sexual assaults do occur, but
these serious crimes are trivialized by being presented as on a continuum with the metaphorical
abuse. The constant reiteration that women are victims and men are violent perpetrators does
not, in itself, make it true. It pits men and women against each other and, in the process,
infantilizes women and makes them fearful of the world. It also masks a far more positive
story: rates of domestic violence have been falling. Between 1994 and 2011, the rates of
serious intimate partner violence perpetrated against women -- defined as rape, sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated assault -- fell 72 percent.
The consequences of entrenching in law assumptions that women are destined to become victims
of male violence and harassment are dangerously authoritarian. Feminists now look not to their
own resources, or to their family and friends, but to the state to protect them. Black men in
particular can find themselves disproportionately targeted by feminist-backed drives for legal
retribution. A 2017 report from the National Registry of Exonerations suggests that black men
serving time for sexual assault are three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than
white defendants who have been convicted of the same crime.
In the meantime, demands for the punishment of bad behavior are inevitable. Male catcalling
in the UK and France could soon be a criminal offense. While similar bans have been
unsuccessful in the U.S., there are plenty of street harassment laws at the state level that
feminists could co-opt if necessary. Additionally in England, there are proposals to
criminalize "upskirting" or taking a photograph up a woman's skirt. Upskirting is a vile
invasion of a person's privacy. However, the majority of instances are covered under existing
indecency and voyeurism laws. The proposal, as with others, is a feminist signaling device: the
message is, yet again, that the world is a hostile place for women and their only course of
action is to seek redress from the state.
Meanwhile, working-class women are effectively exploited as a voiceless stage presence,
brought on when convenient to shore up the authority of the professional feminist. On occasion
this means the livelihoods of regular women are placed in jeopardy for the greater good of the
collective. Earlier this year, a group of A-list Hollywood actresses petitioned against tipping
waitresses in New York restaurants, arguing it was exploitive and encouraged sexual harassment.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, servers shot back that they would like to continue receiving tips,
thank you very much.
♦♦♦
Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and
behavior for men and women. Campaigns around "rape culture" and #MeToo police women just as
much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid's Tale
author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex
crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and
Mail essay in January entitled "Am I a Bad Feminist?"
"In times of extremes, extremists win," she wrote. "Their ideology becomes a religion,
anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and
moderates in the middle are annihilated."
The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering
on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.
Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged
and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of
feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today's #MeToo movement rehabilitates the
argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need "safe spaces."
Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be
paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is
that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent
size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like
the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women's disadvantage thus become
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women -- and men -- such as
working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are
overlooked.
When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the
women's liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were
capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an
increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to
reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free
today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women's liberation movement. Only now it's
feminism from which women need liberating.
"The people I've heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile
people who've proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of
them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their
enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it
is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed
identity as being of recognizably European descent." • Also "Asian American professional,"
although when you think about it, "Asia American" is a pretty problematic ascribed
identity.
The best-case scenario looking
forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and
that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward
can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't
nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated. ..."
I thought this part of Urie's piece was especially good:
Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the
analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling
class ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they
are factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.
Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis
whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic
power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this
critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.
Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are
clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique
of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the
neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to
counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly
significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States'
relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on
July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from
time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't
necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could
just be an accident."
Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has
voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and
resurgence
of Russia necessitating a new global balance .
As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China,
signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing
becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians),
the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period."
Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."
Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between
Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power
game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to
discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.
Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no
secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and
Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for
'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David
became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.
But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River
in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing
the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials
show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One
particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War
history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack
on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher
Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal
year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a
basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger
to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.
Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin
will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US.
Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a
meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to
play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.
Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese
analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia
relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.
The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting
in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, "
Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia."
Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including
on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American
cooperation.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial
giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to
Russia -- China
can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable
reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the
global stage due to military power:
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total,
and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although
an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear
advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only
should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know
that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle.
And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create
a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that
they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.
"To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia."
So, what exactly can Trump offer Russia? Letting them "win" in Syria, when the Syrian
people, lead by Assad and aided by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, have already won?
Perhaps, it is the return of bankrupt and banderised Ukraine? Now that would be a
prize!
Perhaps, Trump could offer the withdrawal of NATO forces from Russia's borders and a
place in the "international community"? That worked out well in the 90s, didn't it?
Maybe, relief from sanctions could be the clincher? That would rescue the "tattered"
Russian economy, wouldn't it?
The Nixon to China gambit by Trump ignores the stark reality that Trump is in office but
not in power. The entire media and the "intelligence community" has been angling to
impeach him since his election, and they may well succeed after the mid-terms.
Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?
Besides, Putin and loyal Russians have seen through the true reasons behind what can only
be called anti Russian RACIST hysteria.
Its not ideological or cultural. It is an ancient urge: Russia must submit to the
US/EU/NATO Borg Collective, or be destroyed. Could anyone have missed the rant in the US
media, incited by the "intelligence community", which just happened to be "thrown under
the bus", by Trump, just because he met Putin?
Trump is also going to be the victim of the same urge.
He cannot be controlled, so he must be destroyed.
Simples!
The Yanks will start their endless electioneering soon, four years is nothing, the
dolts start the game going for new president years berfore the election date. Sure they
hate any nation that stands-up to them they actually beleive they have a god-given righ
to rule the world as they spread their sick ways around the globe calling them freedom?
choice?, playing one nation against the other is an old game, lets hope Russia never
crosses China, as together they can keep the war-monger, nation-destroyer two faced snake
USA in check.
"Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?"
There is not even room for that question. Russia is STRATEGIC partner of China and
they never contemplate under no circumstances to have that differently.... Whoever thinks
Russia might take some offer in consideration to turn against China is DEAD WRONG.
The idea that demography is political destiny is not new. Peter Brimelow and Edwin Rubenstein
warned of its dangers in the pages of National Review in the 1990s. Steve Sailer later
argued
that Republicans would fare better by targeting white voters. The problem with these observations was not their accuracy, but their
audience. The GOP establishment and donor elites had little interest in such thinking until Donald Trump's
breakthrough
in 2016. But what happens when Trump leaves office? Will the GOP return to its old ways, as Trump's former chief of staff Reince
Priebus has
predicted ? The answer is almost certainly no. The reasons have little to do with the GOP elite, however, whose views have not
substantially changed. They instead have everything to do with what is happening in the other party. As Brimelow and Rubenstein recently
pointed out in VDARE (and as I did at
American Renaissance
), while the nation is not expected to reach majority-minority status until
2045 , the Democratic Party is already approaching that historic milestone. The political consequences of these changes will
be profound and irreversible. The developments that are unfolding before our eyes are not a fluke, but the beginning of a new political
realignment in the United States that is increasingly focused on race.
The Emerging Majority-Minority Party While warnings of brewing demographic trouble were being ignored by the establishment
right, they received a better reception on the left. In 2004, Ruy
Teixeira and John Judis wrote a book called
The Emerging Democratic
Majority that triumphantly predicted that demographic change would soon produce a "new progressive era." The theory's predictive
powers waxed and waned over the years, but after Trump's 2016 election Teixeira and another coauthor, Peter Leyden, insisted that
Democrats would soon sweep away an increasingly irrelevant GOP and forcibly
impose their will, much as had already happened in California. These arguments have a glaring weakness, however. They assumed
that Democrats would continue to draw the same level of support from white voters. Instead, many have been fleeing to the GOP. Throughout
the 20 th Century, Democrats had won the presidency only by winning or keeping it close among these voters. Barack Obama
was the first to break this pattern, defeating John McCain in 2008 while losing the white vote by
12 percent
. Four years later he beat Mitt Romney while losing it by
20 percent
. Hillary Clinton lost the white vote in 2016 by a similar 20-point
margin . This
loss of white support, coupled with the continued demographic change of the country, has helped push the Democratic Party toward
majority-minority status. Since 1992, the white share of the Democratic presidential vote has dropped an average of about one percent
per year. At its current rate, it could tip to majority-minority status by 2020. It will occur no later than 2024. The political
consequences of this shift are already apparent. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with
the overwhelming backing of
black voters.
Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in 2016 with similar black and Latino
support . This year's state elections have continued the trend, with minority candidates winning Democratic gubernatorial nominations
in Georgia ,
Texas , New Mexico , and
Maryland , with another likely win in
Arizona later this year. This sudden
surge in minority candidates is not an indicator of increased open mindedness, but of demographic change. While the national
Democratic Party is only just approaching majority-minority status, in much of the nation it is already there.
While the demographic trend of the Democratic Party seems clear enough – as does its leftward drift and increased embrace of minority
candidates – it is still possible to argue that the nation's politics will not divide along racial lines. The most obvious alternative
is that both parties will compete for minority votes and both will experience demographic change in an increasingly
multiracial nation. Could this happen? Black voters seem least likely to change. They already routinely provide Democrats with
90 percent of their votes. They are the backbone of the party, with a former president, nearly 50
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and numerous mayors in
major American cities among their ranks. Given the Democratic Party's steadfast commitment to black issues such as affirmative action
and Black Lives Matter, few are likely to be won over by the occasional attempts at Republican
outreach . Latinos also typically
support Democrats in presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin, but they have been a more serious target for Republicans, including
President
George W. Bush , his acolyte
Karl Rove , authors of the
GOP autopsy
released after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and occasional
writers
in National Review . Some have observed that many Latinos
value whiteness and are more likely to
self-identify
as white thelonger they have been in the country.
In fact, some Latinos arewhite , particularly
those from Latin America's leadershipclass . Others have
reported on
substantialhostility
that exists between Latinos and blacks that may make them more likely to see whites as natural allies. There are several problems
with these arguments. The most important are
persistent
race-based
IQ differences that will keep most mestizos (who are the
bulk of Latino immigrants)
trapped at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum regardless of their racial identification. Arguments that they will assimilate
like their European predecessors fail to explain why
racialhierarchies have
persisted in their home
nations for hundreds of years. These inequalities probably explain the high levels of
Hispanicsupport for government programs that
are likely to keep most of them tied to the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. Although Asians also
support Democrats
by a 2-to-1 margin, they seem potentially more
promising . Unlike America's black and Latino populations, East Asians (such as Japanese and Chinese) have IQs that may be slightly
higher than that of white Americans on average.
Moreover, affirmative action policies backed by Democrats typically
work to
their detriment
. However, most Asian immigrants
are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much
lower . Finally, no matter
what their nationality, Asians are generally unsympathetic
to whites
who want to restrict nonwhite immigration. Unsurprisingly, all of these reasons have contributed to Asians
movingaway
from the Republican Party, not toward it. Some argue that Republicans have no choice but to accept demographic change and move left
to gain minority support. The GOP may well move left in
ways
that
are
acceptable to its white
working class
base and help it with white moderates – such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. But it will never win a
bidding
war with Democrats for their base of minority voters, nor would the GOP base let it try.
White polarization is the mirror image of nonwhite polarization and its causes are similar. Numerous
scholars have
citedgenetics
as a basis for reciprocal altruism among closely-related kin and hostility toward outsiders among humans and in the animal kingdom
in general. This ethnocentrism is instinctual, present
amongbabies , and whites are
not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a
shortdistance beneath the surface. Academics sometimes
argue that
positive direct contact is a promising strategy for overcoming racial differences, but research has shown that the
negativeeffects are more
powerful – something a cursory glance at
crime statistics would
confirm. Rampant white flight and segregation in
neighborhoods
,
schools , and personal
relationships provide the most definitive evidence on the negative influence of direct contact. Its impact on voting is also
well established, particularly for whites and blacks. The shift of white Southerners away from the Democratic Party after civil rights
legislation was enacted in the 1960s was almost immediate and has
remained
strong ever since. White flight produced similar
political
advantages for Republicans in suburbs across the country during this period. Their advantage has softened since then, but primarily
because the suburbs have become
less white , not
lesssegregated . White voting is similarly affected
by proximity to Hispanics. White flight and segregation are a constant in heavily Latino areas in
both
liberal and conservative
states. The resulting political backlash in places like
California and
Arizona has been well-documented and confirmed
by
academicresearch
. Support for President Trump has also been shown to be highly
correlated with
whiteidentity
and
opposition to immigration. These trends are expected to become stronger over time.
Experimental
research has shown that growing white awareness of demographic change makes them more
conservative , less favorably disposed to
minorities, and feel greater attachment to other whites. The effects are heightened the more whites think they are
threatened . The associated
ideological effects are just as important. The influence of ideology is obvious in socially conservative states like North Dakota
and Kansas . However, the Democrats'
growing leftward tilt has become an issue even in liberal states like those in New England, many of which now regularly
elect
Republicans as governors
. In fact, liberal Massachusetts has had
just one Democratic governor in the past quarter century. The power of leftist ideology to drive whites together may reach its
zenith if Democrats resume their attack on segregation in neighborhoods and schools.
De facto segregation has
protected
white liberals from the consequences of their voting
decisions for years. If Democrats are
returned to power, however, they appear
ready
to
touch this electoral
third rail
.
Further evidence of racial polarization can be found by looking abroad. Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations –
everywhere and throughouthistory . More recently,
64 percent of
all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines
. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and
ethnic polarization . Some of the worst examples,
such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide. Race-based identity politics are just a lower
form of ethnic conflict. Like ethnic conflict more generally, the strength of such politics depends on the level of ethnic diversity
and corresponding racial polarization. In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines.
As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing
role . Politics and
parties that are explicitly
ethnically-based usually do not appear until much later, when a nation has become more diverse and has begun to suffer extreme racial
polarization. Such politics have been shown to produce substantial ethnic
favoritism
. Their appearance is often a
prelude to civilwar or
partition . The United
States has not reached this stage, but its future can be seen in other nations that are further down the road. One example is Brazil.
While the United States will not become majority-minority until 2045, Brazil reached that milestone in
2010 . For much of the 20
th Century, Brazil viewed itself as a harmonious racial
democracy and a model for the rest of the world, but this image has been tarnished in recent years. The nation's changing demographics
demonstrated their power with the election of Lula da Silva in 2002 and his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, in 2010. Support
for these two presidents – both members of the leftist Workers Party – was
concentrated
in the largely black northern half of the country, while opposition was concentrated in the mostly
white south . Their victories depended on
the nation's changing demographics. Once elected, they rewarded their black supporters with substantial expansions of
affirmative action and
a new cash transfer system, called Bolsa Família, which disproportionately
benefitted
Afro-Brazilians. Since then, Brazil's fortunes have taken a turn for the
worse . Rousseff was
impeached
after a massive corruption scandal in 2016. Crime has
exploded . Black activists
nowderide the notion of "
racial democracy " and have become
more
militant
on racial issues. An explicitly
black political party has
also appeared. This has corresponded with a similar backlash in the white population. The leading candidate for the presidential
election this year is Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes referred to as the
Trump of the Tropics . A white separatist movement called the
South is My Country is drawing substantial support. Brazilians are reportedly
losing faith in
democracy and becoming more receptive to
military
rule .
The preponderance of the evidence – domestic, international, historical, and scientific – suggests that American politics will
continue to polarize along racial and ethnic lines. At least in the short term, Republicans will benefit as white voters flee from
the other party. But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?
Various elements of the
GOPestablishment
, including the
business elite and pro-immigration donors like the
Koch brothers , continue to hold substantial
power within the party. Reince Priebus probably echoed their views when he
said , "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and a traditional platform."
Such status quo thinking ignores too much. There are numerous signs that the party is changing. Trump's popularity within his
own party is the
second highest among all presidents since World War II, trailing only George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Congressional
Never Trumpers like Bob
Corker , Jeff Flake
, and
Mark Sanford have been defeated or stepped aside. Prominent
columnists ,
analysts , and at least
one former GOP leader
are now declaring it Trump's party.
These changes are not solely about Trump, however. There were signs of change before his arrival. Eric Cantor's primary defeat
in 2014 was widely
attributed to softness on immigration, which met furious
grassroots opposition . Moreover, if Trump's rise were
merely a one-off event, we would not be seeing the simultaneous rise of nationalist movements in Europe, which is facing its own
immigration crisis .
The more likely answer is that these changes reflect something more powerful than any individual, even the president of the United
States. The same survival
instinct that is present in all living creatures still burns brightly within the world's European peoples. Trump was not the
cause, but a consequence – and we will not go gently into the night.
Patrick McDermott(email him)is a political analyst in Washington, DC.
This ethnocentrism is instinctual, observable even among babies. Whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized
to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface.
Even the most vile race-virtuosos' ethnocentric instincts boil to the surface in the flight to "good schools" for their children.
The "Good schools" rationale works for them. Gets them away from the city, away from those awful Blacks. It was always diversity
for thee. The closest most liberals get to diversity is the Hispanic housekeeper. Because the Blacks, you know, they steal the
liquor/silver/Waterford". Heard variations of this a million times..
Brilliant synthesis. Excellent article. Patrick McDermott hits it out of the ballpark, noting correctly that ethnocentrism is
"instinctual". So true. So obvious. And this suppressed truth is just the tip of the iceberg. America lives under 'intellectual
occupation'.
But the hardening scientific facts involving race, kinship, and phenotype are testament to the hollowness of 'anti-racist'
rhetoric and ideologies that dominate so much of the American landscape.
These liberal creeds pretend to repudiate (all) 'racism' and bigotry, but in political fact, they strategically target only
white Americans. This makes these lofty 'values' not only disingenuous but unfair and destructive.
Highfalutin (but bogus) liberalism has come to play a diabolical role. It undermines white cohesion and white solidarity. Meanwhile,
from high above, irreversible demographic changes are being orchestrated.
MacDermott correctly observes that the West's unsought ethno-racial transformation is what's behind the reinvigoration of white
identity in Europe and America. This at least is good news.
Says MacDermott:
"Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations -- everywhere and throughout history. More recently, 64 percent of
all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic
polarization. Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide."
Very true. Very important. And while MacDermott avoids mentioning a more obvious example, the most persistent expression of
this phenomena can be seen in Israel/Palestine, where allegedly 'Semitic' Jews are doing whatever it takes to keep their lesser
(Semitic) cousins at arms length–in this case, in the caged ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank.
Undue and uncompromising Jewish influence in Zio-America is allowing this race-born outrage to continue. Sadly, Israeli savagery
routinely receives Zio-Washington's unconditional blessing, trillion-dollar subsidy, and unflinching diplomatic cover.
But besides the disputed territory and Israel's untouchable political power, what nourishes the endless Israel/Palestine impasse?
Jewish 'exceptionalism' is one key motivator.
The Chosen people are convinced that they are born vastly superior to their Semitic cousins.
Thus, strict segregation is required for the assurance of 'Jewish (genetic) continuity'. This objective however requires steadfast
cruelty since the natives are still restless and rebelling.
Supremacism means never having to say you're sorry. This is especially true since, ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs
could potentially lead to increased Jewish 'outmarriage' in Israel and consequently, the gradual reduction in Israeli (Jewish)
IQ and Jewish 'exceptionalism' (supremacy).
Over time, potential genetic intermingling would very possibly undermine Jewish magnificence and therefore, Jewish cohesion.
This could then translate into a loss of Jewish solidarity and 'community'. It's possible.
This downturn could subsequently affect Jewish wealth and power, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Jewish community
desires.
Leaders of the global Jewish community are smart enough to envision this scenario and to prevent it from happening. They use
The Holocaust (and it's potential re-0currance) as an all-purpose excuse. But it's phony. Self-segregation is a sacred, ancient
Jewish value. Thus the glamorization of interracial romance is directed only at the goyim, as is the message of Open Borders.
Just turn on your TV. It's there constantly.
These 'liberal, democratic' messages however are never advocated in Israel, nor are they directed at young Jews via Israeli
TV, news, entertainment or education.
You will never see glamorous depictions of Jewish/Arab miscegenation on Israeli television, even though black/white 'family
formation' on Jewish-owned mass media in America is ubiquitous.
Hostile US elites (Jews) apparently want non-Jewish whites to become mixed, brown. This racial objective however is anathema
to Jewish values. It's strictly for the goyim.
Meanwhile, whites in America are not permitted to think or hold values like Israeli Jews, or to even express similar preferences
inside the civilization that they and their forefathers created. This speaks volumes about the lack of freedom in America. Yes,
we live under intellectual occupation.
For many Israeli Jews (the dominant thinking goes) strict segregation–if not active warfare–is the only sure way to maintain
'hafrada' (separation) for Jews in Israel since they are surrounded by tens of millions of similar-looking but 'unexceptional'
Arabs.
Unlike America, walls (and segregation) remain sacred in Israel. But not here.
In fact, some Latinos are white, particularly those from Latin America's leadership class
I think the reality is, Latinos/Hispanics simply form lines like any group would do. I am white, all my fellow Hispanic friends
are white, and we consider ourselves essentially an ethnicity within Whiteness, just like Italians, or high-caste French Creoles,
White Persians, Lebanese or Jordanians.
The easiest way to tell if an "ethnic" is conservative or republican (outside of obvious virtue signalers), is to ask yourself,
" Is this person white ?". Other than famous actors and political types that have the luxury being "liberal" (e.g. Salma
Hayek) every day Hispanics, Persians and Arabs that are white, act, do and think, like every day White Anglo-Saxons, Germanics
and Nordics–for the most part (obviously IQ plays a part). Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in IQ and mindset in the
particulars between a Norman and a (white-ish) Sicilian, some IQ, some cultural, but if and when a civil war comes–no one will
have ANY problem knowing where they and others stand and belong.
Reince Priebus: "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and traditional platform."
And that would be U.S. hegemony and market fundamentalism? Unlikely and unattractive. U.S. military dominance starves our society
and enriches the national security state and the rogue regimes in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Market fundamentalism does not take into
account human frailty, and would produce widespread desperation.
What can be gleaned from Mr. McDermott's instructive article is that, like it or not, identity needs to be included in the
political lexicon of working class and middle class whites. Elite whites continue to cede power to blacks and browns in politics
and business as the slide into Idiocracy accelerates. This is an opportunity for disaffected whites from the Democratic Party
and Republican Trump supporters to form a coalition.
The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible.
When Ted Kennedy was pushing the 1965 opening of our borders to atone for racism, he made repeated assurances that we would
not end up where we ended up. He said the level of immigration would remain the same, the ethnic mix would not inundate America
with immigrants from any particular place or nation, that the ethnic pattern of America would not be changed, and that we wouldn't
have something crazy like a million immigrants a year, certainly not poor ones who would place a burden on citizens.
When Reagan's amnesty happened, again promises where made that we could and would keep our country. Now, it looks like Brazil
is our future.
Elections are already being decided by racial votes of minorities, which aren't considered racist by that half of America that
eagerly anticipates our demise. What a rude surprise they are in for when they discover they are still white and will be honorary
deplorables once they no longer have political power.
But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?
Ha, Derbyshire doesn't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.
Regarding my home state of Arizona, that 66% figure is an interesting anomaly. Except for my fellow writers, most of the white
folks I know are pretty conservative. Many secretly supported Trump or voted Libertarian in protest of the lousy mainstream choices.
Perhaps this is a reflection of white flight from California.
You dense "scientific" racists can't see the forest for the trees, as is always the case. The importance of this election has
nothing to do with demographics. But you wouldn't know that because all you want to do is scream raceracerace all de liblong day.
No. The importance of this race is that Ocasio-Cortez is "a strikingly perfect candidate, both in policy positions and refusal
to take corporate money. She fits the identity politics profile without once using identity politics virtue-signaling to cover
for lousy policies. This is shattering to the Clintonista crowd, who are spinning like tops."
However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower.
Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers? Those aren't typically low-IQ professions. Is this
just a case of aggressive brain-drain? Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?
In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more
diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role.
Yup. That's probably why the Democratic Party traded class war for race war.
Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers?
The advance guard in the US was the professional elite. Not so in the UK. Subcontinentals are much closer, or even below, average
there. Even here, motel owners may outnumber doctors, scientists, and computer programmers combined.
Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain?
Yes.
And it's worse in Canada.
Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?
There are a billion more people in India than in the US. Do the arithmetic.
OK. I'll make it simple for you because your understanding doesn't extend beyond simple.
Ocasio-Cortez is a very good candidate, and, unless she is co-opted–which, 99 out of a 100 (notice my use of "statistics,"
I mean damned lies, you statistics-worshipers) is the chance she will be–she is a hundred times better than Crowley the Clintonite
hack. Racists are really stupid. They vote against their own interests, just like all "conservatives."
The author throws around 'left' and 'right' as if they transparently applied in the case of ethnic politics. I would argue that
it has been the economic 'right' that has relentlessly pursued diversity of populations – quite arguably for millennia, and certainly
in the last 50 years. Some sane economic leftists realize this, although they are an endangered and shrinking group.
However if it is the right that is the main mover in favor of diversity (empire preferred to nation state for the easier control
of labor), I'm not sure what solutions there are. Whites voting for the Republican Party is not a long time viable solution since
the owners of that party have fundamentally different interests than the white working class (as leftists have correctly pointed
out over and over).
Ocasio's victory is a nightmare for the Democrats. The Leftist media is touting her as the future of the party, but her platform
makes Obama look like a rightwing extremist.
- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Medicare for All
- Tuition-free public college
- Reduce prisons by 50%
- Defund ICE
But the real poison pill is her unwavering support for the Palestinians. I'm not making a value judgment on this or any other
of her policies, but if the GOP can tag the next Democratic presidential candidate with Ocasio's worldview, then expect a Trumpslide
in 2020.
What do the (((brains))) and (((primary funders))) behind the Democratic party think of this rising star? Here are some choice
quotes from NY Jewish Week:
To some, the stunning victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an outspoken critic of Israel, over 10-term Rep. Joseph Crowley
(D-Queens-Bronx), an Israel supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary is seen as another nail in the coffin of Democratic support
for the Jewish state.
"If she maintains her anti-Israel stance, she will be a one-term wonder," predicted George Arzt, a New York political operative.
"I don't think you can have someone with those views in New York City. If she moderates, she could win again. If she doesn't,
there will be massive opposition to her -- maybe even a cross-over candidate from the Latino community with pro-Israel views."
Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he sees Ocasio-Cortez's overwhelming victory -- she won with 57.5
percent of the vote -- as "another step in the ongoing divorce proceedings between the pro-Israel community and the Democratic
Party."
Jeff Wiesenfeld, a former aide to both Republican and Democratic elected officials, said he read Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter
and Facebook postings and said she has voiced opinions that are "downright hostile to Israel."
After 60 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military in May while attempting to breach the fence along the Israel-Gaza
border, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state
or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protestors. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity,
as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore."
"We have never stepped into a situation in New York City in which a member of Congress starts out hostile to us," he added.
"This is a new frontier."
"While Jewish Democrats support much of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's domestic policy agenda, we disagree with her past statement
regarding Israel, as well as her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott, divestment
and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel," it added. "In the coming days and months, we hope to learn more about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's
views, but at the moment, her position on Israel is not in line with our values."
What will Jewish Democrats do if the Ocasio/DSA platform becomes mainstream in the Democratic party? Join up with the anti-Trump
neocons and vote for a third party? While the Republicans can win nationwide elections without Jewish money and votes, there's
no evidence that the Democrats can, at least not yet.
Another factor in Ocasio's surprise victory, as so delicately pointed out by the noted political analyst Andrew Anglin, is
that:
"Furthermore, people want to f*ck her."
No shit. Her good looks and likeable personality mean that she's likely in the media spotlight to stay, no matter how much
the MSM (((gatekeepers))) might want to shield the general public from her, ahem, "problematic" views.
As an aside, I believe her nationwide appeal is enhanced by her complete lack of the godawful, ear-grating Nuyorican accent
so commonplace among her co-ethnics. In fact she speaks with a general American accent with barely even a hint of New Yorkese.
I don't know if this is part of a generalized homogenization of regional accents throughout the country, or if she affects this
dialect for personal and/or political reasons. Either way, it only adds to her appeal.
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, then Donald Trump will start looking more and more
like the moderate adult in the room compared to the infantile, gibsmedat, tantrum-throwers on the far left. Which is terrible
news for the Clintonite, corporate bloodsucker wing of the Dems, but fantastic news for the rest of us.
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.
You have no understanding whatsoever about the mood of the current polity.
Economics is just a tool to that end. When identity looked to be more productive, they pivoted quite gracefully.
Welfare bureaucrats derive their power from the poor, not the working, and there are many more poor abroad than at home. Creating
a welfare state thus creates a giant constituency for importing more poor, and poorer.
One of the credos of realism has been "There are no angels, so set the devils against one another." As pie-in-the-sky as economists
can be, they're closer to the truth on this one than the pro-regulation forces, who assume, by definition, that the regulators
will be angels.
Americans, at least Unz reviewers, lump all Hispanic speakers into one category. Does Cortez even speak Spanish, except for her
ethnic purposes? More important, a Puerto Rican origin is both Creole and Roman Catholic. That puts them in a category all their
own. She has no love for Israel because her background did not come under the influence of the Christian Zionist Churches. Her
black origins make her atavistically side with the Palestinians.
You have no clue about "Trump supporters." For your information, they will vote for anyone who shakes things up. Their second
choice after Trump was Sanders. These are facts. Read 'em and weep.
The Establishment wants to pretend that these voters don't exist. Even though they tipped the election. Along with most people
(even here) they want to keep everything in neat boxes labelled Right vs Left, Rep vs Dem, etc etc. Spares them the 'vexation
of thinking'.
Actually, I have a quite contrary view of the political implications of these shifts in racial demographics. For those interested,
here's a link to a long article I published a few years ago on this same exact topic:
"... Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality! ..."
Numerous sources give very high figures for Jews and these have tended to be memory-holed
and maligned as you know what.
Consequently sources which report a low number of jews (do you know of any?) from the period
are at least as suspect, and ones from a later period and embraced by Jewish scholars more
so.
And one must remember that apart from the many name changes by Jews in the Old Bolshevik era
(lots of name changes amongst Israel's 'founders' too) they made substantial effort to hide
their jewishness, as have later sources.
One might consider the attempted Bokshevik coup in Germany a year after the Russian one.
Even wikipedia has to report that this 'Spartacus uprising' was led almost wholly by Jews.
What would they have done had they won? Might the conflation of anti-nationalist communist
violence and Jewish Supremacy have been what led in part to Hitler and his racial nationalists?
There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism
played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews
in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his
1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party
members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s
and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of
the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least
the willingness to use force to remove the burden. The democratic parties were insufficiently
decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very
unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and
the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual
dimension of life. Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in
addition to the national need to escape from poverty.
Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to
justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to
preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is
less expensive than ending inequality!
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational
Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism) , but
party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 ME 7 Me 6 I lose
divide by party D R D R D R ME 7 Me+3 3 I win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican,it keeps the pharaoh options open.
DemoRats use identity politics to achieve their goals. And if it does not suit their goals it
is thrown in the garbage can as used napkin.
Also it is stupid to view candidates from the prism of identity politics: "In a mature
society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but
what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT
and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and
that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society."
Notable quotes:
"... Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that other thing she said. ..."
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living
on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby,
Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny
Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that
other thing she said.
How cynical is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? To this observer,
it seems impossible not to notice that those in control of the Democratic Party care about
"identity politics" -- about supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ
candidates, etc. -- only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that their
vocal support for the underlying principles of "identity politics" is both cynical and
insincere.
As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I've never seen it documented so well in
one place, however, until this
recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.
For example, Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 not only encouraged a vote for Clinton
because men and women had a duty to support her as a woman, yet they attacked support for
Sanders as specifically misogynist:
The 2016 presidential election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of
identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton's potential
status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters
but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie
Sanders.
In February 2016 -- at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle -- former Clinton
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by
predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory
Booker cheered: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" she
announced.
Though Albright apologized
in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did
reaffirm her central point: "When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits.
They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or
oppose."
At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of
Sanders
were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow "the boys," who, she claimed, were behind
Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump
won "because some dudes had mommy issues," then clarified that she
was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: "I also have those
moments where I'm like, 'Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake
socialists and jackass mansplainers.'"
Greenwald notes in passing that no one was making the case for supporting Sanders because he
would be the first Jewish president, and he doesn't expect that case to be made in 2020 should
Sanders run again.
He concludes from this that "despite the inconsistencies, one of the dominant themes that
emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important
to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support
such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying
bigotry."
The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon
Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary
Clinton includes
herself on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As Greenwald notes,
"Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight,
white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible
and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color.
Clinton herself has led the way."
The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman battle in
Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa McCormick three-way
contest in New Jersey, to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea Manning primary in Maryland. In all
cases, the Party backed the white male candidate (or in Menendez's case, the whiter male
candidate) against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not even the smoke
of 2016's identity fire remains.
Which brings us to the 2018 candidacies of Cynthia Nixon and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
Let's start with Cynthia Nixon, running against corrupt ,
anti-progressive NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo sides with Republicans to defeat progressive
measures, rules with an iron hand, is white and male. Yet he's also supported and endorsed by
almost every national Democrat who matters:
In New York state, Cynthia Nixon is attempting to become the first female governor, as
well as the first openly LGBT governor, in the state's history. She's running against a
dynastic politician-incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom the New York Times denounced this
year for being "tainted" by multiple corruption scandals.
But virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male
dynastic prince, Cuomo, over his female, LGBT challenger. That includes Clinton
herself, who
enthusiastically endorsed Cuomo last month, as well as Democratic Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand , who -- despite starting a political action committee with the explicit
purpose of supporting women running for office -- also
endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in March. [emphasis mine]
To make the main point again: How cynical and insincere is the Democratic Party's support
for identity politics? Very.
A Local Race with National Consequences: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Joe Crowley
This cynical drama is also playing out in the race between corrupt
Joe Crowley , the likely next Democratic leader of the House (if he survives this election)
and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The same dynamic is now driving the Democratic Party primary campaign in New York's 14th
Congressional District, a district that is composed of 70 percent nonwhite voters. The
nine-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, is a
classic dynastic machine politician . His challenger, a 28-year-old Latina woman,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has generated nationwide excitement for her campaign after her
inspiring introduction video went viral . At a fundraising event, Crowley accused his
opponent of playing identity politics, saying she
was trying to make the campaign "about race."
Despite all that, virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the
white male incumbent, and virtually none is supporting the woman of color who is challenging
him. Yesterday, the very same Gillibrand who has a PAC to support female candidates
and who endorsed Cuomo over Nixon announced that she was supporting Crowley over
Ocasio-Cortez. [emphasis added]
Note that these are not low-profile, low-consequence races. Both are positions of enormous
power -- in Nixon's case, due to the office; in Crowley's case, due to his position as the
Dauphin to Nancy Pelosi's soon-to-step-down monarch.
These are races with exponentially greater consequences than usuals. And where is the
Democratic Party in this? With the (corrupt) white male and against the woman, as always these
days.
"Identity Politics" Is Not a Cookie-Cutter Solution to Electoral Choices
I'd like to make two additional points. First, by any intelligent standard, candidates
"identities" should only be one factor only in considering support for them. Only the right
wing and 2016 Clinton advocates like Madeleine Albright, quoted above, make the most simplistic
argument about "identity" support -- and even then, the simplistic argument seemed to apply
only to support for Clinton herself and never to other women.
For example, would even Clinton supporters have supported Carly Fiorina against a male
Democrat for president? Obviously not. And Clinton herself, a former New York senator, did not
support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 when
Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for governor . Nor did then-Democratic primary candidate
Hillary Clinton campaign for Zephyr Teachout in her 2016 race for the the NY-19
House seat .
Ideological concerns also drive decisions like these, as in fact they should. Fiorina would
likely be too far right for Clinton to support, and Teachout too far left. This is a fair basis
on which to decide. It was also a fair basis on which to decide support for Clinton as
well.
The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight
A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressive involving themselves
heavily in high-leverage races -- like the Bernie Sanders 2016 race, for example -- where the
payoff would have been huge relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument
here: " Supporting
Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices ".)
The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage -- first, because he's
perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees , and second because it would, to use a
chess metaphor, eliminate one of the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from
House leadership in a single move.
Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the House. He would be worse
by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he's dangerous. He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of
his colleagues into supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them
committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He also controls funding as
Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC. Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally
a reliable progressive voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his
colleagues.
Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him from the House for
the next two years, would produce a benefit to progressives far in excess of the effort
involved.
Progressives, were they truly smart, would have nationalize this race from the beginning and
worked tirelessly to win it. The payoff from a win like this is huge. Larry
Coffield ,
June 26, 2018 at 5:27 am
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many
NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name
for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
Here is a simple example:
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7. Voted for me 1 (myself only) I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (3 republican votes and myself) 4 I
win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyze current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led West. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
"... For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression. ..."
"... Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten. ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.
For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want".
They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.
Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it.
When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth.
Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.
Democrats act the same way about different things.
When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much.
When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male".
Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.
And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel
a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks
about them.
Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people
automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.
When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often
imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last
year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).
The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated
can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.
a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that
this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of
all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or
retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author
of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher
taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic
policy."
This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk
to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma
among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.
Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class
exist only in the margins .
With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people
begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the
ruling class
wants .
I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate
the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in
gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form
of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy
and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success
for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature
of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast
majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned
into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and
demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their
backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.
It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize
just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really
are different - they are sociopaths.
They've totally and completely bought into their own
righteousness,
merit and virtue .
Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being
Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject
the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from
embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their
education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something
to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.
That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working
class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy
haven't figured that out too.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk.
None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not
wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family,
then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours."
Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.
Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight
here.
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents
family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist
democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable
housing laws. It ends up with some observations:
"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading
to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate --
to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."
We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them
and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
It has nothing to do with marxism. I think "cultural marxism" is used in the same context.
It's basically just a label used by right-wingers to describe all the identity politics
etc that faux lefties like the neoliberal democrats engage in to distract their voters from
looking at actual leftist economic policies. So instead of trying to narrow the gaps between
economic classes it's focuses on giving all identities, cultures and subcultures equal
worth.
If that makes sense.. My vocabulary kind of lacked the words I was looking for to try to
give a good description just now.. (English being my 2nd language an all)
On February 21, the New York Times published a notice calling on college students
to describe and document any sexual encounter "that may not be viewed as sexual assault but
which constitutes something murkier than a bad date." The notice incldues a submission form
where students can accuse individuals of having engaged in something the Times calls
"gray-zone sex." The Times asks its young tipsters to include names, email addresses,
phone numbers and colleges, plus text message records and photographs documenting the
encounters.
The Times ' announcement, written by gender editor Jessica Bennett and Daniel
Jones, reads in its entirety:
As stories of sexual misconduct continue to dominate the news, a debate has erupted over a
particular kind of encounter, one that may not be viewed as sexual assault but which
constitutes something murkier than a bad date.
We've seen it play out on a public stage, from the Aziz Ansari incident to The
NewYorker's "Cat Person" story. So-called "gray-zone sex" has prompted
impassioned conversations about -- and personal reflection on -- what constitutes consent and
how we signal our desire or apprehension in the moment. This debate is especially vibrant on
college campuses, where for years students and administrators have grappled with the
issue.
We want to hear how you handle consent for sexual intimacy in relationships and
encounters. Do you have a particular experience you find yourself thinking back to? What was
said, texted or hinted at, through words or physical cues, that moved the encounter forward
-- or stopped it? How did it make you feel at the time, and how do you think about it
now?
The February 21 solicitation links to an article Bennett wrote on December 16, 2017 titled,
"When Saying 'Yes' Is Easier Than Saying 'No,'" which sheds further light on what the
Times means when it asks "what constitutes consent?" The two articles together show
the provocative and witch-hunting character of the Times ' efforts to compile a
database of sexual harassment allegations on college campuses across the country.
"For years," Bennett begins in the December article, "my female friends and I have spoken,
with knowing nods, about a sexual interaction we call 'the place of no return.' It's a kind of
sexual nuance that most women instinctively understand: the situation you thought you wanted,
or maybe you actually never wanted, but somehow here you are and it's happening and you
desperately want out, but you know that at this point exiting the situation would be more
difficult than simply lying there and waiting for it to be over. In other words, saying yes
when we really mean no."
Bennett provides two examples, one from her personal life and another from a short story
published late last year in the New Yorker titled "Cat person." In both cases, the
woman is interested in the man, they court one another, and they both agree to have sex. In the
New Yorker story, which is also linked in the February 21 announcement, the
protagonist is physically unsatisfied by her partner, who she complains is "heavy" and "bad in
bed." Later, the protagonist tells all her friends a version of this encounter, "though," the
author explains, "not quite the true one."
Bennett says "there are other names for this kind of sex: gray-zone sex, in reference to
that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don't
really want to do it but it's probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because
you're kind of 'meh' about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the 'bad' refers not to the
perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath Sometimes 'yes' means 'no,'
simply because it is easier to go through with it than explain our way out of a situation."
"Consent" is a legal term that marks the line between noncriminal and criminal conduct. Sex
without consent can, and should, lead to the filing of a complaint followed by the initiation
of a criminal investigation, prosecution and, if a jury is persuaded by the evidence,
conviction. It is a basic legal tenet that the accused cannot be punished by the state for acts
that are not proscribed by law, and in the American system, conduct that falls in a "gray zone"
by its very nature does not meet the threshold for conviction: guilt "beyond a reasonable
doubt."
But the Times 's call for young people to submit reports of "gray-zone sex" is
aimed at creating a parallel system, outside the framework of the law, in which the accused
have no right to privacy or to due process. As law professor Catharine MacKinnon wrote in a
Times column on February 4, "#MeToo has done what the law could not."
Playing the role of prosecutors in the court of public opinion, the gender editor and her
cohorts at the New York Times are creating a massive database that it can dig through
to ruin the careers and lives of students and professors based on unproved accusations of
sexual conduct that, in any event, is not illegal.
The aim of this reactionary campaign is both political and pecuniary.
First, the Times hopes to create a political and cultural climate in which a broad
array of consensual conduct is deemed punishable, even if it does not violate any legal
statute.
The Times 's appeal for accusations comes after a number of spreadsheets have
surfaced where students and faculty can anonymously submit accusations of harassment or "creepy
behavior" on the part of male collegues or teachers. The submissions will involve a massive
invasion of privacy. Individuals, without their knowledge or consent, may be placed in a
situation where their most intimate behavior is being secretly documented and forwarded to the
New York Times . Texts and even photographs will be examined and leered over by the
gender editor and her colleagues. It is not difficult to imagine the abuses of privacy that
will flow from the Times 's efforts to procure salacious material.
There are countless legal issues involved. There are many states that outlaw the
transmission of sexually explicit and lewd material over the Internet. Will the individuals who
foolishly transmit the material requested by the Times be opening themselves up to
prosecution? If the Times 's editors discover that one or another submission describes
sexual behavior that occurred between minors, will they inform the police that they have
evidence of a violation of age-of-consent laws?
If the Times receives a submission that describes a consensual sexual encounter
between a student and an older faculty member or administrator, will it decide that it must
inform the institution of a possible violation of institutional regulations? And what happens
if and when prosecutors, having initiated investigations into "gray-zone sex," obtain
supboenas, demanding that the Times turn over its files? Who can doubt that the
Times will comply with court orders, regardless of the consequences for those who are
caught up in the escalating witch hunt?
Second, the call for "gray-zone sex" stories is a shameless effort to make money. In early
February, the Times announced a 46 percent increase in digital subscriptions over the
past year, and its stock price has increased 40 percent since October, the month it published
the allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Reuters wrote, "Subscriptions in the quarter also got
a boost from the newspaper's coverage of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment story, helping
the company post the highest-ever annual subscription revenue of $1 billion." It was also in
October 2017 that the Times announced the position of "gender editor," at which point
Bennett declared that gender "needs to exist throughout every section of the paper."
However, the newspaper has had trouble attracting younger readers who are more likely to
turn to social media and independent websites for news. In 2017, the Times launched
its own Discover section on Snapchat "with the aim of capturing younger demographics,"
Business Insider wrote. The Times 's campaign to broaden the #MeToo campaign
to include "gray-zone sex" stories, with a focus on college campuses, is a part of its filthy
business strategy.
Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the
deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.
Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's
white
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a
long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of
his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey
Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support
Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South
Carolina
Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two
African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.
Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating
white men.
"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President
Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.
"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it
represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench
is necessary for the equal administration of justice."
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on
Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by
starting with their offices.
"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own
staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of
South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.
"... We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input. ..."
We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda
apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions
are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the
input.
Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort,
and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt
that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.
It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and
Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies
makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But
most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths
of the propaganda.
KAYFABE: kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true," specifically the portrayal
of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or pre-determined nature
of any kind.
Kayfabe has also evolved to become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect
presence of the general public.
"... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save your ass
when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. ..."
The White House's handling of the Comey firing looks a lot like a clip from The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight . The
Press Secretary hiding in the bushes, Trump sending virtually his entire staff under the bus with his various and rapidly shifting
versions of his reasons for the firing, and his unhinged Twitter rants at the press for covering the fiasco as a fiasco.
Once again, pundits are talking about impulse control, the ADD Presidency, rank amateurism in the Oval Office, threats to Democracy
-- all the stuff that they talked about in the campaign. The stuff that was supposed to doom his bid for the presidency to failure.
"It's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out."
All of this is grim stuff. We haven't seen a threat to democracy as serious as this since Watergate, so I'm not suggesting that
we shouldn't be addressing it.
But it's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out and also, how
does the focus on Russia undercut the Democratic Party? In other words, what if this is exactly what Trump intended when he fired
Comey? It's worth remembering Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn, who was a master at controlling the narrative and one of his favorite
techniques was to change the subject with an in-your-face outrage of one kind or another.
Let's examine what we're not talking about, and then what the effect of the whole Russian narrative is having on the Democratic
Party.
What We Aren't Talking About
Shortly before Trump tossed in the Comey Molotov Cocktail into the national living room, here's what was dominating the news:
The Republicans in the House had just passed a disastrous Health Care Bill that was essentially a giant tax cut for the rich
and a "screw you" to anyone who actually needs health insurance;
Trump had just put out a "budget" that exploded the deficit and gave huge tax cuts to corporations and the ultra-wealthy;
The Congressional Progressive Caucus had just released a budget that preserved social programs, cut the deficit, and increased
revenues using provisions that are popular with both Republicans and Democrats.
But none of that is being discussed much any longer. And if you ran as a populist, but all your policies are benefitting the top
1%, that's exactly what you'd hope for. Yes, the few Congressional members who are brave enough to hold town meetings are still getting
mugged by outraged constituents, but these meetings are not getting the kind of coverage they would have pre-Comey. And that means
the Health Care Bill isn't getting the kind of serious examination it would have if the media weren't doing all Comey, all the time.
Again, exactly what you'd want if you knew the guts of the legislation were so bad, that if it got out there, even the Trump bobble
heads would be pissed off. So folks aren't talking about the fact that it was rushed to the floor before getting scored by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), before we knew what its effects were and what its ultimate cost could be, before people caught on to the fact
that the state waiver provision stuck in the revised version of the bill turned it from merely a cruel piece of legislation to the
cruelest piece in modern history.
Or take the budget "proposal," which was getting panned by the media and even the few Republicans left in the Senate who actually
are fiscal conservatives. Hell, even Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took issue with some of the cuts. This reprise of "trickle down" and
"supply side" chicanery was being almost universally ridiculed by the press and economists, and it was heavily influenced -- if not
outsourced
to -- the Heritage Foundation, an outfit funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers. Here again, the last thing Trump wants after
running as a populist and a fiscal conservative is to get widespread coverage of just how much this plutocrat's budget resembles
the stuff he railed against in his campaign.
And speaking of budgets, the media once again ignored the sanest budget proposal in Washington, The Congressional Progressive
Caucus's Better Off Budget , which cuts the deficit
by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years -- Trump's budget would have increased it by at least
$1.4 trillion over that time period,
by the way -- while creating 8.8 million new jobs. The Better Off Budget uses policies that are wildly popular with the majority
of Americans to accomplish this.
Now, it must be said that the press always ignores the CPC's budget proposals, but maybe Trump was taking no chances -- after
all, if anyone held them up side-by-side, Trump and the Republicans would have been unmasked as the charlatans they are.
But there's no danger of that when it's all Comey, all the time.
Much is made of the fact that Trump's popularity among those who voted for him hasn't budged, despite the fact that he's screwing
them left and right with his policies. Well, these kinds of maneuvers may explain why. Look back. When the Russian stuff was first
heating up big time, we suddenly just had to bomb Syria. Wagging the dog is a time-honored way to change the subject. So is firing
a controversial senior public servant.
Comey, the Russians, and the Establishment Arm of the Democratic Party
If Trump isn't an idiot, then here's where his tactics are brilliant. The neoliberal elitists who control the Democratic Party
have been trying to keep the focus on the Russian intervention in our election as the reason Hillary Clinton lost. The progressives
in the Party have been attacking the Party's estrangement from the people and its rejection of the New Deal policies as the reason.
In short, there's a battle on for the heart and soul of the Party.
Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to
have about its future.
"Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to
have about its future."
Two things were working to undermine the establishment's hold on the Party until Comey's firing. First, Sanders continued to poll
as the most popular politician in America. Second, people were beginning to realize that it was the content of Secretary Clinton's
emails that hurt her, not the emails per se . And that content revealed the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party.
To wit: the neoliberal belief in small government, the power and goodness of the market, free trade, deregulation, and fiscal austerity
was simply too close to the Republican dogma to generate enough passion among progressives to get a good turnout, and Democrats need
a good turnout to win elections.
But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention from
the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a truly progressive
agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative.
Yeah. What if he's not an idiot?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
"But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention
from the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a
truly progressive agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative."
In my opinion you are right on the mark; especially with your last paragraph. Practically all the ultra rich in the world live
in the same "gated community". Their goal is to control the world's resources and somehow survive the coming mass die-off due
to severe climate disruption. To them their party never ends!
It's possible he's not stupid AND he has zero impulse control. That seems most likely. He's good at subverting the few things
he does think out.
But Democrats have quintupled down on Russia. For them, it's a battle for existence. They were completely exposed, and it's
going to take a lot of "Russia!" to keep that conversation about their profound corruption from taking place.
And Atcheson is also right that this party much prefers losing than giving up its donorship buffet. That's why they do nothing
to correct the course to get more votes. They're relying completely on their corporate media allies to keep the illusion going.
So far it's working, to the great shame of rank and file Democrats.
The D-Party would rather stumble back to electoral victory on the anti-Trump effect than offer policy that might
clash with the wishes of their corporate donors.
Case in point: Single Payer now back-burnered as a distraction from anti-trump hysteria.
Sad to see so many otherwise intelligent commenters here falling for the usual D-Party parlor tricks.
Whether Trump's just lucky or know how to work a room is unimportant. Results matter, and the result is that the important stuff's
not being discussed, and the Greatest Heist In The World continues. Lest we forget, that Heist is NOT just about the USA. There's
a reason they call it 'globalization.'
Corporate bribes, big salaries, perks and tv star jobs will have to be torn from Neoliberal Democrats' cold dead hands.
And Don, Rupert and the rest of Mammon's soldiers will soon have to deal with an Artificial Intelligence that learns in one
day what it took humans 40,000 years to learn. Interesting times.
Anyone who carefully followed the primaries knows that the democratic machine used all kinds of corrupt methods to defeat Bernie
Sanders. And, anyone who follows the general election knows that the election is easily rigged - especially computer voting that
leaves no paper trail and cannot be audited. The hypocrisy of Russians hacking our elections when they are hacked by our own politicians,
and Russians interfering with our elections when our corporate elite have no problem interfering with elections in other countries
all makes me ill. Don't know how many other voters out there are like me, but sure would like to hear from them.
Somehow almost none of this get mentioned in any press, progressive or otherwise.
Trump can't control what he himself thinks. He's been a promoter of the Trump name for 40-50 years. That is a reflex
with him. That is the extent of his thinking. There are many others around him, supporting him. Praising his genius, as this article
is inclined towards, is their means of exploiting his great weakness.
There is nothing behind the scenes. Everything is happening center stage. If you spend your time trying to see behind
the scenes you're going to miss the whole show.
Olhippy May '17
No, the seething undercurrent of the discontented is rarely reported on in the "news". Only when it explodes as in
Missouri riots or Occupy Wall Street takeovers, does it get coverage which is put down by government forces, either civilian or
feds. The Democratic primaries were changed, back in the 70's I believe, after anti-war candidate McCarthy got the nomination
nod. That's when the super delegates came about, so they had more control of things. Expect the GOP too, to change things to keep
future Trumps' from getting the nod.
Wereflea May '17 1
I see Atcheson's point but I think he needs to remember that Trump is a Prince of inherited wealth. Trump may be an idiot
(he really did seem more intelligent before he got elected and then we had a good look at him and listened to his sometimes unintelligible
speech patterns) but he has always been in a position where he delegated authority to people who got paid to be smarter than he
was, so his 'idiocy' didn't show as much.
Trump paid high priced lawyers to arrange his deals. He paid expensive consultants and investment managers and on and on and
all of those people were exceptionally intelligent. He paid someone to ghost write his book for him. Trump makes the same mistakes
as he was always wont to do but back then they were always covered and massaged for him by his staff! After all... he was the
Prince!
The Oval Office is not quite the same as a business conference with his lawyers, assistants, bankers and etc. Thus we see Trump
blurting out statements that his advisors pull him back from as soon as they get the chance . Being president means everything
you say gets publicized and despite all his billions that was not the case for the Prince back when he was just a wheeler and
dealer.
Trump runs without a script too often but who in his entourage will dare tell the Prince that when he speaks (without their
permission first) he ends up sounding like an idiot! Trump may be feeling constrained by his need to be less reckless and impulsive.
Trump unfiltered? Yeah well maybe he really is an idiot too!
Olhippy I think you need to go back and review the history of Democratic primaries. Until 1972 the candidates were
largely chosen in smoke-filled back rooms. George McGovern was instrumental in largely turning the Democratic primaries over to
the voters. And that is how he got the nomination. Unfortunately he only won a single state but he was the people's choice to
run. I wouldn't be concerned about the superdelegates. They always go along with the candidate who got the most pledged delegates.
It is unlikely they would ever do otherwise. Unless the people chose a candidate who was really off the charts like Trump. Without
superdelegates the Republicans were unable to stop Trump once the RNC backed him. Given what happened to the Republicans a case
can be made for the superdelegates. Parties can choose their candidates any way they want. They don't have to let the people vote.
Both parties now do and for the first time that turned into a complete disaster.
Godless May '17
The Comey firing also distracted from the Kushner family peddling visas for real estate deals in China; the Pence-Koback Commission
to make voter cross-checking a federal law; and Sessions reinvigorating the war on drugs and legal marijuana to strike more minority
voters from the rolls. El Presidente Naranja Mentiroso only cares about playing to his base and his base loves watching Democratic
heads explode. As long as his base is happy, and they are happy with his performance, the Reptilians in Congress will be afraid
to move against him. I thoroughly believe that the voter suppression moves will win the Reptilians the elections in 2018 and 2020.
With their control of gerrymandering for another decade and the paid-to-lose Democrats only concerned about donor money, the Reptilians
have clear sailing to gain 38 governorships and the ability to rewrite the constitution in their twisted image.
I agree with you on your points of Trump having smart lawyers, assistants,bankers etc. around him doing the "smart"
work, I am sure he allso used other tactics, of itimidation of one kind or another , taking it to the courts, threats of financial
ruin, he allso wasnt kidding when he said he "knew' the system and how it worked, ..or rather how to work it, but he didnt do
that singlehanded either, and i am sure there are more than one or two politicians at different levels from municipalitys on up,
in his pocket and or good graces.
But to think him not an idiot is getting to be a bit of a stretch, does he really believe that he actually came up with the
phrase "prime the pump"? I knew he was an idiot years before he made fun of the disabled reporter, but that single act confirmed
it for me.
Yeah "prime the pump" what is he going to lay claim to next? "four score and seven years ago" " E=mc2" or how about.."and Trump
said...let there be light"... I 'll tell you who else the idiots are...and that is any one taking this guy seriouslly any longer
at least in a presidentiall sense,... that is just ...idiotic in the extreme.
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are even more moronic than is Drumpf, which is why, as usual, they are serving only
to strengthen the GOPhers while pretending they're defenders of the public. Why do you think that hundred or so Democrats are
signed onto John Conyers' single-payer bill now that Drumpf is in the Oval office and the Republicans hold majorities in both
houses of Congress, when they could have done so when Obama was the chief executive and their party controlled Congress including
a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but instead passed a bill that was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's plan? It's
all so much political theater designed to distract the public from the last great plundering of the nation before it collapses
in on itself.
I'm with you. The whole Russian thing is ridiculous. And they've never been accused of actually hacking voting machines,
just the DNC emails which showed how slimy the DNC is. I have read that Georgia believed someone tried to hack their voting machines
and they hired a private firm to investigate. What they found was hacking was attempted the the Dept of Homeland Security.
The simple fact that, after losing in 2000 by voting manipulation and probably via voting machines in 2004, the Dems took over
the House in 2007 and 2 years later the Presidency and the Senate, they never, to my knowledge, introduced any legislation to
require paper trails in federal elections. As far as I'm concerned that said all one needs to know about the Dems. It would have
been a simple one page piece of legislation, Ok, maybe 2 pages.
Factor in his mafia connections here and abroad. To roll around in that slime at the high level he's in requires
cunning to kiss up to the really rich guys who can hurt him and whom, actually, he can hurt. Then he's learned how to survive
while he manipulates. Idiot? Define the term.
Cunning. Sociopathic. Narcissistic needing his constant narcissistic supply (adorers). Blackmailer and probably blackmailed.
I gotta get Barrett's biography of this POS.
I wore out years ago but it just goes on and on! Lol
Actually at this point in time I am very much engaged in this garbage since Trump is stunningly entertaining as a rightwing
boob out of his element and unraveling as we speak. Trump's adventures in incompetency fascinate me. It is just week after week
in a steady progression of mistakes, attempted corrections, attempts at re-correcting those corrections that make them even worse
and so forth. It would make for an interesting TV show (sort of like the 'apprentice got himself fired') except that this gross
and often crude person can trigger a nuclear war on a whim which puts a damper on the pleasures of watching him deconstruct in
front of our eyes.
Nevertheless, it is without doubt the most unexpected presidency of my life. Watergate was a comeuppance but Trump is bizzaro
world in action.
Btw... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save
your ass when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. He was never a big brain and up until recently,
he never pretended to be.
He is rich and loves being the center of attention. However his being rich is often at the expense of others. You assume that
because Trump has long had shady connections that he must be an intellect to survive the association. Not really. Trump makes
sure that he is profitable for them and they have no problem with that. It isn't genius on his part. It is always having his projects
go way over budget. He guarantees them the cream and they 'have an arrangement'.
Prior to becoming president, Trump's associates, advisors, lawyers and accountants kept Trump making money and that made them
money.
Trump is truly like the medieval Prince who lives in a sumptuous palace but who needs his Grand Vizier to actually run things
in the country. Keep your eye on Kushner who has become the architect of oligarchy by being the real deal maker (he has the intellect)
that Trump only promotes (he has the ego and the big mouth)!
"... The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites. ..."
"... And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself. ..."
"... With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong" by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests". ..."
On New Year's Day, the economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman issued a series of
tweets in which he proclaimed as follows:
The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians
who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites.
and then, a few minutes later:
And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself.
Was I psyched to see this! With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's
the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong"
by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests".
... ... ...
Let me be more explicit. We have just come through an election in which underestimating working-class conservatism in northern
states proved catastrophic for Democrats. Did the pundits' repeated insistence that white working-class voters in the north were
reliable Democrats play any part in this underestimation? Did the message Krugman and his colleagues hammered home for years help
to distract their followers from the basic strategy of Trump_vs_deep_state?
I ask because getting that point wrong was kind of a big deal in 2016. It was a blunder from which it will take the Democratic
party years to recover. And we need to get to the bottom of it.
"... Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser, Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and (undue) respectability. ..."
"... Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that benefit Israel. ..."
"... More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby. So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges. ..."
"... Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis. ..."
"... Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of treatment. And no country in the world deserves it. ..."
"... Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not to be. ..."
"... America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed. ..."
"... When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel. ..."
"... Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100% misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.) ..."
"... The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack of lies. Believe my pack of lies"! ..."
Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media
visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser,
Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as
high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and
(undue) respectability.
Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of
Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though
astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a
Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function
as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that
benefit Israel.
Being a successful neocon doesn't require being right. Not at all. It's all about sending
the right message. Over and over. Evidence be damned. The neocon mission is not about
journalism. It's about advancing the cause: Mideast disruption and a secure Jewish state.
More importantly, Washington's impenetrable array of Zio-centric PACs, money-handlers,
bundlers, fund-raisers, and billionaires want these crypto-Israeli pundits right where they
are–on TV or in the your local newspaper–telling Americans how to feel and what
to think. And Big Media–which happens to be in bed with these same powerful
forces–needs these Zions in place to not only justify the latest Mideast confrontation,
but even ones being planned. It's one big happy effort at group-think, mass deception, and
military conquest. Unfortunately, it's not being presented that way.
So what lies ahead?
More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's
caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby.
So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges.
The first to go was his pledge to normalize US-Russian relations ('make peace' with
Russia) and after that 2) avoid unnecessary wars abroad. That's was a huge reversal. But
Trump did it and few pundits have scolded him for it. The fix is in.
Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of
wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful
Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the
Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis.
So Trump (the President) now sees things differently. Very differently. When it comes to
the Middle East, Trump has been Hillary-ized. This means there's no light between what Israel
desires and what Washington is willing to deliver. The hyper-wealthy, super cohesive,
extraordinarily well-positioned and diabolically cleaver Israeli lobby has Trump over a
barrel. Shocking, yes. But true.
So watch Israel's roughshod expansion continue, along with the typically meek and
accommodating responses from Washington.
Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic
cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of
treatment. And no country in the world deserves it.
What's worse, our 'independent' MSM will be there to sanitize Washington's pro-Israel
shenanigans and basically cheer the whole bloody process on. This is where the Zio-punditry
of Kristol, Cohen, Stephens, Dubowitz, and Co. come in. They soothe the nervous nellies as
they gently justify the death and destruction that come with these military strikes. Media
tactics include:
Don't count enemy war dead. Don't count civilian war dead. Don't count displaced refugees.
Don't connect Europe's immigration crisis to Zio-Washington's destruction of Iraq, Libya and
Syria.
At the same time: Always praise Israeli 'restraint'. Always refer to Israel as a
'democracy'. Sneer and jeer the 'terrorist' Republic of Iran. Treat every Mideast warlord or
rebellion as if it threatens the sanctity of Disneyland or even the next Superbowl. Oh
my!
It's a slick, highly-coordinated, and very manipulative affair. But the magic is working.
Americans are being fooled.
Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did
nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not
to be.
The reason for this phenomena is that Washington's major PACs, syndicates, heavy hitters,
influence peddlers, oligarchs, and Big Money handlers (and who also have their clutches on
our corrupt MSM) want more Mideast disruption.
Why? Israeli 'security'. Israeli 'survival'. Considering Israel's extraordinary military power, this might seem silly. But this is what
the entrenched Israeli lobby desires. And both Parties are listening. To make matters worse, how one 'thinks' and 'talks' about Israel has unacknowledged
limitations and restrictions in Big Washington as well as Big Media.
Diversity of opinion stops at Israel's doorstep. Like it or not, Zionist Israel is the
Third Rail of American discourse. Watch what you say. Even the typically rancorous disputes
between Democrats and Republicans gets warm and fuzzy when Israel's 'special place' in
American life is raised. America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the
quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that
line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed.
So America is stuck with pro-Israel speech codes and a militantly pro-Zionist foreign
policy that has caused immense cost, dislocation, suffering and destruction. It's been
designed that way. And 'outsider' Trump is stuck with it. Few dare examine it.
Here's the short list of Israel's primary Enemies. Significantly, these are the countries
that also get the worst press in American media:
The (anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian) Republic of Iran.
Syria, which still claims land (Golan Heights) stolen by Israel in 1967.
Lebanon (where Hezbollah roams)
Palestine (will they never give up?)
Russia (allied with Iran and Assad's Syria)
N. Korea is even a player here. Iran and N. Korea have allegedly shared nuclear
technology. This infuriates nuclear Israel.
So the Israel angle in this picture is huge. Overwhelmingly so. This is where the
oligarchs, media lords, and corrupt journalists come together.
Thus, Israel's tenured Hasbara brigade in US media will remain firmly in place.
The local DC 'conservative' radio station has Bolton as a guest all the time. Same old neocon
crap that we don't want any more. Bolton had his day 15 years ago and he sucked then; yet,
they keep bringing him on, slobbering all over him ("Ambassador Bolton"), and letting him
blather about blowing up everyone. I still see a lot of online comments about how people
would love to have John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN. Good grief wise up people.
'Stephens' article, entitled Finding the Way Forward on Iran sparkles with throwaway gems
like "Tehran's hyperaggressive foreign policy in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal" and "Real
democracies don't live in fear of their own people" and even "it's not too soon to start
rethinking the way we think about Iran." Or try "A better way of describing Iran's
dictatorship is as a kleptotheocracy, driven by impulses that are by turns doctrinal and
venal."'
Hmmmmm . I can immediately think of another nation to which those strictures are far more
applicable.
"Hyperaggressive foreign policy"
"Kleptocracy"
Sounds more like the USA, doesn't it?
As for "Real democracies don't live in fear of their own people", that's a real home
run.
1. The USA is not, never has been, never will be, and was never meant to be "a real
democracy". (Except by unrealistic visionaries like Jefferson).
When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to
keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel.
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25
people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if
you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have
happened.
If this insanity keeps up, America will either be destroyed by financial collapse from
waging all these wars or we'll stumble into WW III and the last thing we'll see is a mushroom
cloud.
Former Brit PM Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry:
What role did Israel play in the run-up to the Iraq war?
"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going
to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue
at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations
that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major
part of all this."
"Whether print, air, or both the Neocons want to be players. They have the friends in high
–media– places to do it."
– They, neocons, are devoid of dignity. This explains why none of them feels any
responsibility for the mass slaughter in the Middle East -- picture Madeleine Albright near
thousands of tiny corpses of Iraqi children or the piggish Kristol next to the bloody bags
with shredded Syrian children. They are psychopaths, the profiteering psychopaths. There is
no other way to deal with neo/ziocons but through long-term incarceration.
My fine tuning of this excellent article begins, and perhaps ends, with this quote: "The fact
is that Iran is being targeted because Israel sees it as its prime enemy in the region and
has corrupted many "opinion makers" in the U.S., to include Stephens, to hammer home that
point."
The 'corruption' is not recent and is not about any one issue or series of issues. It
springs from Deep Culture. It is part of the WASP worldview.
WASP culture is the direct product of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy always produces culture and politics that are pro-Jewish,
pro-Semitic.
At least by the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually 100% of British Empire Elites
were hardcore pro-Semitic. Most were pro-Jewish, but a large and growing minority were
pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic.
The Saudis are Arabic. The Iranians are NOT Arabic; Iranians are Indo-European.
Siding with both wings of Semitic culture – Jewish and Arabic/Islamic –
against an Indo-European people is exactly what WASP cultural Elites will do. It is roughly
analogous to Oliver Cromwell allying with Jews to wage war against the vast majority of
natives of the British Isles.
Excellent piece. I'd just like to add that Stephens' op-ed in the NYT ought to be view like
Judith Miller's misleading articles about aluminum-tubes-for-nuclear-centrifuges which
appeared in the Times during the run up to the Iraq war: Preparation of the Times' readership
for yet another war in the middle east, this time against Iran.
Ron Unz is another courageous man. I wish and pray to God, that people like Ron Unz,
Philip M. Giraldi, Paul Craig Roberts, Saker and their likes to move away from FAKE NEWS too,
and tell us the TRUTH.
Evil can be fought only with TRUTH ..
Your idea about an article on political Islam by either Ron Unz or Philip M. Giraldi is an
excellent idea, and I am willing to help provided we keep away from sectarianism and stick to
TRUTH. The war the First Caliph abu Bakr which he fought with Yemen's Muslims within six
months of Prophet's demise is very important to show how the rights given by Prophet Mohammad
(saws) were taken away as soon as his demise. Our aim should be to shine the light on the
Prophet. This is what Yemen's war did, just to start with:
1. Prophet did away with excommuniting someone from the fold as he saw a very powerful
tool in the hands of Rabbis and Preacher. Who gave them the right to remove someone from
Synagogue or Church.
2. So abu Bakr came up with much stronger tool, he called all the Yemeni Muslims en masses as
apostate.
3. Brought back the slavery.
4. Claimed that he the Caliph abu Bakr was appointed by Will of Allah through
predestination.
5. Thus, the ideology of ISIS calling everyone kafir, kafir, kafir .. and chopping their
heads.
6. Used Islam as a disguise to bring other countries in to the fold for power and mammon
(money), thus bring Islam by Sword.
The list is extensive and I can go on and on. The divide / confuse / rule was used against
the Muslims.
The objective of the article should be to bring TRUTH about the Prophet.
Don't lose heart, Mark Green. There is a very good chance that Trump is actually with you,
and that he's winning. He cannot afford to be straight at all. His strategy is to take up
highly charged strands of the dominant discourse and to short circuit them. A strong play of
a weak hand. He's run with the demands of Adelson, Netanyahu and Kushner regarding Jerusalem
and other maximal Israeli demands. It's all in response to the worst Jews. The result is that
Shias are united with Sunnis, Hamas with PLO, Iran with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The whole
world against America, Israel and some specks of guano. The Iran caper is the same. The
Pakistan caper even better. Trump gives the military a free hand to show what they can do in
Afghanistan. Then he blows his twitter top to insult Pakistan so there will no longer be a
land route. He's doing his damndest and always failing. What a clueless asshole. Yet every
failure is undoing the empire, and leading to a one-state resolution in Palestine.
That's just the foreign policy part.
By the time he's finished there will be no Democrat party left as we know it, and the GOP
will be transformed as well.
There will be no more Fed. No more debt based currency. A paid off national debt.
And there will be single payer medical coverage.
God willing.
That was a great summary of our foreign policy situation, Mr. Giraldi. You have a lot of guts
to write out all the truth that you see, as you have in all of the articles of yours I've
read on unz.
I really liked this line, too:
To be sure, Iran is a very corrupt place run by people who should not be running a
hot dog stand, but the same applies to the United States and Israel .
I have one question for you, Phil, and this is not hypothetical or snarky – just
looking for your opinion: What do you think the neocons' attitude about the Orient is? I
realize that China is on the road to kicking our ass economically , but
that's the "war" we need to fight, not a military war. Then, there's N. Korea, which, in my
opinion, is none of our business. Rest of the question – Trump seems to get sucked into
the standard invade-the-world mode in the Far East also – do you think that is
neocon-inspired, and, since that part of the world is no threat to Israel, if so, why? Would
they possibly be masking their intentions by expanding the range of their invade-the-world
program?
I don't usually read that filthy rag other than to skim the headlines, but this was just
so bizarre, I couldn't resist. Brooks seems to admit that they (Jewish neocons/Bolsheviks)
are losing the battle to take down Trump. He openly criticizes the media for being so obvious
and self-discrediting.
Is this a total retreat for the neocons / Bolsheviks? Or is Brooks merely rallying the
troops? Or simply a desperate attempt to regain credibility by telling the truth, for a
change?
Or maybe he is preemptively refuting Mr. Giraldi's premise in this piece, a semi-novel
tactic one might call Jewish Preemptive Vengeance getting even BEFORE the fact?
Do some research, Israel and the U.S. deep state blew up 7 buildings at the WTC on 911 and
blew up a section of the pentagram, the Saudis were the patsys , and as corrupt and evil as
the Saudis are they had on part in it.
The Zionist neocons did 911 to set the Mideast wars in motion, do some research, hell
every thinking American knows Israel did it.
Mr. Giraldi has gone after the real power center in America – the Jew controlled US
media. Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100%
misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated
lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.)
Much is said about "Christian Zionists." Why is it, that NO Christian broadcast media
tells the truth about Palestinian suffering? Of course, it is because of Jew media control.
If Christian stations were to tell the truth, there would be a lot less Christian Zionists
– they would be a small segment of Christianity.
Thanks to Mr. Giraldi and others on the internet – more and more people are
listening and learning and getting mad. A base is building. Truth will out!
The more the psychotic control freaks
publically expose themselves, what with social media, the internet, and disenchanted leakers
in their own group the more of humanity wakes up to a great sense of absolute disgust in
them. We, humanity, are gradually winning and the disgusting pyschopaths are losing.
Does Mr Giraldi really expect us to believe that the US internet is any better than the media
outlets he criticizes? The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack
of lies. Believe my pack of lies"!
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have
no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist
Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling
of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump
says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year
during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy
ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or
believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy
is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and
isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."
Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which
specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching
reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth
and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker,
Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great
that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."
Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the
garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump
just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which
the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual
reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just
our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent
that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its
ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.
"... Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West. ..."
"... What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war. ..."
"... As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic. ..."
"... I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples. ..."
Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to
keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled
poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their
job if they weren't surveilling the West.
Victoria Nuland's EU rant was released. Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary
Clinton.
What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged.
Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch
hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the
upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the
mob war.
NemesisCalling , Dec 26, 2017 4:39:00 PM |
36karlof1 , Dec 26, 2017 4:42:57 PM |
37
Name of Me | Dec 26, 2017 12:13:28 PM | 2
The US Government was controlling media well before the CIA's creation. Please take a
little time to learn about George Seldes whose 1929 book You Can't
Print That!: The Truth Behind the News, 1918–1928 is vastly informative with
original copies easy to find under $15, or even online through this link . Indeed,
numerous works of his are digitized. I.F. Stone followed in Seldes's footsteps, and the
website with his collected writings is here . Perhaps one of the least known
episodes of US Government media manipulation was related to the atomic bomb crimes, an event
nearly 100% airbrushed from history books, and of course the ongoing attempt to cover up one
of the biggest crimes of all time.
My mention of media manipulation by the US Government wouldn't be complete without
including the 100% blackout that was to apply to the discussions in Philadelphia that led to
the 1787 Constitution -- the document that elevated the "natural aristocracy" into the
catbird seat ensuring their control of the federal government until it's overthrown via
revolution.
Fortunately, Madison and others kept copious notes that were eventually published long
after the fate of Commoners was sealed, so we know that Aristocracy viewed its contemporary
deplorables no differently than how HRC and today's 1% view them/us.
Americans and much of the rest of the world are the target of an immense psyop . Propaganda
techniques going back to Bernay and WWI have been expanded on and perfected. Infiltration and
control is lot limited to the print media and TV news stations but also , hollywood movies/TV
shows , academia (history, economics, etc) , book publishing, blogs and social media. The
last few bastions of truth will be eliminated with the end of net neutrality.
As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well,
but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission
Accomplished.
"We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to
let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in
foreign countries. One hand will wash the other."
Something I have often thought about. Media and social media tycoons - all could be
taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work
with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic.
I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples.
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. ..."
"... Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." ..."
"... A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones." ..."
"... According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied." ..."
"... "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.] ..."
"... Do you still trust Windows Update? ..."
"... As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. ..."
"... "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here . ..."
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive. ..."
"... Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. ..."
"... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. ..."
"... I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail. ..."
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... 4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices. ..."
"... So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events." ..."
"... My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table. ..."
"... To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out? ..."
"... Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them ..."
"... The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options. ..."
"... "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me. ..."
"... It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours. ..."
"... "These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened." ..."
Yves here. The first
release of the Wikileaks Vault 7 trove has curiously gone from being a MSM lead story yesterday to a handwave today. On the one hand,
anyone who was half awake during the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in full spectrum surveillance and data storage
mode, and members of the Five Eyes back-scratch each other to evade pesky domestic curbs on snooping. So the idea that the CIA (and
presumably the NSA) found a way to circumvent encryption tools on smartphones, or are trying to figure out how to control cars remotely,
should hardly come as a surprise.
However, at a minimum, reminding the generally complacent public that they are being spied on any time they use the Web, and increasingly
the times in between, makes the officialdom Not Happy.
And if this Wikileaks claim is even halfway true, its Vault 7 publication is a big deal:
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero
day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more
than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to
have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided
WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
This is an indictment of the model of having the intelligence services rely heavily on outside contractors. It is far more difficult
to control information when you have multiple organizations involved. In addition, neolibearlism posits that workers are free agents
who have no loyalties save to their own bottom lines (or for oddballs, their own sense of ethics). Let us not forget that
Snowden planned his career job moves
, which included a stint at NSA contractor Dell, before executing his information haul at a Booz Allen site that he had targeted.
Admittedly, there are no doubt many individuals who are very dedicated to the agencies for which they work and aspire to spend
most it not all of their working lives there. But I would assume that they are a minority.
The reason outsiders can attempt to pooh-pooh the Wikileaks release is that the organization redacted sensitive information like
the names of targets and attack machines. The CIA staffers who have access to the full versions of these documents as well as other
major components in the hacking toolkit will be the ones who can judge how large and serious the breach really is. 1 And
their incentives are to minimize it no matter what.
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living
on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow
him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
CIA org chart from the WikiLeaks cache (click to enlarge). "The organizational chart corresponds to the material published
by WikiLeaks so far. Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement
of the EDG [Engineering Development Group] and its branches is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released
so far. It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org
chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently."
* * *
"O brave new world, that has such people in it."
Bottom line first. As you read what's below, consider:
That the CIA is capable of doing all of the things described, and has been for years, is not in doubt.
That unnameable many others have stolen ("exfiltrated") these tools and capabilities is, according to the Wikileaks leaker, also
certain. Consider this an especially dangerous form of proliferation, with cyber warfare tools in the hands of anyone with money
and intent. As WikiLeaks notes, "Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used
by peer states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike."
That the CIA is itself using these tools, and if so, to what degree, are the only unknowns. But can anyone doubt, in this aggressively
militarized environment, that only the degree of use is in question?
Now the story.
WikiLeaks just dropped a huge cache of documents (the first of several promised releases), leaked from a person or people
associated with the CIA in one or more capacities (examples, employee, contractor), which shows an agency out-of-control in its spying
and hacking overreach. Read through to the end. If you're like me, you'll be stunned, not just about what they can do, but that they
would want to do it, in some cases in direct violation of President Obama's orders. This story is bigger than anything you can imagine.
Consider this piece just an introduction, to make sure the story stays on your radar as it unfolds - and to help you identify
those media figures who will try to minimize or bury it. (Unless I missed it, on MSNBC last night, for example, the first mention
of this story was not Chris Hayes, not Maddow, but the Lawrence O'Donnell show, and then only to support his guest's "Russia gave
us Trump" narrative. If anything, this leak suggests a much muddier picture, which I'll explore in a later piece.)
So I'll start with just a taste, a few of its many revelations, to give you, without too much time spent, the scope of the problem.
Then I'll add some longer bullet-point detail, to indicate just how much of American life this revelation touches.
While the cache of documents has been vetted and redacted
, it hasn't been fully explored for implications. I'll follow this story as bits and piece are added from the crowd sourced research
done on the cache of information. If you wish to play along at home, the WikiLeaks
torrent file is here . The torrent's
passphrase is here . WikiLeaks
press release is here (also reproduced below). Their FAQ
is here .
Note that this release covers the years 2013–2016. As WikiLeaks says in its FAQ, "The series is the largest intelligence publication
in history."
Preface - Trump and Our "Brave New World"
But first, this preface, consisting of one idea only. Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies,
agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny
writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons,
the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." Plus Vladimir Putin, whose relationship
with Trump is just "business," an alliance of convenience, if you will.
I have zero sympathy for Donald Trump. But his world is now our world, and with both of his feet firmly planted in spook world,
ours are too. He's in it to his neck, in fact, and what happens in that world will affect every one of us. He's so impossibly erratic,
so impossibly unfit for his office, that everyone on the list above wants to remove him. Many of them are allied, but if they are,
it's also only for convenience.
How do spooks remove the inconvenient and unfit? I leave that to your imagination;they have their ways. Whatever method they choose,
however, it must be one without fingerprints - or more accurately, without their fingerprints - on it.
Which suggests two more questions. One, who will help them do it, take him down? Clearly, anyone and everyone on the list. Second,
how do you bring down the president, using extra-electoral, extra-constitutional means, without bringing down the Republic? I have
no answer for that.
Here's a brief look at "spook world" (my phrase, not the author's) from "
The Fox Hunt " by John
Sevigny:
Several times in my life – as a journalist and rambling, independent photographer - I've ended up rubbing shoulders with
spooks. Long before that was a racist term, it was a catch-all to describe intelligence community people, counter intel types,
and everyone working for or against them. I don't have any special insight into the current situation with Donald Trump and his
battle with the IC as the intelligence community calls itself, but I can offer a few first hand observations about the labyrinth
of shadows, light, reflections, paranoia, perceptions and misperceptions through which he finds himself wandering, blindly. More
baffling and scary is the thought he may have no idea his ankles are already bound together in a cluster of quadruple gordian
knots, the likes of which very few people ever escape.
Criminal underworlds, of which the Trump administration is just one, are terrifying and confusing places. They become
far more complicated once they've been penetrated by authorities and faux-authorities who often represent competing interests,
but are nearly always in it for themselves.
One big complication - and I've written
about this before - is that you never know who's working for whom . Another problem is that the hierarchy of handlers,
informants, assets and sources is never defined. People who believe, for example, they are CIA assets are really just being used
by people who are perhaps not in the CIA at all but depend on controlling the dupe in question. It is very simple - and I have
seen this happen - for the subject of an international investigation to claim that he is part of that operation. [emphasis added]
Which leads Sevigny to this observation about Trump, which I partially quoted above: "Donald Trump may be crazy, stupid, evil
or all three but he knows the knives are being sharpened and there are now too many blades for him to count. The intel people are
against him, as are the counter intel people. His phone conversations were almost certainly recorded by one organization or another,
legal or quasi legal. His enemies include Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU,
every living Democrat and even Rand Paul. Putin is not on his side - that's a business matter and not an alliance."
Again, this is not to defend Trump, or even to generate sympathy for him - I personally have none. It's to characterize where
he is, and we are, at in this pivotal moment. Pivotal not for what they're doing, the broad intelligence community. But pivotal for
what we're finding out, the extent and blatancy of the violations.
All of this creates an incredibly complex story, with only a tenth or less being covered by anything like the mainstream press.
For example, the Trump-Putin tale is much more likely to be part of a much broader "international mobster" story, whose participants
include not only Trump and Putin, but Wall Street (think HSBC) and major international banks, sovereign wealth funds, major hedge
funds, venture capital (vulture capital) firms, international drug and other trafficking cartels, corrupt dictators and presidents
around the world and much of the highest reaches of the "Davos crowd."
Much of the highest reaches of the .01 percent, in other words, all served, supported and "curated" by the various, often competing
elements of the first-world military and intelligence communities. What a stew of competing and aligned interests, of marriages and
divorces of convenience, all for the common currencies of money and power, all of them
dealing in
death .
What this new WikiLeaks revelation shows us is what just one arm of that community, the CIA, has been up to. Again, the breadth
of the spying and hacking capability is beyond imagination. This is where we've come to as a nation.
What the CIA Is Up To - A Brief Sample
Now about those CIA spooks and their surprising capabilities. A number of
other outlets have written up the story, but
this
from Zero Hedge has managed to capture the essence as well as the breadth in not too many words (emphasis mine throughout):
WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release
of confidential documents on the CIA It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of 'Vault 7', a series of leaks on the agency,
which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center
For Cyber Intelligence in Langley , and which can be seen on the org
chart below, which Wikileaks also released : [org
chart reproduced above]
A total of 8,761 documents have been published
as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said
that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company
products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs
, which are turned into covert microphones."
WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley,
Virginia.
Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, "
would rock the technology world ", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services
such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate
Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied."
With respect to hacked devices like you smart phone, smart TV and computer, consider the concept of putting these devices in "fake-off"
mode:
Among the various techniques profiled by WikiLeaks is "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB),
which infests smart TVs , transforming them into covert microphones. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target
TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode , so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates
as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.
As Kim Dotcom chimed in on Twitter, "CIA turns Smart TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles and many other consumer gadgets into open
microphones" and added "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand,
including via Windows update "[.]
Do you still trust Windows Update?
About "Russia did it"
Adding to the "Russia did it" story, note this:
Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant
. Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial
library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.["]
As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, " CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy
state ."
This doesn't prove that Russia didn't do it ("it" meaning actually hacking the presidency for Trump, as opposed to providing
much influence in that direction), but again, we're in spook world, with all the phrase implies. The CIA can clearly put anyone's
fingerprints on any weapon they wish, and I can't imagine they're alone in that capability.
Hacking Presidential Devices?
If I were a president, I'd be concerned about this, from the WikiLeaks "
Analysis " portion of the Press Release (emphasis added):
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments [that the intelligence community would
reveal to device manufacturers whatever vulnerabilities it discovered]. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal
are pervasive [across devices and device types] and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" [that it] is able to penetrate, infest and control both the
Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts . The CIA attacks this software by using
undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA[,] but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone
else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and
Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.
Does or did the CIA do this (hack presidential devices), or is it just capable of it? The second paragraph implies the latter.
That's a discussion for another day, but I can say now that both Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Colin Powell and a non-partisan (though
an admitted Republican) expert in these matters, and
William Binney,
one of the triumvirate of major pre-Snowden leakers, think emphatically yes. (See
Wilkerson's
comments here . See
Binney's comments here .)
Whether or not you believe Wilkerson and Binney, do you doubt that if our intelligence people can do something, they would
balk at the deed itself, in this
world of "collect it all
"? If nothing else, imagine the power this kind of bugging would confer on those who do it.
The Breadth of the CIA Cyber-Hacking Scheme
But there is so much more in this Wikileaks release than suggested by the brief summary above. Here's a bullet-point overview
of what we've learned so far, again via Zero Hedge:
Key Highlights from the Vault 7 release so far:
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of
"zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products , include Apple's iPhone,
Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized
"zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation . This extraordinary collection, which
amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The
archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one
of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI),
had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other
"weaponized" malware . Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than
that used to run Facebook.
The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question
as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds , to be used by rival states, cyber
mafia and teenage hackers alike.
Also this scary possibility:
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks.
The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations
.
Journalist Michael Hastings, who in 2010
destroyed the career of General
Stanley McChrystal and was hated by the military for it, was killed in 2013 in an inexplicably out-of-control car. This isn't
to suggest the CIA, specifically, caused his death. It's to ask that, if these capabilities existed in 2013, what would prevent their
use by elements of the military, which is, after all a death-delivery organization?
And lest you consider this last speculation just crazy talk, Richard Clarke (that
Richard Clarke ) agrees: "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism
chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush,
told the Huffington
Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating
article here .
WiliLeaks Press Release
Here's what WikiLeaks itself says about this first document cache (again, emphasis mine):
Press Release
Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault
7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero
day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more
than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to
have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided
WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of
"zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android
and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA
found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own
substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations
to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's
Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over
5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware.
Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The
CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether
such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public
, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.
The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia
and teenage hackers alike.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'.
Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain
them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the
choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."
Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the
distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and
how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.
Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some
identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack
machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen,
we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero")
already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.
Be sure to click through for the Analysis, Examples and FAQ sections
as well.
"O brave new world," someone once wrote . Indeed.
Brave new world, that only the brave can live in.
____
1 Mind you, the leakers may have had a comprehensive enough view to be making an accurate call. But the real point
is there are no actors who will be allowed to make an independent assessment.
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump
campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.
The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump's relationship with Moscow. They were
drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published
the documents, which it said were "unverified and potentially unverifiable".
The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents' contents,
Emphases mine. I had been sitting on this link trying to make sense of this part. Clearly, the Trump Whitehouse has some major
leaks, which the MSM is exploiting. But the start of this article suggests that para-intelligence (is that a word? Eh, it is now)
was the source of the allegedly damaging info.
This is no longer about the deep-state, but a rouge state, possibly guns for higher, each having fealty to specific political
interests. The CIA arsenal wasn't leaked. It was delivered.
hmm.. as far as I can see, noone seems to care here in Germany anymore about being spied on by our US friends, apart from a
few alternative sources which are being accused of spreading fake news, of being anti-american, russian trolls, the matter is
widely ignored
I have read a few articles about the Vault 7 leak that typically raise a few alarms I would like to comment on.
1) The fact that the
CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services
does not mean that it has broken encryption, just that it has a way to install a program at a lower level, close to the operating
system, that will read messages before they are encrypted and sent by the messaging app, or just after they
have been decrypted by it.
As a side note: banks have now largely introduced two-factor authentication when accessing online services. One enters username
(or account number) and password; the bank site returns a code; the user must then enter this code into a smartphone app or a
tiny specialized device, which computes and returns a value out of it; the user enters this last value into the entry form as
a throw-away additional password, and gains access to the bank website.
I have always refused to use such methods on a smartphone and insist on getting the specialized "single-use password computer",
precisely because the smartphone platform can be subverted.
2) The fact that
"Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), [ ] infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert
microphones.
is possible largely because smart TVs are designed by their manufacturers to serve as spying devices. "Weeping Angel" is not
some kind of virus that turns normal devices into zombies, but a tool to take control of existing zombie devices.
The fact that smart TVs from
Vizio ,
Samsung or
LG constitute an outrageous intrusion into the privacy of their owners has been a known topic for years already.
3) The
CIA [ ] also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks
is not a "scary possibility" either; various demonstrations of such feats on
Tesla ,
Nissan , or
Chrysler vehicles have been demonstrated in the past few years.
And the consequences have already been suggested (killing people by disabling their car controls on the highway for instance).
My take on this is that we should seriously look askance not just at the shenanigans of the CIA, but at the entire "innovative
technology" that is imposed upon (computerized cars) or joyfully adopted by (smartphones) consumers. Of course, most NC readers
are aware of the pitfalls already, but alas not the majority of the population.
4) Finally this:
He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office,
Trump is arguably unfit for office, does not have a clue about many things (such as foreign relations), but by taxing him of
being "erratic" Gaius Publius shows that he still does not "get" the Donald.
Trump has a completely different modus operandi than career politicians, formed by his experience as a real-estate mogul and
media star. His world has been one where one makes outrageous offers to try anchoring the negotiation before reducing one's claims
- even significantly, or abruptly exiting just before an agreement to strike a deal with another party that has been lured to
concessions through negotiations with the first one. NC once included a video of Trump doing an interactive A/B testing of his
slogans during a campaign meeting; while changing one's slogans on the spot might seem "erratic", it is actually a very systematic
market probing technique.
So stop asserting that Trump is "unpredictable" or "irrational"; this is underestimating him (a dangerous fault), as he is
very consistent, though in an uncommon fashion amongst political pundits.
While I agree that it's worth pointing out that the CIA has not broken any of the major encryption tools, even Snowden regards
being able to circumvent them as worse, since people using encryption are presumably those who feel particularly at risk and will
get a false sense of security and say things or keep data on their devices that they never never would if they thought they were
insecure.
Re Gaius on Trump, I agree the lady doth protest too much. But I said repeatedly that Trump would not want to be President
if he understood the job. It is not like being the CEO of a private company. Trump has vastly more control over his smaller terrain
in his past life than he does as President.
And Trump is no longer campaigning. No more a/b testing.
The fact is that he still does not have effective control of the Executive branch. He has lots of open positions in the political
appointee slots (largely due to not having even submitted candidates!) plus has rebellion in some organizations (like folks in
the EPA storing data outside the agency to prevent its destruction).
You cannot pretend that Trump's former MO is working at all well for him. And he isn't showing an ability to adapt or learn
(not surprising at his age). For instance, he should have figured out by now that DC is run by lawyers, yet his team has hardly
any on it. This is continuing to be a source of major self inflicted wounds.
His erraticness may be keeping his opponents off base, but it is also keeping him from advancing any of his goals.
Yes, not breaking encryption is devious, as it gives a false sense of security - this is precisely why I refuse to use those
supposedly secure e-banking login apps on smartphones whose system software can be subverted, and prefer those non-connected,
non-reprogrammable, special-purpose password generating devices.
As for Trump being incompetent for his job, and his skills in wheeling-dealing do not carrying over usefully to conducting
high political offices, that much is clear. But he is not "erratic", rather he is out of place and out of his depth.
I am writing this in the shower with a paper bag over my head and my iPhone in the microwave.
I have for years had a password-protected document on computer with all my important numbers and passwords. I have today deleted
that document and reverted to a paper record.
I think he means a machine dedicated to high-security operations like anything financial or bill-pay. Something that is not
exposed to email or web-browsing operations that happen on a casual-use computer that can easily compromise. That's not a bad
way to go; it's cheaper in terms of time than the labor-intensive approaches I use, but those are a hobby more than anything else.
It depends on how much you have at stake if they get your bank account or brokerage service password.
I take a few basic security measures, which would not impress the IT crowd I hang out with elsewhere, but at least would not
make me a laughingstock. I run Linux and use only open-source software; run ad-blockers and script blockers; confine risky operations,
which means any non-corporate or non-mainstream website to a virtual machine that is reset after each use; use separate browsers
with different cookie storage policies and different accounts for different purposes. I keep a well-maintained pfSense router
with a proxy server and an intrusion detection system, allowing me to segregate my secure network, home servers, guest networks,
audiovisual streaming and entertainment devices, and IoT devices each on their own VLANs with appropriate ACLs between them. No
device on the more-secured network is allowed out to any port without permission, and similar rules are there for the IoT devices,
and the VoIP tools.
The hardware to do all of that costs at least $700, but the real expense is in the time to learn the systems properly. Of course
if you use Linux, you could save that on software in a year if you are too cheap to send a contribution to the developers.
It's not perfect, because I still have computers turned on :) , but I feel a bit safer this way.
That said, absolutely nothing that I have here would last 30 milliseconds against anything the "hats" could use, if they wanted
in. It would be over before it began. If I had anything to hide, really, I would have something to fear; so guess I'm OK.
They're key fobs handed to you by your IT dept. The code displayed changes every couple of minutes. The plus is there's nothing
sent over the air. The minus is the fobs are subject to theft, and are only good for connecting to 'home'. And since they have
a cost, and need to be physically handed to you, they're not good fit for most two factor login applications (ie logging into
your bank account).
I watched (fast forwarded through, really) Morning Joe yesterday to see what they would have to say about Wikileaks. The show
mostly revolved around the health care bill and Trump's lying and tweeting about Obama wiretapping him. They gave Tim Kaine plenty
of time to discuss his recent trip to London talking to "some of our allies there" saying that they are concerned that "all the
intelligence agencies" say the Rooskies "cyber hacked" our election, and since it looks like we aren't doing anything when we
are attacked, they KNOW we won't do anything when they are attacked. (more red baiting)
The only two mentions I saw was about Wikileaks were, first, a question asked of David Cohen, ex Deputy Director of the CIA,
who refused to confirm the Wikileaks were authentic, saying whatever tools and techniques the CIA had were used against foreign
persons overseas, so there is no reason to worry that your TV is looking at you. And second, Senator Tom Cotton, who didn't want
to comment on the contents of Wikileaks, only saying that the CIA is a foreign intelligence service, collecting evidence on foreign
targets to keep our country safe, and it does not do intelligence work domestically.
So that appears to be their story, the CIA doesn't spy on us, and they are sticking with it, probably hoping the whole Wikileaks
thing just cycles out of the news.
The unwillingness of the main stream media (so far) to really cover the Wikileaks reveal is perhaps the bigger story. This
should be ongoing front page stuff .. but it is not.
As for using ZeroHedge as a source for anything, can we give that a rest. That site has become a cesspool of insanity. It used
to have some good stuff. Now it is just unreadable. SAD
And yes I know the hypocrisy of slamming ZH and the MSM at the same time we live in interesting times.
Your remarks on ZH are an ad hominem attack and therefore a violation of site policies. The onus is on you to say what ZH got
wrong and not engage in an ungrounded smear. The mainstream media often cites ZH.
NC more than just about any other finance site is loath to link to ZH precisely because it is off base or hyperventilating
a not acceptably high percent of the time, and is generally wrong about the Fed (as in governance and how money works). We don't
want to encourage readers to see it as reliable. However, it is good on trader gossip and mining Bloomberg data.
And I read through its summary of the Wikileaks material as used by Gaius and there was nothing wrong with it. It was careful
about attributing certain claims to Wikileaks as opposed to depicting them as true.
My rules for reading ZH:
1- Skip every article with no picture
2- Skip every article where the picture is a graph
3- Skip every article where the picture is of a single person's face
4- Skip every afticle where the picture is a cartoon
5- Skip every article about gold, BitCoin, or high-frequency trading
6- Skip all the "Guest Posts"
7- ALWAYS click through to the source
8- NEVER read the comments
It is in my opinion a very high noise-to-signal source, but there is some there there.
Discerning a 'news from noise' is NEVER that easy b/c it is an art, developed by years of shifting through ever increasing
'DATA information' load. This again has to be filtered and tested against one's own 'critical' thinking or reasoning! You have
to give ZH, deserved credit, when they are right!
There is no longer a Black or white there, even at ZH! But it is one of the few, willing to challenge the main stream narrative
'kool aid'
In addition to the "para-intelligence" community (hat tip Code named D) there are multiple enterprises with unique areas of
expertise that interface closely with the CIA The long-exposed operations, which include entrapment and blackmailing of key actors
to guarantee complicity, "loyalty" and/or sealed lips, infect businesses, NGOs, law enforcement agencies, judges, politicians,
and other government agencies. Equal opportunity employment for those with strong stomachs and a weak moral compass.
Yes I can't remember where I read it but it was a tale passed around supposedly by an FBI guy that had, along with his colleagues,
the job of vetting candidates for political office. They'd do their background research and pass on either a thick or thin folder
full of all the compromising dirt on each potential appointee. Over time he said he was perturbed to notice a persistent pattern
where the thickest folders were always the ones who got in.
I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being
imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?"
and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they
have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that
you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics,
on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always
blackmail.
I find the notion that my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones somewhat irritating, but my imagination quickly runs
off to far worse scenarios. (although the popular phase, "You're tax dollars at work." keeps running thru my head like a earworm.
And whenever I hear "conservatives" speak of their desire for "small government", usually when topics of health care, Medicare
and social security come up, I can only manage a snort of incredulousness anymore)
One being malware penetrating our nuke power plants and shutting down the cooling system. Then the reactor slowly overheats
over the next 3 days, goes critical, and blows the surrounding area to high heaven. We have plants all around the coast of the
country and also around the Great Lakes Region – our largest fresh water store in a drought threatened future.
Then the same happening in our offensive nuke missile systems.
Some other inconvenient truths – the stuxnet virus has been redesigned. Kaspersky – premier anti malware software maker – had
a variant on their corporate network for months before finally discovering it. What chance have we?
In China, hacking is becoming a consumer service industry. There are companies building high power data centers with a host
of hacking tools. Anyone, including high school script kiddies, can rent time to use the sophisticated hacking tools, web search
bots, and whatever, all hosted on powerful servers with high speed internet bandwidth.
Being a bit "spooked" by all this, I began to worry about my humble home computer and decided to research whatever products
I could get to at least ward off annoying vandalism. Among other things, I did sign up for a VPN service. I'm looking at the control
app for my VPN connection here and I see that with a simple checkbox mouse click I can make my IP address appear to be located
in my choice of 40 some countries around the world. Romania is on the list!
Actually, I very much doubt that does work. The mic "pickup" would feed its analog output to a DAC (digital to analog converter)
which would convert the signal to digital. This then goes to something similar to a virtual com port in the operating system.
Here is where a malware program would pick it up and either create a audio file to be sent to an internet address, or stream it
directly there.
The article is just plugging in a microphone at the output jack. The malware got the data long before it goes thru another
DAC and analog amp to get to the speakers or output jack.
It depends on how it is hooked up internally. Old fashioned amateur radio headphones would disable the speakers when plugged
in because the physical insertion of the plug pushed open the connection to the speakers. The jack that you plug the ear buds
into might do the same, disconnecting the path between the built-in microphone and the ADC (actually it is an ADC not a DAC).
The only way to know is to take it apart and see how it is connected.
The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US is also the panacea for the public. And some are buying it. Along with everyone
knows they can do this is fueling the NOTHING to see here keep walking weak practically non existent coverage.
At what point do people quit negotiating in terrorism and errorism? For this is what the police, the very State itself has
long been. Far beyond being illegitimate, illegal, immoral, this is a clear and ever present danger to not just it's own people,
but the rule of law itself. Blanket statements like we all know this just makes the dangerously absurd normal I'll never understand
that part of human nature. But hey, the TSA literally just keeps probing further each and every year. Bend over!
Trump may not be the one for the task but we the people desperately need people 'unfit', for it is the many fit who brought
us to this point. His unfit nature is as refreshing on these matters in its chaotic honest disbelief as Snowden and Wiki revelations.
Refreshing because it's all we've got. One doesn't have to like Trump to still see missed opportunity so many should be telling
him he could be the greatest pres ever if (for two examples) he fought tirelessly for single payer and to bring down this police
state rather than the EPA or public education.
This cannot stand on so many levels. Not only is the fourth amendment rendered utterly void, but even if it weren't it falls
far short of the protections we deserve.
No enemy could possibly be as bad as who we are and what we allow/do among ourselves. If an election can be hacked (not saying
it was by Russia).. as these and other files prove anything can and will be hacked then our system is to blame, not someone else.
What amazes me is that the spooks haven't manufactured proof needed to take Trump out of office Bonfire of The Vanities style.
I'd like to think the people have moved beyond the point they would believe manufactured evidence but the Russia thing proves
otherwise.
These people foment world war while probing our every move and we do nothing!
If we wait for someone fit nothing will ever change because we wait for the police/media/oligarch state to tell us who is fit.
But being fit by the standards of our ruling class, the "real owners" as Carlin called them is, in my book, an automatic proof
that they are up to no good. Trump is not my cup of tea as a president but no one we have had in a while wasn't clearly compromised
by those who fund them. Did you ever wonder why we have never had a president or even a powerful member of congress that was not
totally in the tank for that little country on the Eastern Mediterranean? Or the Gulf Monarchies? Do you think that is by accident?
Do you think money isn't involved? Talk about hacked elections! We should be so lucky as to have ONLY Russians attempting to affect
our elections. Money is what hacks US elections and never forget that. To me it is laughable to discuss hacking the elections
without discussing the real way our "democracy" is subverted–money not document leaks or voting machine hacks. It's money.
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on Trump's list? Iran that has never been involved in a terrorist act on US soil is but not Saudi Arabia?
How many 911 hijackers came from Iran? If anything saves Trump from destruction by the real owners of our democracy it is his
devotion to the aforementioned countries.
The point again is not to remove him from office but to control him. With Trump's past you better believe the surveillance
state has more than enough to remove him from office. Notice the change in his rhetoric since inauguration? More and more he is
towing the establishment Republican line. Of course this depends on whether you believe Trump is a break with the past or just
the best liar out there. A very unpopular establishment would be clever in promoting their agent by pretending to be against him.
Anyone who still believes that the US is a democratic republic and not a mafia state needs to stick their heads deeper into
the sands. When will the low information voters and police forces on whom a real revolution depends realize this is anyone's guess.
The day is getting closer especially for the younger generation. The meme among the masses is that government has always been
corrupt and that this is nothing new. I do believe the level of immorality among the credentialed classes is indeed very new and
has become the new normal. Generations of every man for himself capitalist philosophy undermining any sense of morality or community
has finally done its work.
Go take a jaunt over to huffpo, at the time of this post there was not a single mention of vault 7 on the front page. Just
a long series of anti trump administration articles.
Glad to know for sure who the true warmongers were all along.
No.. The Church commission was a sweep it under the rug operation. It got us FISA courts. More carte blanche secrecy, not less.
The commission nor the rest of the system didn't even hold violators of the time accountable.
We have files like Vault 7. Commissions rarely get in secret what we have right here before our eyes.
River: Interesting historic parallel? I believe that the Ottomans got rid of the Janissaries that way, after the Janissaries
had become a state within a state, by using cannons on their HQ
From Wiki entry, Janissaries:
The corps was abolished by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 in the Auspicious Incident in which 6,000 or more were executed.[8]
Took less than a minute to download the 513.33MB file. The passphrase is what JFK said he'd like to do to CIA: SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds.
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, 1975.
The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates.
A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized
by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something
that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and
the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.
The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would
be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed,
Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward
Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.
And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.
We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This
is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with
subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.
What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus,
one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.
Yeah I downloaded it the day it came out and spent an hour or so looking at it last night. First impressions – "heyyy this
is like a Hackers Guide – the sort I used in the 80s, or DerEngel's Cable Modem Hacking" of the 00s.
2nd impressions – wow it really gives foundational stuff – like "Enable Debug on PolarSSL".
3rd impressions – "I could spend hours going thru this happily ".
4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just
a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original
firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK.
Its quite fascinating. But trying to find the "juicy stuff" is going to be tedious. One can spend hours and hours going thru
it. To speed up going thru it, I'm going to need some tech sites to say "where to go".
It seems clear that Wikileaks has not and will not release actual ongoing method "how-to" info or hacking scripts. They are
releasing the "whats", not the tech level detailed "hows". This seems like a sane approach to releasing the data. The release
appears to be for political discussion, not for spreading the hacking tools. So I wouldn't look for "juicy bits" about detailed
methodology. Just my guess.
That said, love what you're doing digging into this stuff. I look forward to a more detailed report in future. Thanks.
Yves, I think that you much underestimate the extremity of these exposed violations of the security of freedom of expression,
and of the security of private records. The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device
microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your
private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows
10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices.
This goes far beyond the kind of snooping that required specialized devices installed near the target, which could be controlled
by warrant process. There is no control over this extreme spying. It is totalitarianism now.
This is probably the most extreme violation of the rights of citizens by a government in all of history. It is far worse than
the "turnkey tyranny" against which Snowden warned, on the interception of private messages. It is tyranny itself, the death of
democracy.
Your first sentence is a bit difficult to understand. If you read Yves' remarks introducing the post, she says that the revelations
are "a big deal" "if the Wikileaks claim is even halfway true," while coming down hard on the MSM and others for "pooh-pooh[ing]"
the story. Did you want her to add more exclamation points?
So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military
refers to as "being overtaken by events."
It's easy to gather information; not so easy to analyze it, and somehow impossible to act on it in good faith. With all this
ability to know stuff and surveil people the big question is, Why does everything seem so beyond our ability to control it?
We should know well in advance that banks will fail catastrophically; that we will indeed have sea level rise; that resources
will run out; that water will be undrinkable; that people will be impossible to manipulate when panic hits – but what do we do?
We play dirty tricks, spy on each other like voyeurs, and ignore the inevitable. Like the Stasi, we clearly know what happened,
what is happening and what is going to happen. But we have no control.
My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects
there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is
aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table.
AS, I would interpret it as saying that there was so much coming in it was like trying to classify snowflakes in a snowstorm.
They could pick a few subject areas to look at closely but the rest just went into the files.
Leaking like a sieve is also likely, but perhaps not the main point.
The archive appears to have been circulated among government hackers and contractors in a authorized manner
There, that looks the more likely framing considering CIA & DNI on behalf of the whole US IC seemingly fostered wide dissimilation
of these tools, information. Demonstration of media control an added plus.
Todd Pierce , on the other hand, nails it. (From his Facebook page.)
The East German Stasi could only dream of the sort of surveillance the NSA and CIA do now, with just as nefarious of purposes.
Perhaps the scare quotes around "international mobster" aren't really necessary.
In all this talk about the various factions aligned with and against Trump, that's one I haven't heard brought up by anybody.
With all the cement poured in Trump's name over the years, it would be naive to think his businesses had not brushed up against
organized crime at some point. Question is, whose side are they on?
Like all the other players, the "side" they are on is them-effing-selves. And isn't that the whole problem with our misbegotten
species, writ large?
Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hzds9aGdA
Maybe these people will be around and still eating after us urban insects and rodents are long gone? Or will our rulers decide
no one should survive if they don't?
To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats
worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out?
I've long thought that the reason Snowden was pursued so passionately was that he exposed the biggest, most embarrassing secret:
that the National "Security" Agency's INTERNAL security was crap.
And here it is: "Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal "
The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release.
We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation,
it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it,
was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the
past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't
kill him or his family. That being one of their options.
Ah, that's the beauty of contracting it out. No one gets fired. Did anyone get fired because of Snowden? It was officially
a contractor problem and since there are only a small number of contractors capable of doing the work, well you know. We can't
get new ones.
What I find by far the most distressing is this: "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability
." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is
intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Republic is lost because we didn't stand guard for it. Blaming others don't cut
it either – we let it happen. And like the Germans about the Nazi atrocities, we will say that we didn't know about it.
Hey, I didn't let it happen. Stuff that spooks and sh!tes do behind the Lycra ™ curtain happens because it is, what is the
big word again, "ineluctable." Is my neighbor to blame for having his house half eaten by both kinds of termites, where the construction
is such that the infestation and damage are invisible until the vast damage is done?
And just how were we supposed to stand guard against a secret and unaccountable organization that protected itself with a shield
of lies? And every time some poor misfit complained about it they were told that they just didn't know the facts. If they only
knew what our IC knows they would not complain.
It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place
the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be
yours.
Studiously avoid any military celebrations. Worship of the military is part of the problem. Remember, the people you thank
for "their service" are as much victims as you are. Sadly they don't realize that their service is to a rotten empire that is
not worthy of their sacrifice but every time we perform the obligatory ritual of thankfulness we participate in the lie that the
service is to a democratic country instead of an undemocratic empire.
It's clearly a case of Wilfred Owen's classic "Dulce et Decorum Est". Read the poem, google it and read it. It is instructive:
" you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria
mori." Make no mistake. It is a lie and it can only be undone if we all cease to tell it.
"These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward
Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from
virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears
to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's
box has been opened."
Yes, it can be used for that , but often the goal is to channel, and contain the thinking
from or to whatever, not degrade. Using modern neoliberal economics as an example. The older
19th and early 20th century mainstream political economy were deeper, more comprehensive, and
often better at explaining economics. It was also called political economy, and not just
economics for that reason.
There was a real financed campaign to narrow the focus on what we call economics today.
Part of that effort was to label people very narrowly as just economic beings, which is what
libertarianism is, and to label economic thought outside of it as socialism/communism, which
is Stalinism, which is the gulag, which is bad thought. The economists studying this were
just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the idea, the worm of
people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment of anything else,
the inability to even see anything else.
I sometimes think some are against the masses getting any higher education because one is
exposed to other ways of thinking, and believing. A student might never change their beliefs,
but the mind is expanded for considering the possibilities and at looking at where others are
coming from. Those mindworms are also more obvious, and less useful.
So you could be ninety year blockhead, but if you are willing to listen, to think on what
you are exposed to in college, your mind is expanded and strengthen. Which is perhaps the
main goal of a liberal arts education. Even a very hard college education will still have
some of the same effect.
"The economists studying this were just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the
idea, the worm of people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment
of anything else, the inability to even see anything else."
So would you say identity politics is the same thing in reverse? Intelligent people
looking at issues from every perspective but that of money and economics?
Yes, as it is used now. It can be very important, but what I have against identity
politics as it is done today is that it is the first and last answer to everything. Many
people can see, they just think one's identity is paramount. MLK said it best when he talked
about being judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their
skin.
Please keep in mind that the identity being used could anything. Your sex, gender,
orientation, age, class, religion, anything.
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
"... "[T]he majority of students had no idea that algorithms were filtering the news content they saw on Facebook and Google. When asked if Facebook shows every news item, posted by organizations or people, in a users' newsfeed, only 24 percent of those surveyed were aware that Facebook prioritizes certain posts and hides others. Similarly, only a quarter of respondents said Google search results would be different for two different people entering the same search terms at the same time" ..."
"Platforms are not strategies, and they won't save news" [Mary Hamilton, Medium
]. "Seriously. If someone else's algorithm change could kill your traffic and/or your business
model, then you're already dead."
"Building trust online by partnering with the International Fact Checking Network" [
Google ]. Google (and Facebook) have more money than God. How come they have to outsource
this stuff? Nevertheless: "Today we're announcing a new partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network
(IFCN) at The Poynter Institute. As a nonpartisan organization, IFCN is committed to promoting
excellence in fact checking and building a community of fact checkers around the world. IFCN
has developed a widely accepted Code of Principles for fact check organizations. Signatories
range from the Associated Press to the Washington Post, PolitiFact and Factcheck.org, to
Correctiv (Germany), Aos Fatos (Brazil), and Africa Check."
"[T]he majority of students had no idea that algorithms were filtering the news content they
saw on Facebook and Google. When asked if Facebook shows every news item, posted by
organizations or people, in a users' newsfeed, only 24 percent of those surveyed were aware
that Facebook prioritizes certain posts and hides others. Similarly, only a quarter of
respondents said Google search results would be different for two different people entering the
same search terms at the same time" [
The Atlantic ].
"... Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine she'll be -- and the more she'll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorning pussy dunce-caps on the same occasion. ..."
"... By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty. The sluts among us don't. On social media, women outstrip men in the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches, and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, "I Own It." ..."
"... men are punished when they react normally to women behaving badly ..."
"... So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that "protesters" routinely disrobe or perform lewd acts with objects in public. Vladimir Putin is a great man if only for arresting a demented band of performance artists, Pussy Riot, for desecrating a Russian church. ..."
"... If men flashed for freedom; they'd be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex Offender Registry. ..."
"... haute couture, ..."
"... Feminism promises women empowerment. However, there is a pornographic side to the promise. There are legions of women trying to give the world a hard-on for attention, money, status, etc. When the world reacts, as in the story, they say, "Don't touch me what do you think I am?" ..."
"... What's the big difference between Weinstein and former president Bill Clinton except that one was the frickin president of the US? Clinton used his various positions throughout the years to intimidate women, from the days of using Arkansas state troopers to act as procurers for him to later using federal agencies to harass them into shutting up. His wife Hillary, the almost-president, ran interference for him in muzzling the various women who might have spilled the beans. The Clintons postured themselves as champions of women's rights even as the reality of this sleazy couple was really tawdry. Weinstein was just a studio boss with money and film roles to dispense to a never-ending line of wannabe actresses. He fits right in with the Clintons as part of the Hollywood celebrity and glitz crowd and Hillary would never have called him a "deplorable". Yet even now there's many people who are Clinton fans and supporters even as they hypocritically play this game of 'get the fat guy'. The Clintons are a hundred times worse. ..."
"... You do not need philosophy to explain a love for money. Whether the profiteering Kardashians or the profiteering Madonna (and a legion of her imitators), these women did the indecent, lewd, into-your-face pornographic performances for financial gains. They have been denigrating themselves (and other women, by association) for money. They wanted the money. By any means. ..."
"... That the US government has extolled the deeply amoral Pussy Riot scum tells a lot about the moral crisis in the US, including the unending and very expensive wars of aggression run by the country that has no money for a single-payer medical system. ..."
"... Yes, the culture today is far, far more crass and degenerate than say, in the 50s, when Leave it to Beaver played on America's TVs, and Norman Rockwell and all that. But what has happened to our culture? Has the race into the sewer been a consequence of loose women of America (England, etc..) driving the decline? Or, are the causes a more a top down affair? IOW resulting from the big-money producers and all those men who run Hollywood? ..."
"... women, as indeed many men, are given to fashions and peer pressure. If the prevailing culture is one of modesty and self-respect, the women's behavior will reflect that. The American women of the 1950s were of more or less the same stock of women as the gutter skanks Ilana rightfully laments today, but did women drive this downward trend, or did (a few) men? ..."
"... One thing that has been noticed, are the striking similarities between American culture today and that of Weimar, Germany. Weimar was notoriously corrupt, with sexual degeneracy and prostitution rampant. Berlin was described as a giant brothel, where the desperate German youth were exploited and debased. ..."
"... the relentless, drum-beating agenda to destroy Western values. To eviscerate the culture of 1950s America (with virtues like honor and temperance) once and for all, and replace it with a septic tank value system, where self-respect is replaced with self-loathing. Where dignity and femininity is replace with twerking with your tongue out. Where Hollywood starlets howl about how "nasty" they are, as if being a skank is a moral badge of feminine honor. ..."
"... I am nearly 60 years old. And jokes and stories about "hollywood casting couches" and how pretty young women got roles in productions have been around longer than I have. To me, this whole story is just filed under more "fake news". No, I don't doubt the stories. I don't doubt that harvey was not a good man. But, its all basically propaganda. Harvey supported a political opponent of the people now attacking him 24.7 all over the right-wing media, so now these stories that are older than I am are suddenly headline news and the big lead on right-wing sites all over the internet. ..."
I'd like to better understand the conservative media's orgy over Harvey Weinstein, the
disgraced and disgraceful Hollywood film producer and studio executive who used his power over
decades to have his way with starlets.
To listen to conservative talkers, the women affronted or assaulted by Weinstein were all
Shakespearean talent in the making -- female clones of Richard Burton (he had no match among
women) -- who made the pilgrimage to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hollywood Hills, for the purpose
of realizing their talent, never knowing it was a meat market. Watching the women who make up
the dual-perspective panels "discussing" the Weinstein saga, it's hard to tell conservative
from liberal.
"Conservative" women now complain as bitterly as their liberal counterparts about
"objectification."
However, the female form has always been revered; been the object of sexual longing, clothed
and nude. The reason the female figure is so crudely objectified nowadays has a great deal to
do with women themselves. By virtue of their conduct, women no longer inspire reverence as the
fairer sex, and as epitomes of loveliness. For they are crasser, vainer, more eager to expose
all voluntarily than any male. Except for Anthony Weiner, the name of an engorged
organism indigenous to D.C., who was is in the habit of exposing himself as often as the
Kardashians do.
The latter clan is a bevy of catty exhibitionists, controlled by a mercenary, ball-busting
matriarch called Kris Kardashian. Kris is madam to America's First Family of Celebrity
Pornographers. (To launch a career with a highly stylized, self-directed sex tape is no longer
even condemned.) Lots of little girls, with parental approval, look up to the Kardashians.
From Kim, distaff America learns to couch a preoccupation with pornographic selfies in the
therapeutic idiom. Kardashian flaunts her ass elephantiasis with pure self-love. Yet millions
of her admirers depict her obscene posturing online as an attempt to come to terms with her
body. "Be a little easier on myself," counsels Kim as she directs her camera to the nether
reaches of her carefully posed, deformed derriere. While acting dirty and self-adoring,
Kardashian delivers as close to a social jeremiad on self-esteem as her kind can muster.
Genius!
Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine
she'll be -- and the more she'll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain
repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual
fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorning pussy
dunce-caps on the same occasion.
By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us
prefer the allure of modesty. The sluts among us don't. On social media, women outstrip men in
the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and
old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches,
and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of
femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, "I Own
It."
The phrase a "bum's rush" means "throw the bum out!" When it comes to Allison Williams,
daughter of NBC icon Brian Williams, a bum's rush takes on new meaning. Thanks in no small
measure to her famous father, the young woman has become a sitcom star. And Ms. Williams has
worked extra-hard to hone all aspects of an actress's instrument (the body). Alison has carried
forth enthusiastically about a groundbreaking scene dedicated to exploring "ass motorboating"
or
"booty-eating ," on HBO's "Girls."
The lewder, more pornographic, and less talented at their craft popular icons become -- the
louder the Left lauds their artistically dodgy output. (The "Right" just keeps moving Left.)
"Singer" Miley Cyrus was mocked before she began twerking tush, thrusting pelvis and twirling
tongue. Only then had she arrived as an artist, in the eyes of "critics" on the Left. The power
of the average pop artist and her products, Miley's included, lies in the pornography that is
her "art," in her hackneyed political posturing, and in the fantastic technology that is
Auto-Tune (without which
all the sound you'd hear these "singers" emit would be a bedroom whisper).
Liberal women, the majority, go about seriously and studiously cultivating their degeneracy.
If "Raising Skirts to Celebrate the Diversity of Vaginas" sounds foul, wait for
the accompanying images. These show feral creatures (women, presumably), skirts hoisted,
gobs agape, some squatting like farmhands in an outhouse, all yelling about their orifices.
Do you know of a comparable man's movement? If anything, men are punished when they
react normally to women behaving badly .
Female soldiers got naked and uploaded explicit images of themselves to an online portal.
The normals -- male soldiers -- shared the images and were promptly punished
for so doing. And the conservative side of that ubiquitous, dueling-perspectives political
panel approved of the punishment meted to the men.
So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that "protesters" routinely disrobe or perform
lewd acts with objects in public. Vladimir Putin is a great man if only for arresting a
demented band of performance artists, Pussy Riot, for desecrating a Russian church.
If men flashed for freedom; they'd be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex
Offender Registry.
Talk about the empress being in the buff, I almost forgot to attach an image of this
celebrity, bare-bottomed on the
red-carpet. Rose McGowan is hardly unique. Many a star will arrive at these events barely
clothed. (Here are 38 more near-naked
Red-Carpet appearances .)
Expect a feminist lecture about a woman's right to pretend her bare bottom is haute
couture, rather than ho couture, and expecting the Harveys of the world to behave
like choir boys around her. Fine.
Being British, BBC News anchors are not nearly as dour about the Harvey hysteria as the
American anchors. A female presenter began a Sweinstein segment by saying men claim the
coverage of the scandal is excessive; women say the opposite. "That's why we're covering it,"
quipped her witty male sidekick. She roared with laughter. That's my girl!
Look, Harvey is a lowlife. But Hollywood hos are not as the sanctimonious Sean Hannity
portrays them: "naive, innocent young things," dreams shattered.
Thank you, Ilana, for pointing out the hypocrisy of women behaving like sluts who object to
men reacting to them signaling the world that they are sluts. Is the real issue that
actresses in Hollywood will only take off their clothes for hard cash and Harvey was not
offering hard cash but only nebulous hints at future roles in his productions? This is
important when surveying the careers of many of the actresses jumping on the bandwagon to
destroy Harvey Weinstein. We know they have and will take off their clothes for
the right price.
This is captured in the story of a man offering a woman a million dollars to go to bed
with him. She agrees. Then, he changes the offer to one dollar. The woman objects! "What do
you think I am a prostitute." The man answers, "We know what you are. We're negotiating the
price."
Feminism promises women empowerment. However, there is a pornographic side to the promise.
There are legions of women trying to give the world a hard-on for attention, money, status,
etc. When the world reacts, as in the story, they say, "Don't touch me what do you think I
am?"
So, it's about power and control, something dear to the hearts of feminists. "You can want
me but you can't have me (until you meet my price)." Men have a word for these women. We call
them "prick teasers". It is a dispute over price, and it makes men very, very angry to react
to the signals and then be ridiculed for reacting to the signals.
Cuckservatives are hardcore woman-worshipping feminists first and foremost. They will put aside any other objective when the prospect of groveling to women presents
itself.
Miley Cyrus may have been an exhibitionist earlier in her career, but no scare quotes
belong around "singer" when describing her. She can sing. See below.
Must as I hate a lot of liberal ideology, I would disagree with the argument that
left-liberal woman are more libertine than mainstream conservative women. Social class,
personality and intelligence have a much bigger bearing on female (and male) sexual behaviour
than political ideology. And there is no evidence than liberal women tend to be more sexually
explicit in their appearance than non-liberal women. The make up is thicker, the women are
louder, and the skirts are shorter on Fox News rather than CNN.
Liberal women like Ashley Judd making vulgar comments to annoy religious conservatives
doesn't really count. Playing up for the camera isn't necessarily an indication of real life
behaviour.
Thank you for saying what you said about more equitably apportioning the blame among males
and females. Fortunately or unfortunately only a woman such as you can say such things in our
PC world. In our unfair world this is the best that is possible and for this you deserve our
thanks.
Clueless 'feminists' ignore Muslim treatment of women while they protest for women's dignity,
yet they say that Miley Cyrus is advancing women's dignity.
Women are legally stoned in Muslim countries and gays & lesbians are legally executed
for being gay / lesbian in Muslim countries. And HILLARY took millions in 'donations' from
those countries.
The Clearest Problem With Modern Feminism
Muslim Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), where are the 'feminists'?
In the grand times of Hollywood, before the War, an open secret was that all aspiring
starlets had to pass through the couch of a personage known by the nickname of Ben Cinema or
Kalkeinstein, (described as "horrible and more! ugly, old and dirty, lumbering and stupid, a
real piece of garbage, in his person and in his surroundings a real vomiting forth from the
ghetto").
History repeats itself
Well I think there's a causality issue here. Weinstein & co pick on them when they're
mostly very young; they become degenerate later. There is an element of truth, but the really
obscene behaviour is a feature of established veterans.
Great article. Also funny: "ho couture" well, I liked it.
Couple points:
Worth remembering that often Weinstein selected women with NO power/influence; ie those way
beneath Kardashians etc. This is not to contest Illana's points about female celebrities
exploiting their sexuality, merely to note that Weinstein really was a slithering
predator.
Also worth noting that, although dreckification of female (actually, all) sexuality goes
beyond simple commerce, there has been a rough parallel between unleashed Capitalism
(neoliberalism) & unleashed sexuality. Of course, it's "old hat" that "sex sells"
however, now increasing degrees of pornography are accepted, indeed celebrated as
"liberated", artistic etc.
Illana is completly correct when she refers to the rank hypocracy re: male female sexuality.
definitely "not equal" (unless male sexuality is considered under the heading of "gay" etc)
How can Hollywood proclaim to always be for women and their rights, shouting they are at the
front of protecting women when the movie factories in that town have portrayed many a lead
actress as a prostitute?
This isn't something recent, women as prostitutes in films goes back decades. How can degrading women by showing them as money-craving whores be in any way defending
women?
For thousands of years the terms Prostitute and Actress were interchangeable. Sure Harve is a
douche bag but he's far from the only one. They knew what they were in for and were duly
compensated.
It's not that hard to deflect unwanted male attention or to downplay your looks. When I hear
a woman complain of sexual harassment, I suspect she is most likely a trouble maker and
desperate for attention. There are likely exceptions, but this tends to be my first reaction.
It's rarely the prettiest women who complain of sexual harassment.
I know plenty of liberal women who are not crude nor overtly sexual. I guess they just ignore
that facet of the left.
When I was in grad school, there were some women grad students who exchanged sexual favors
for the possibility of career advancement. Sometimes the women initiated the swap. Sometimes
the more well-connected male (or female) faculty member or administrator initiated the swap.
Some women (and possibly men) who were propositioned declined.
Query: If you said yes and got your payoff and if those who said no didn't get an
equivalent payoff and if, by virtue of the payoff, you succeeded while those who declined the
exchange didn't succeed, do you owe them anything? Morally.
Many who are posting #metoo on social media seem to feel that their membership in the
victim class entitles them to receive benefits in exchange for sexual favors and then to
recover, in attitudes of righteousness, the consideration they paid for those benefits:
shaming, intimidating and threatening, under potential penalty of false or ambiguoous
accusation, those who might seek to call them on their hypocrisy.
And let's not turn a blind eye to the feminized male enablers who seek women's approval by
lauding this instance of having one's cake and eating it too.
Lest I be susceptible to laches (the legal term for clean hands that do the dirty work,) I
was never tempted and, perhaps for that reason, recall the lady who died and sought admission
to the pearly gates.
"May I have some evidence of your virtue," Saint Peter said as he riffled through her
dossier.
"Indeed. I never succumbed to temptation," the lady proudly asserted.
"But were you ever tempted?"
"No," she said, fearing to lie to Saint Peter.
"Well, madam, if you've never been tempted, you get no credit for not having succumbed to
it."
Excellent article, Ms. Mercer. And thanks for the puncture holes delivered to Conservative
Inc. (Hannity etal). As to the, er, "ladies" who prowl about Hollywood and are now crying wolf, "what goes
around comes around."
What's the big difference between Weinstein and former president Bill Clinton except that one
was the frickin president of the US? Clinton used his various positions throughout the years
to intimidate women, from the days of using Arkansas state troopers to act as procurers for
him to later using federal agencies to harass them into shutting up. His wife Hillary, the
almost-president, ran interference for him in muzzling the various women who might have
spilled the beans. The Clintons postured themselves as champions of women's rights even as
the reality of this sleazy couple was really tawdry. Weinstein was just a studio boss with
money and film roles to dispense to a never-ending line of wannabe actresses. He fits right
in with the Clintons as part of the Hollywood celebrity and glitz crowd and Hillary would
never have called him a "deplorable". Yet even now there's many people who are Clinton fans
and supporters even as they hypocritically play this game of 'get the fat guy'. The Clintons
are a hundred times worse.
You do not need philosophy to explain a love for money. Whether the profiteering
Kardashians or the profiteering Madonna (and a legion of her imitators), these women did the
indecent, lewd, into-your-face pornographic performances for financial gains. They have been
denigrating themselves (and other women, by association) for money. They wanted the money. By
any means.
That the US government has extolled the deeply amoral Pussy Riot scum tells a lot about the
moral crisis in the US, including the unending and very expensive wars of aggression run by
the country that has no money for a single-payer medical system.
The pink pussies that demonstrated against Donald and for Hilary, used to be offended when
reminded about Libyan tragedy ("we came, we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha ") and about the
hundreds of thousands of human beings (including thousands and thousands children)
slaughtered there on the Obama/Clinton watch. Did we have the pink pussies demonstrating
against Obama's seven wars? – No. The pink pussies needed some brainwashing before
suddenly going into a public activism phase with silly hats on their empty heads. Are pussy
hats demonstrating against the impending wars of the US with Iran and Korea? – No.
Nobody gave an order for and provided money for organizing the parades. These "progressive"
female activists are ridiculous.
By the way, is Dershowitz cleared re his visits to Lolita Island where real underage
victims were held for the pleasure of powerful sex predators?
I love reading Ilana Mercer's politically incorrect take on events and her brilliant use of
language.. Seeing how far US society has descended since I was growing up in the
1960′s, I'm glad to be a married, monogamous senior citizen. We certainly had our
problems then, with the Vietnam War at the top of the list, but at least the women were not
covered in disgusting tattoos and man-hating feminism was still in its infancy.
I still don't get all the fuss about this. The wannabe starlets knew the price of fame and
fortune (or if not, found out quickly), and were willing to pay it. It is just straight up
prostitution. Seems to me the only ones with a claim are the ones who paid the price and
didn't get the part.
Sergey, you posted here an example of femininity of Senchina – a value long destroyed
by feminism in the West–as opposed to sexuality, which is the fad. It is the same as
comparing real love and real intimacy to raw sex, or porn. For former one needs a real woman,
for the latter a slut will suffice.
The scandal, as I have portrayed it, was the leftist hypocrisy in their political attacks
against Trump. All Trump did was describe a woman's nature around powerful men. They
volunteer themselves. Weinstein was far more coercive and they said nothing all these years.
Women were victimized by this , but not the ones we know. It was the women who didn't advance
their careers by any means who were victims. Perhaps that is one reason why women do not draw
so much at the box office. We do not get to enjoy the talent that got them there.
Yes, the culture today is far, far more crass and degenerate than say, in the 50s, when Leave
it to Beaver played on America's TVs, and Norman Rockwell and all that.
But what has happened to our culture? Has the race into the sewer been a consequence of loose women of America (England, etc..)
driving the decline? Or, are the causes a more a top down affair? IOW resulting from the big-money producers
and all those men who run Hollywood?
women, as indeed many men, are given to fashions and peer pressure. If the prevailing
culture is one of modesty and self-respect, the women's behavior will reflect that. The
American women of the 1950s were of more or less the same stock of women as the gutter skanks
Ilana rightfully laments today, but did women drive this downward trend, or did (a
few) men?
One thing that has been noticed, are the striking similarities between American culture
today and that of Weimar, Germany. Weimar was notoriously corrupt, with sexual degeneracy and
prostitution rampant. Berlin was described as a giant brothel, where the desperate German
youth were exploited and debased.
Perhaps it was the fault of those young Germans who, while likely starving from the wrath
and rapine of the allies, (who deliberately looted the German economy dry). Or perhaps it was
more the fault of the wealthy and powerful non-German men, who preyed on these young, often
desperate women (and girls and boys). But the parallels are unmistakable.
which is why people are posting propaganda cartoons from back then, because the images are
eerily familiar to what seems to be going on today, no?
how can you not think of Harvey Weinstein when you see those cartoons?
Perhaps Ilana is right, and the blame starts and ends with the women. But then I think of
all those Mickey Mouse Club girls who turned into skanks,
[I won't post the pictures, but you can find them..]
and I notice that they were raised in Hollywood, like Miley Cyrus, who seemed to be
groomed specifically as an all American type of innocent Hanna Montana who then morphs
straight into the gutter skank we all wince at- for all those preteen American girls to
emulate. Just like Madonna was a generation before.
I confess it seems to me that the skankification of America's young women is part of a
deliberate agenda coming straight out of Hollywood. No?
Women have been sexually exploiting Men for a living for 5 million years. Women's price for
sex has always been that men provision them. There is nothing wrong with this. It helped
shaped both human physical and cultural evolution and we might have gone extinct without it.
The thing that interests me is, why now. The casting couch has been a stereotype all of my
life. Why the piling on at this time?
The fuss is about glamour Hollywood whores trying to teach others non-stop what is good
and right. Obviously they do all this form the supposition that prostitution is good and
liberating. You know, lowest common denominator? Most of them are also dumb as fvcks and this
goes not only to wo..sluts there, to the so called men too. Look at Clooneys and other Damons
of that cabal. They should concentrate on doing what they allegedly do best–pretend to
be other people. Most of them have no serious analytical skills to start with. Hey, at least
Brad Pitt is in this just for fvcking chicks at the height of their hotness–at least it
is honest.
I first began to totally ignore the MSM's comments on Putin when he had the degeneracy of the
"Pussy Riot" in a Russian Church forcefully stopped. It was great to see the Cossacks beat
the beejebans out of those morally offensive hooligans trying to illegally impose George
Soro's world view on others.
Every woman could have said No to Mr. "Sweinstein". Bros before hos are the name of the game
not only in Hollywood. The hypocrites should not lament. It takes two to tango!
"I confess it seems to me that the skankification of America's young women is part of a
deliberate agenda coming straight out of Hollywood. No?"
Here you go.
From: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann.
Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress:
"The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of
humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of
global society requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old
established order, secondly, design and imposition of the new order. The first stage
requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical
barriers and social definitions, only then can the destroyed old system elements be
replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.
The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social
formations created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women
must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no
tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms
must only be viewed as a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is;
nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must
be gone."
The casting couch has been a stereotype all of my life. Why the piling on at this
time?
perhaps because of The Trumpening
perhaps now that Trump is in DC, there are forces at work that have bristled under the
excruciatingly dishonest levels of hypocrisy coming out of the leftisphere.
accusing Trump of being disrespectful to women, as they rape women and girls wholesale,
and the entire leftist power structure always looks the other way, so long as the rapist is a
leftist himself, and will use his power for the leftist agenda.
so these serial predators like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein all get a pass from the
feminists and liberal, progressives, so long as they assist with The Agenda to destroy
Western Civilization, (and the people who created it ; ).
As long as Bill Clinton hails the day when whites will be a minority in this country, (to the
cheers of liberal college students), he can rape women all day long. He can sexually harass,
as the most powerful man in the world, powerless girls in the White House, and all to a
thunderous silence from the entire leftist, progressive (hypocritical / hatred-consumed)
power structure. Because he works towards their agenda. [the same agenda, BTW - that
destroyed S. Africa and Rhodesia]
But for a man like Trump, who seems to have raised daughters who respect themselves, and
seem to conduct themselves with a certain dignity- that isn't what's important. What's
important is what is always important
THE AGENDA
the relentless, drum-beating agenda to destroy Western values. To eviscerate the culture
of 1950s America (with virtues like honor and temperance) once and for all, and replace it
with a septic tank value system, where self-respect is replaced with self-loathing. Where
dignity and femininity is replace with twerking with your tongue out. Where Hollywood
starlets howl about how "nasty" they are, as if being a skank is a moral badge of feminine
honor.
That's what's going on here. We're in the trenches of the cold culture war, turned hot
culture war.
They wanted to destroy Trump and the deplorables with shrieking about how Trump was
disrespectful to women. But now the cover of the giant septic tank known as Hollywood has
been lifted off, for all the world to gasp at the slithering creatures and whiff the terrible
stench.
I wonder if it's a kind of payback time for Hillary and her army of morally preening orcs,
feasting on the flesh of young women, and smacking their liver lips with anticipation of the
next young shiksa to walk though that hotel room door.
I only hope we get an investigation into Pizzagate next, with perhaps a nice expose' of
Jeffrey Epstein's Child Rape Island, and all those liberal, progressive morally preening men
who take so many trips there.
this might just be all a sign of the great Trumpening
Let's be fair here. Women strut their 'stuff' same as men but in a different way. A man will
buy a very expensive car or some other display of wealth or power to attract a female and
females respond to these displays by highlighting their sexual desirability and availability.
We are animals seeking mates after all and males have to demonstrate their dominance in
nature before the female will mate with the male. Thus a Harvey Weinstein could no more have
sex with an Ashley Judd than a derelict laying on the sidewalk absent some display of power
and wealth that interested Judd.
The other side of this coin is that a woman cannot compel a man to have sex with her no
matter how much money or power she has. Men do not sexually respond to a physically repulsive
female and he cannot 'fake' an orgasm. This is why I do not believe in criminally
prosecuting, e.g., a female school teacher for having sex with a 16 year old student. Fire
her for improper conduct but jail her? Come on the boy was willing if he had sex with
her!
It's like the old joke:
Will you have sex with me for a million dollars?
OK.
What about one dollar?
What kind of girl do you think I am?
We've already established what kind of girl you are. We're just negotiating.
Excellent piece, showcasing your good sense as always. I yield to no man in my hyper
enthusiasm for the undraped female form but to cynically "launch a career with a highly
stylized, self-directed sex tape" incites my scorn, not lust. I have been fed up for years
when perusing the morning headlines seeing articles about the latest, most egregious examples
of Hollyweird bimbos showing up at events more or less naked. I've long since ceased looking
or caring; they just annoy me.
Putting all one's assets on constant public display destroys
the allure and mystery that is woman and does not empower them, it makes them the "pieces of
meat" that they've been screaming about for close on a century, especially for the last 50
odd years. Women have made quite the cottage industry of whining that guys don't understand
them, "don't get it" but refuse to acknowledge the obverse. By tripping the lights fantastic
with their fun bits exposed they appear to the primal great white shark which is the male sex
drive as easily gotten chum; and like the Assyrian of old, we fall upon and devour them, in a
manner of speaking. A rather old adage said "If it ain't for sale, don't advertise it". As
for Harvey, the fascination of the hogs at the slop trough is that the revolting pig~man
didn't just want to have sex with these women, but to have them observe his disgusting
degeneracy. The Cities of the Pains had nothing on us.
I am nearly 60 years old. And jokes and stories about "hollywood casting couches" and how
pretty young women got roles in productions have been around longer than I have. To me, this whole story is just filed under more "fake news". No, I don't doubt the
stories. I don't doubt that harvey was not a good man. But, its all basically propaganda.
Harvey supported a political opponent of the people now attacking him 24.7 all over the
right-wing media, so now these stories that are older than I am are suddenly headline news
and the big lead on right-wing sites all over the internet.
These stories have even bumped the stories about which NFL players should be lined up in
front of a firing squad and shot for not maintain the proper posture during the sacred
National Anthem here in the Land of the Free.
So, to me, this just more Fake News. Its propaganda and political attack using weaponized
'news'. And I don't care. If I had a daughter going to Hollywood, I'd give her the same
warnings about scum-bags in the movie business and the casting couch that have been given out
for a century now. Nothing new here.
Strange -- it seems that Harvey had the only casting couch in Tinsel Town. Hollywood is wall
to wall Jews – yet NO new Jew names are being exposed by all those brave women.
Only Gentile names.
Hmm??? What could be going on? Stonewalling maybe – total fear absolutely! Say it isn't so.
p.s. Maybe Weinstein, Woody Allen, Polansky, and Weiner are the only sex obsessed
Jews?
As I understand it, movies is a very high stakes business, and you cannot get cast in a
role by being alone with an obviously-horny-as-a-jackrabbit producer and submitting to sex
acts or harassment. It doesn't guarantee anything, and they all knew it.
Casting happens though getting an agent, who sends you to an audition, where there are
other people around and the acts performed are of an acting nature. The only
professional film actor I know cited Ellen Barkin's acting as superlative. Barkin studied
acting for ten years before landing her first audition.
I try to restrict devoting any of the precious time I have left on Earth to such matters. I
made an exception for the Mercer column, which is spot on. 99% of the time, I merely see the
unavoidable headlines and continue surfing for something worth the time to read or watch.
My one take-away from l'affaire Weinstein is this: I am enormously enjoying the
internecine, riotous and indiscriminate feeding frenzy it has generated. Like Heinlein's
Igli, the Left is consuming itself.
Their existence is only to provide sexual pleasure to these perverts, and they like it;
however, when something goes wrong, they howl and cry, 'he raped me!" Reminds me when I was
at a military base, and a friend of mine found his girlfriend screwing another guy, she
claimed, well, rape! How appropriate. the poor guy was court martial-ed, and done with!
I am 1000X more attractive and in far better shape that Harvey Fatstein. Yet he has
tapped far better poon than I can ever hope to tap.
You should have gone into show biz. If you're what you claim to be, you've have tapped
more poon than Justin Timberlake and John Mayer combined. And it would have all been
consensual, so no worry about lawsuits.
Alden's response to you is perfectly correct. But you'd have a good point if you talked
about MGM.
Ms. Mercer is not defending Weinstein but attacking the women who allowed this to go on
for decades. I declare a half-hearted "boycott" against Hollywood every time something like
this happens; alas, this is rendered without force by the fact that I refuse to pay modern
ticket prices for what is likely utter trash anyway.
I tend to assume by default that Hollywood producers (Jewish or otherwise) pressure actresses
to have sex, so even if Weinstein was particularly egregious, I wonder what he really did to
ignite this shit-storm. He obviously pissed off the wrong person(s).
Sergey, realistically, most women–especially the lumbering, low skill, know-nothing
women of America–cannot possibly match the woman you put before us in the video
above.
They can't measure up and they know it. So instead of dieting, exercising, taking voice
lessons or even mastering humble talents like cooking and sewing they take the cowards way
out and denigrate her. They will revile her as an unliberated woman who depends on male
affirmation for her self esteem, an unwitting tool of the Patriarchy.
While they, themselves? They don't need to charm no stinking men. They themselves depend
on their cohort of disagreeable feminists for their "self esteem".
"The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty." I'm a fan of 1970s-1980s Bollywood,
with its casts of heart-stoppingly beautiful women, like Hema Malini and Sridevi, who
performed in modest attire, and were all the more lovely for it. I can't bear to watch
today's Bollywood product, featuring writhing undressed wenches indistinguishable from
western gangsta ho's. Decades ago, Indian film assimilation from western pop culture often
yielded bizarre but charmingly cute mash-ups, but now they've mimicked the very worst of what
we have. Or maybe now we have only cultural garbage left for them to adapt.
"... There is a big difference between shills for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation. ..."
"... The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics. ..."
DN: What about the impact that you've seen of identity politics in America?
CH: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced
identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than
nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going
around to collect his fees for selling us out.
My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics: Cornel West and I, along with
others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in
Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly
angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there
was a group of younger activists, one who said, "We're not letting the white guy go first."
Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills
for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals
like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or
people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.
It is extremely important, obviously, that those voices are heard, but not those voices that
have sold out to the power elite. The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The
old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering
oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew
that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new
form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO
or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits
that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose
to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics.
"... None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer), over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss. The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July. ..."
"... The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the 1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts of the world " are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ." ..."
"... The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse), that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are, but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict" (that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism, doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony. ..."
"... The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. ..."
"... That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. ..."
"... So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages. ..."
Back in 1835, Samuel F.B. Morse (who went on to invent the telegraph and the Morse Code), wrote
a book about a plot to overthrow the American republic. The conspiracy, Morse wrote, was well-funded,
highly secretive, and hatched in Vienna by members of the The St. Leopold Foundation, which had dispatched
cells of Jesuit missionaries to the U.S. to forcibly convert the nation to Roman Catholicism. This
was no small intrigue: The plot's leaders, as Morse meticulously catalogued, were Austrian diplomat
Klemens von Metternich, Ferdinand V of Hungary, and (of course) Pope Gregory XVI. "It is high time
that we awakened to the apprehension of danger,"
Morse wrote .
What is shocking about this nonsense is not that Morse actually believed it, but that millions
of other Americans did too. Morse's book seeded the rise of the nativist
"Know-Nothing" party , whose goal was to curb immigration, root out Catholicism, and return America
to its protestant ideals. In essence, they were the America-firsters of the nineteenth century. The
Know-Nothings swept into office in Chicago, were strong in Massachusetts and, in 1856, nominated
a national ticket (Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson), for the presidency; they tallied nearly
900,000 votes, one-quarter of those cast. "I know nothing but my country, my whole country and nothing
but my country," they chanted.
Historians have since excavated the Morse plot with relish, if only as a way to better understand
a nation that, from time to time, enjoys being scared witless.
Before the Know-Nothings there were the Anti-Masons, a political movement that warned of a takeover
by secretive apron-wearing do-gooders who met for god-knows-why. And before that Americans were warned
about witches named Dorothy, Rebecca, Martha, and Rachel, dancing in New England's forests. Some
120 years after Morse, in 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter dubbed this "the paranoid style in American
politics" -- a paradigm-shifting essay that catalogued a raft of intrigues peopled by witches, Illuminati,
Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Jewish bankers, Bilderbergers and, in Hofstadter's time, communist dupes
doing Moscow's bidding. America's enemies might be unseen, but they were everywhere.
"In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship," Hofstadter
wrote, "is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it
managed to survive at all."
None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer),
over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable
baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is
rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people
or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss.
The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that
it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying
on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring
the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July.
The historical "for instance" in this is well-documented: during the 1960 presidential campaign,
John Kennedy insisted that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in ballistic missile production.
There was a growing and dangerous "missile gap" Kennedy claimed, placing the nation in great peril.
Dwight Eisenhower, he said, had been derelict in not acknowledging the threat. An independent study
commission issued a report that confirmed the fear and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it credence:
We are "turning out missiles like sausages," he claimed. As it turns out, Kennedy was right: there
was a missile gap, but not in a way that he thought -- we had plenty, while they had none (a later
CIA report speculated that, actually, they might have had three, maybe). Years later, Kennedy's claim
looked downright foolish: the problem for the Russians wasn't that they couldn't make missiles (they
eventually did, and plenty of them), but that they couldn't make sausages -- which cost them their
empire. The same kinds of claims were retailed by U.S. intelligence services about Russia's allies:
a 1987 CIA fact book said that East Germany's GDP per capita was higher than West Germany's,
a claim so ludicrous that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan dismissed it to a panel of CIA officers
with a legendary quip: "I know a Berlin taxi driver who could have told you that wasn't true."
The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the
1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief
of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired
commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by
James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries
in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White
House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts
of the world "
are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ."
The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend
the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse),
that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of
the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are,
but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict"
(that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains
a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism,
doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these
claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey said that Mexico was in a state of collapse back in 2009, a claim contradicted
by then-Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. More recently, and before the recent earthquake
shook Mexico City, the collapsing Mexican government offered to help provide aid to Texans victimized
by Hurricane Harvey. It's a wonder they would think of us as the walls were coming down around them.
Then too, if Mexico is really on the verge of collapse, shouldn't the administration be doing something
about it -- perhaps we should appeal to the international community to provide the Mexican government
with low interest loans, or maybe we should deploy a U.S. aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Mexico.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the claim is Morse-like: designed to frighten us, perhaps, into building
a wall as a barrier to keep immigrants who are not pouring over the border from pouring over the
border.
The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that
Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence
Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd
seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. But Stoltenberg went further,
inviting Russia to be a part of the Afghanistan peace process -- a strange request to a nation
that a top U.S. general claims is helping the enemy. Even so, the claim was repeated just this last
week by Defense Secretary James Mattis, who added Iran to the growing list of Taliban allies. Of
course, Nicholson and Mattis might be absolutely right, but they're saying so doesn't make it so.
Then too (we shuffle our feet, look at our shoes, mumble to ourselves), the Taliban's best friend
in Afghanistan isn't Russia or Iran, it's Pakistan -- our friend.
That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's
nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us?
Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of
what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. The result
is that the Russian Federation continues technological advances in some weapons systems, but lacks
significant technological depth elsewhere. During its 2015 May Day military parade, Russia showed
off its new state-of-the-art T-14 main battle tank, complete with a new-fangled APS (active protection
system) designed to defeat anti-armor weapons. Onlookers ogled the tank, oohing and ahhing at its
shiny exterior, its impressive armament. But then, just as it was about to exit Red Square it broke
down -- and had to be towed. Is Russia a threat? Sure, it's a threat. But Russia has many of the
same problems now that it had at the end of the Cold War. It ranks 53rd in per capita GDP --
just behind Panama.
The world has problems, big problems but it is not going to hell. Here's what going to hell looks
like. In the autumn of 1941, Europe was under the domination of a genocidal regime that had extended
its murderous policies through all of Europe and whose armies were headed towards Moscow. In Asia,
large swathes of China and all of Southeast Asia were occupied by Japanese militarists. The two,
with Italy, had formed an axis and controlled significant portions of the globe. Their enemies were
teetering on the edge of defeat. The world was going to hell, alright, but the U.S. had yet to get
into the war.
But that's not the worst of it. During the early morning hours of September 26, 1983, Lt. Col.
Stanislav Petrov was notified by his computer system that the U.S. had launched five intercontinental
ballistic missiles at Russia. Petrov sat there for a moment, when he should have been on the telephone
to his superiors. After several moments he concluded that the warning just didn't make sense. Why
would the U.S. launch only five missiles at Russia, when everyone in the Soviet military supposed
they would launch a barrage. "The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds," he later
told the BBC, "staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word 'launch' on it." Petrov ignored
the warning --
and may well have prevented a nuclear holocaust.
So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when
Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under
every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages.
Now, as then, we have two choices: we can either embrace our fears and shake in our boots, or
we can tell the sky-is-falling crowd what Samuel F.B. Morse's friends told him all the way back in
1835.
Get a grip.
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America:
The Making of Douglas MacArthur. His next book, The Pentagon's Wars, will be released in October.
He tweets @markperrydc
"... TAC is an odd place, I post comments and for some reason every single comment I post on the U.S. state Dept. never gets published while every other comment I write does and I cannot fathom why. ..."
"... Many comment sections of political and "news" sites are tightly curated. They offer the illusion of open discussion but in fact limit the scope of what discussion points are allowed. ..."
"... From a PR/opinion cultivation perspective the goal is to keep those points or positions from appearing before other commenters and readers, thus validating their existence. Or such points or positions are allowed through on a very irregular or rare basis, which leaves the impression that they are extreme. ..."
"... Opinion cultivation is a mass comms topic. You can look up the "spiral of silence," which was theorized in the 1970s as self-censorship by people who hold minority opinions, or think they do. ..."
"... What we have today is the systematic creation of "spiral of silence" by the media that tout themselves as giving voice to opinions/positions/facts. They silence views at odds with the ones they want to sell, with the intention that their viewers/readers will self-censor. ..."
I'm sorry to
hear that you were removed from TAC. I do not believe that you should tailor you writings to
make them pro-Israeli / Jewish if that does not represent your views. If I find an article
unappealing I just skip it, I don't want to see it censored and I don't assume bad intentions
on people just because they pursue a theory I don't agree with. To judge if someone is
out-of-bounds perhaps we should apply the 'Iran test', replace Israel/Jewish with Iran/Iranian
and see if people would still take offense (being a bit facetious, nothing would be
out-of-bounds).
TAC is an odd place, I post comments and for some reason every single comment I post on the
U.S. state Dept. never gets published while every other comment I write does and I cannot
fathom why.
The pattern goes like this.
Larison writes how Tillerson is gutting the U.S. State Dept. budget and this is wrecking
U.S. diplomacy.
I post a comment asking why that's a bad thing because 60%+ of the budget goes for 'soft
power', funding NGO's to influence and/or meddle in other countries. Lindsey Graham even said,
'that's our soft power'.
This is like Groundhog Day, I've tried posting several versions of this comment thinking
that I inadvertently said something inflammatory. I've stopped commenting on any article having
to do with this topic.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm fallible but I don't see how my comment is out of bounds, I'm
baffled.
TAC is an odd place, I post comments and for some reason every single comment I post on
the U.S. state Dept. never gets published while every other comment I write does and I cannot
fathom why.
Many comment sections of political and "news" sites are tightly curated. They offer the illusion of open discussion but in fact limit the scope of what discussion
points are allowed.
From a PR/opinion cultivation perspective the goal is to keep those points or positions from
appearing before other commenters and readers, thus validating their existence. Or such points or positions are allowed through on a very irregular or rare basis, which
leaves the impression that they are extreme.
Opinion cultivation is a mass comms topic. You can look up the "spiral of silence,"
which was theorized in the 1970s as self-censorship by people who hold minority opinions, or
think they do.
What we have today is the systematic creation of "spiral of silence" by the media that tout
themselves as giving voice to opinions/positions/facts. They silence views at odds with the
ones they want to sell, with the intention that their viewers/readers will self-censor.
This is related to the 1970s to 1980s field of "cultivation theory" out of the Annenberg
School (Penn). In that case, Jewish scholars at a majority Jewish department commenting on
disproportionately Jewish-run media networks/outlets and Jewish-created programming concluded
that rank-and-file white Americans were stupid for thinking the world was mean and dangerous
based on what they saw on television.
(The findings/research claim held that more hours of TV viewing led to people thinking crime
rates were higher than they actually were. I don't call whether the converse was true, i.e., no
TV viewing led to underestimate of crime rates, or what.)
There was some truth in the cultivation theory framing–George Gerbner left communist Hungary, IIRC–but the whole thing struck me overall as an effort to
ridicule white men and women for a) trusting the media and b) perceiving that their culture was
going shall we say down the tubes. The real data were the actual crime rates and why the MSM
didn't report those, nor on the demographics of them.
In any case, the researchers were suffering from confirmation bias at least as strongly as
their human subjects were, IMO.
"... Lawrence G. Proulx is a retired copy editor who worked for more than 30 years at the Washington Times, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune and International New York Times. ..."
What infractions must a speaker or writer or editor or publisher avoid in order to stay
within the law in France? Here are the basics, as discussed in the manual "Droits des
journalistes et liberté d'expression" by Bernard Dapogny and Marion Dapogny:
False news, "made in bad faith, that disturbs the public order or is capable of disturbing
it." Use of a false document in reporting. Attempt to harm the discipline or morale of the
armed forces or to hinder a war effort. Defamation. Insult. [The distinction between this and
the preceding is that defamation must assert something specific, whereas insult can be merely
an offensive word.] Attempt to harm a person's honor or reputation. Defamation of or insult
to the judiciary, the military services, various other public bodies including "junior high
schools, high schools, universities, the Legion of Honor" as well as "local administrations,
the police, hospitals, penitentiaries." Defamation of or insult to persons acting in a
position of public authority, including "representatives and senators, ministers and
Secretaries of State" as well as "police personnel, magistrates, teachers." Defamation or
insult based on race, religion or belonging to an ethnic group or a nation. Defamation or
insult based on sex, sexual orientation or handicap. Defamation of or insult to deceased
persons, where the offense touches on the honor of the heirs or close survivors. Provocation
to the commission of a crime which leads to the crime. Provocation to the commission of a
crime which doesn't lead to the crime. Indirect provocation (apology), that is, stating that
certain crimes were justified, including "war crimes, crimes against humanity or crimes in
collaboration with the enemy." Provocation to hate, violence or discrimination, which could
be based on a person's "origin, sex, family situation, state of pregnancy, physical
appearance, family name, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, morals, sexual
orientation, age, opinions, politics, labor union activity, belonging or not belonging, real
or supposed to a particular ethnic group, nation, race or religion." Provocation to or
apology for terrorism. Contesting "the existence of one or several crimes against humanity as
defined by Article 6 of the charter of the International Military Tribunal [the Nuremberg
Tribunal] annexed to the London Agreement of August 6, 1945, and which were committed by the
members of an organization declared criminal in application of Article 9 of the said charter,
by a person recognized as guilty of such crimes by a French jurisdiction or by an
international one." Enacted in July 1990 and called the Gayssot Law. Offending the president
of the Republic. [This law was repealed in 2013.]
Many of these laws are seldom invoked; others are used frequently. To put flesh on the
matter, I offer you a list of cases from 2013 that I put together in 2014 for an article that
never found a publisher. (Sorry, but the work of assembling it was too tedious for me to
undertake it again, and I think the general impression given by more recent cases would not be
different.) Although details of the offensive language are frequently omitted in the news
reports from which this list is compiled, a quick look will give a sense of how routine the
cases are.
One thing should be mentioned first. An anti-racism law passed in July 1972, commonly called
the Pleven Law, strengthened the restrictions on speech and granted to private associations
dedicated to fighting racism the right to participate in the prosecution of criminal cases and
to claim damages as well. Amendments to the law empowered additional categories of
associations, for example, associations working "to defend the moral interests and the honor of
veterans and victims of war and of those who died for France" or "to defend the memory of
slaves and the honor of their descendants." Such associations are frequently the first to blow
the whistle on remarks they consider violative, and because they have the standing to file
complaints even when no particular person is targeted by the contested remarks, their legal
recognition is an important factor in the number of cases brought before the courts
today.
Marie-Josée Roig, the mayor of Avignon, files a complaint for public insults
contained in a book purporting to be fiction ("Le Monarque, son fils, son fief") by
Marie-Célie Guillaume in which a character who resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the former
president, demands a quick sexual "present" from a woman who resembles Roig.
Daniel Boyer, the mayor of Châteaubernard, files a complaint for public insults after
a wave of graffiti attacking him and various acts of vandalism.
Frédéric Haziza, a Jewish journalist, files a complaint for public insult and
public insult committed against a person because of his religion, after being attacked on the
website of Alain Soral, a self-described anti-Zionist activist. Haziza had refused to invite
Soral onto his show to discuss Soral's book "Comprendre l'empire" because of Soral's "clearly
antisemitic" views.
March
A judge, Jean-Michel Gentil, files a complaint for contempt and insult against Henri Guaino,
a deputy in Parliament, for having said that the judge "dishonored the [state] institutions and
justice" after Sarkozy was interrogated on suspicion of abusing the weakness of a rich aged
widow.
Bloc Identitaire, a nationalist group, announces its intention to file a complaint for
public insult against Yann Galut, a deputy from the Cher department, for having called the
members of the bloc "casseurs" (protesters who destroy property) in a Twitter message.
April
Rama Yade, a former secretary of state for human rights and for sports, is found guilty of
defamation and insult for eight of twenty-eight contested statements posted on her blog about a
political opponent, Manuel Aeschlimann, after she was challenged over her domicile status in
the Hauts-de-Seine department.
May
Yvan Benedetti and Alexandre Gabriac, right-wing activists, file a complaint against
Jean-François Carenco, the prefect of Lyon, and Albert Doutre, director of public
security, for "hateful" public insults (such as "imbecilities" and "thugs") made during the
containment of a nationalist youth protest in front of the Socialist Party local
headquarters.
June
The city of Angers files suit against a shopkeeper for public insult in the form of signs he
put up to protest a proposed tax on businesses that serve clients on the sidewalk, which
followed among other things a police check of whether he was serving alcohol without the proper
license.
Pierre Dubois, the mayor of Roubaix, and the Human Rights League file a complaint against an
unnamed man who, during the course of a heated discussion at a public meeting, suggested that
the Roma (Gypsies) be sent to Auschwitz.
July
Sylvie Goy-Chavent, a senator of the Ain department who prepared a report on the security of
meat production in France, files a complaint against a website, Internet JSSNews.com, which
describes itself as a webzine of Israeli opinion, for calling her such things as "bitch" and
"little shit" and writing, among other things, "Goy, she wears her name well."
September
The Union of Jewish Students of France says it will file a complaint against the weekly
magazine Valeurs Actuelles for provocation of racial or religious discrimination, hatred or
violence. The group describes the cover of the magazine's Sept. 26 issue, which shows a white
bust of a woman representing France wearing a black Islamic veil and bearing the title
"Naturalized: The Invasion They're Hiding," as "racist" and "hateful." The magazine says in
return that it will file a complaint against the group for calumnious denunciation, defamation
and attack on freedom of expression.
The Foundation for the Memorial of the Black Slave Trade, along with the Federation of
African Associations, the National Union of Overseas France, and other organizations and
individual citizens file a complaint against Jean-Sebastien Vialatte, a deputy in Parliament,
for public insult, defamation and incitement of racial hatred and racial discrimination, for
his remarks after vandalism occurred during a celebration of the Paris Saint-Germain soccer
team. He had sent a Twitter message in which he said sardonically that "the people who
vandalize are surely descendants of slaves, they have excuses[.] #Taubira [the justice
minister] will give them some compensation!"
October
The League for the Judicial Defense of Muslims files a complaint against the weekly
newspaper Charlie Hebdo for its July 10 cover which had a cartoon captioned in large letters
with "The Koran, it's shit; it doesn't stop bullets"; against the magazine Valeurs Actuelles
for its Sept. 26 cover; against the website Riposte Laïque for various articles; and
against Manuel Valls, the secretary of the interior, for provocation of discrimination and
hate, for saying, "Within ten years we will show, we are in the process of showing, there is a
will, that Islam is compatible [sic] with the Republic."
Bruno Gilles, a senator in the Union for a Popular Movement, files a complaint against a
socialist, Patrick Mennucci, for "defamation and public insults." "He called me a racist and
xenophobe," the senator said.
France-El Djazaïr, a Franco-Algerian friendship association, announces that it will
file a complaint against a police officer in the city of Alès for "insults and
incitement to xenophobic and Islamophobic hatred"; the officer had put on his Facebook profile
page a photo-montage representing the Algerian flag over which was written "I hate Algeria,"
attached to an image of a man wiping his bottom with the flag.
Bachir Bouhmadou, adjunct general secretary of Citizen Resistance, and Ali Saab, president
of the Association of Muslims of the Territory of Belfort, file a complaint against Christine
Tasin, a militant with the group Republican Resistance, for videotaped comments opposing ritual
Islamic butchery and criticizing Islam.
Abdellah Zekri, the president of the National Observatory Against Islamophobia, says he will
file a complaint after his house was defaced with swastikas and graffiti saying "Islam Out" and
"Heit [sic] Hitler."
The National Front says it will file a complaint against Christiane Taubira, the justice
minister, for public insult for having described the party's way of thinking as "deadly and
murderous" and summarizing it thus: "It's the blacks in the branches of the trees, the Arabs in
the sea, the homosexuals in the Seine, the Jews in the oven and so forth."
November
A 65-year-old man is found guilty of insulting Claudine Ledoux, the mayor of
Charleville-Mézières, on his website, l'Union-l'Ardennais, in a manner described
by a regional newspaper as "menacing, racist and sexist," in relation to her being made a
knight in the Legion of Honor; he is ordered to pay a fine of one thousand euros and damages
for mental distress of the same amount to Ledoux.
The association SOS Racisme says it will file a complaint for incitation to racial hatred
against Minute, a 16-page rightist weekly, for its cover with a photo of Justice Minister
Christiane Taubira, who is a native of French Guiana, and for the title "Clever Like a Monkey,
Taubira Finds the Banana Again," which combines two common French expressions; to have the
banana (or the peach) means to be full of energy.
A player files a complaint for racial insult after a rough soccer game (three red cards)
between the second-stringers of the Sablé and Lude clubs. A player explained: "This
attacker called me a dirty white. I called him a dirty black."
The Movement Against Racism and for the Amity of Peoples files a complaint for provocation
of racial hatred against Manuel Valls, minister of the interior, for comments about the Gypsies
including, "The Gypsies should stay in Romania or return there." The case will be dismissed in
December 2013.
Bob Dylan is put under formal investigation for insult and provocation of racial hatred
after the Representative Council of the Croatian Community and Institutions of France files a
complaint against both him and the magazine Rolling Stone, the French version of which
republished an interview in which he said, "If you've got a slave master or the Klan in your
blood, blacks can sense that. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense
Croatian blood." The case will be dismissed in April 2014.
December
The comedian Nicolas Bedos testifies after being accused of complicity in making a public
racial insult in an article in the magazine Marianne as well as on its website; among the
phrases he used were "Negro bugger," "island indolence" and "lazy natives."
Gérard Huet, the mayor of Loudéac, is sued by the Human Rights League for
comments about Gypsies he made at a meeting to discuss expenditures to renovate the area where
the Gypsies were living. "They've stolen all our plumbing," he says, and he later objects to
the comment of another member of the city council with, "You're defending thieves?" He sues the
league in return for harassment.
The comedian Dieudonné files a defamation complaint after Alain Jakubowicz, the
president of the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism, describes the
"quenelle," a gesture used by the comedian and his fans, as "corresponding to an inverted Nazi
salute signifying the sodomizing of the victims of the Holocaust." Dieudonné also says
he will sue Le Monde, Le Figaro, BFMTV, France 2 and Manuel Valls, the interior minister.
The imam Hicham El Barkani files a complaint for insult after a protest described as
islamophobic against the opening of a mosque in Papeete.
Some cases have greater import than those listed above, as when historians are attacked for
their work.
The Columbia University historian Bernard Lewis gave an interview to Le Monde on November
16, 1993, in which he discussed the killings of Armenians by Turks during the First World War.
In the course of it he said, "If one speaks of genocide, that implies that there was a
deliberate policy, a decision, to systematically annihilate the Armenian nation. That is quite
doubtful. Turkish documents prove a will of deportation, not of extermination." On January 1,
1994, in response to strong objections to his remarks, he published a further explanation of
his position, again in Le Monde, ending with a repetition of his main point, that "no serious
proof exists of a decision and a plan by the Ottoman government aiming at exterminating the
Armenian nation." He was sued by the Forum of Armenian Associations of France and the
International League Against Racism and Antisemitism on the claim that he had "gravely hurt the
memory and respect of the survivors and of their families." The civil court of Paris ruled that
Lewis had "failed to meet his duty of objectivity and prudence in expressing himself without
nuance on so sensitive a subject" and ordered him to pay a franc each to the two associations
as well as the cost of publishing the decision. Lewis was also the defendant in other civil
cases and one criminal one on the same subject, all of which were dismissed.
In 2001, the French Parliament "publicly recognized the Armenian genocide of 1915," and in
2012 the Parliament passed a law instituting a punishment of imprisonment for one year and a
fine of 45,000 euros of anyone who "contests or minimizes in an outrageous fashion" genocides
recognized as such by French law, but the Constitutional Council ruled the latter law
unconstitutional a month later. Both of the main candidates for president that year, Nicolas
Sarkozy and François Hollande, soon announced that they would seek a new law to
criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide, and in January 2017 a law took effect providing
for a year of prison and a fine of 45,000 euros for those who denied, belittled or "banalized
in an outrageous way" recognized genocides, crimes against humanity, and enslavement or
exploitation of an enslaved person.
In 2001 Parliament also passed a law recognizing "that the trans-Atlantic trade in Negroes
as well as the trade in the Indian Ocean on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the slavery
perpetrated starting in the 15th Century, in the Americas and the Caribbean, in the Indian
Ocean and in Europe against the Africans, Amerindians, Madagascans and Indians constitute a
crime against humanity." Four years later this law was invoked against Olivier
Pétré-Grenouilleau, a professor at the University of Southern Brittany. In the
course of an interview given on June 12, 2005, in relation to his book "Les traites
négrières" (The Negro Slave Trades), which had won many awards including the
Senate History Book Prize, Pétré-Grenouilleau rejected a comparison of the slave
trades to the Jewish Holocaust: "The slave trades are not genocides. The slave trade didn't
have the goal of exterminating a people. The slave was a good that had a market value that one
wanted to make work as much as possible." An association representing people of the Caribbean,
French Guiana and Réunion filed a complaint against him for denying a crime against
humanity and demanded that he be "suspended from his university functions for revisionism." In
the vehement debate that ensued, Pétré-Grenouilleau was strongly supported by
many prominent historians, and in February 2006, acknowledging this opposition, the association
withdrew its complaint.
Shortly before the Pétré-Grenouilleau affair erupted, another "memorial" law
had been passed, in January 2005, aimed generally at recognizing the suffering of those French
citizens who had been repatriated from North Africa at the end of the Algerian War. This law
had itself evoked controversy, by requiring that "school programs recognize in particular the
positive role of the French presence overseas, notably in North Africa." A year later the law
was emended and the "positive role" removed.
I know of only three writers who have recently been given sentences that were "fermes," as
the French say, that is, that were not suspended as soon as pronounced. Vincent Reynouard is a
Frenchman born in 1969 and trained as a chemical engineer who has argued that the Nazis had no
plan to exterminate the Jews and that gas chambers were not used to kill people. Among the many
videos he has placed on the Internet, there is one in which he expresses his admiration for
Hitler; he says, "I think that Hitler was a man too good for the 20th Century, too honest, too
straightforward." A month after being arrested in Belgium, Reynouard was extradited to France
in August 2010 and served seven and a half months in prison for contesting a crime against
humanity. He has continued to produce writings and Internet videos, and in February 2015 he was
convicted of contestation of crimes against humanity and sentenced to two years in prison. In
November 2016 he was given a five-months sentence for publishing two videos in which he stated
that he would offer 5,000 euros to "anyone who can show me, in free, candid and courteous
debate, that the homicidal Hitlerian gas chambers are not a myth of history." To avoid a return
to prison, he is said to be living in England.
Hervé Ryssen, according to Wikipedia, has been sentenced several times for his
writings about Jews on counts, among others, of racial insult, racial defamation, defamation
against a group of persons because of their belonging to a certain race, and incitation to
racial hatred; and Boris Le Lay, who is living in Japan, has been sentenced in absentia many
times, most recently in July this year to serve 32 months in prison and to pay 31,500 euros to
the groups representing the supposed victims, for his writings judged to constitute incitement
to discrimination and to racial hatred and violence, and to contain public racial insults.
Among the recent charges against Le Lay was one of making death threats against activists of
the Human Rights League; I have not been able to determine if he was convicted of this; if he
was, he appears in that instance to be an exception to the other cases discussed in this
article, which involve no violence or threat thereof.
Although many speech cases involve politicians, two in particular deserve mention because
they arguably played a role in the presidential election of 2007.
The first round of the previous election, in 2002, had stunned the country as Jean-Marie Le
Pen, the leader of the National Front, edged out Lionel Jospin, the Socialist candidate, for a
place in the second round. Le Pen's share of the first-round vote was only 16.9 percent, but
Jospin was handicapped by an abundance of rivals on the left who split the vote. Before the
second round, a broad denunciatory publicity campaign to block Le Pen took place, and his
opponent, Jacques Chirac, the incumbent, refused to debate him. Chirac was re-elected with 82
percent of the vote.
Before the next election, in 2007, both Le Pen and the party's second-ranking member, Bruno
Gollnisch, would be defendants in high-profile cases over things they said.
On January 7, 2005, the rightist weekly Rivarol published an interview in which Le Pen said:
"In France, at least, the German occupation wasn't particularly inhumane, even if there were
slip-ups, inevitable in a country of 550,000 square kilometers." He also related a story about
a German lieutenant, "crazy with pain" after an attack on a train in which many young soldiers
died, who he said would have shot up a village had the Gestapo not intervened. Various groups
filed complaints, and in March an investigation was formally opened. In February 2008 he was
found guilty of complicity in the contestation of crimes against humanity and complicity in
apology for war crimes. In January 2009 the appeals court in Paris confirmed the verdict on the
first count but threw out the war-crimes verdict. In April 2011 the Court of Cassation
overturned the crimes-against-humanity verdict, and remanded the matter to the appeals court,
which again found him guilty in February 2012, a judgment confirmed by the Court of Cassation
in June 2013. Le Pen was sentenced to three months in prison (suspended) and assessed a fine of
10,000 euros, and the editor of Rivarol and the interviewer were fined 5,000 euros and 2,000
euros respectively. Three of the complainant groups were awarded damages of 5,000 euros each,
and Rivarol was ordered to pay for the publication of the decision in Le Figaro.
In the other case, Gollnisch, a professor of Japanese language and culture at the University
of Lyon who at the time was director general of the National Front (before the ascension of
Marine Le Pen), was charged with contestation of crimes against humanity for responses to a
journalist's questions at a press conference in October 2004. No electronic recording was made,
but he was quoted as saying: "There is no serious historian who accepts completely the
conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal; I think that the discussion should remain free
concerning the drama of the concentration camps. The number of deaths, the manner in which the
people died -- historians have the right to discuss. I don't deny that there were homicidal gas
chambers, but the discussion should remain free." In 2006, before the verdict was rendered, he
was suspended from his university post for five years.
During the trial Gollnisch was questioned intensively for hours one day in November 2006
over his true beliefs on the matter, and the attorney examining him, Alain Jakubowicz,
representing the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism, said he would withdraw
from the case if Gollnisch would only admit "that the organized extermination of the Jews of
Europe by the Nazi regime during the Second World War constitute an incontestable crime against
humanity perpetrated notably by the use of gas chambers." According to Le Monde, Gollnisch
appeared surprised and hesitated before giving an answer that might alienate the "hard fringe
of his movement." Gollnisch replied, "Completely." Asked to repeat his answer, he said: "My
answer is affirmative." He was convicted in January 2007, three months before the first round
of the presidential election, and sentenced to serve three months in prison (suspended) and pay
a fine of 5,000 euros. An appeals court in February 2008 confirmed the conviction and added
fines totaling 39,000 euros to be paid to nine associations devoted to fighting racism or
representing people deported from France during World War Two. But in June 2009 the Court of
Cassation, judging that his contradictory remarks as presented to the court did not constitute
contestation, overturned the verdict without possibility of retrial.
However these cases might be viewed in relation to freedom of speech, they also merit
attention from a purely political point of view. In the 2002 election, Jean-Marie Le Pen scored
an upset in the first round; in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency by, in the view of
many commentators, "borrowing the discourse" and luring the voters of Le Pen's party. In
between, both Le Pen and his righthand man were put on trial, to the accompaniment of much
public commentary, on charges that suggested their approbation of Nazi atrocities. Under such
circumstances, borrowing and luring may be much easier than would otherwise be the
case.
In September 2013 the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism sought an
injunction from a court in Bobigny to order the excision of passages from five books
republished by Kontre Kulture, a publishing enterprise whose publication director is Alain
Soral. David-Olivier Kaminski, an attorney for the league, described Soral as someone known as
a "vector of hate" and characterized the re-editions as a "provocation, with the purpose of
arousing tensions." The league also asked for 20,000 euros in damages for each of the five
books.
In November the court ordered the withdrawal from sale of one of the books, "L'Anthologie
des propos contre les juifs, le judaïsme et le sionisme" by Paul-Eric Blanrue, which had
originally been published by another publisher in 2007, and the removal of certain passages
from the four others, all of which were reprints of books published long ago: "La France juive"
by Edouard Drumont, "Le salut par les juifs" by Léon Bloy, "Le juif international" by
Henry Ford, et "La controverse de Sion" by Douglas Reed. The court judged that the works
constituted "insult toward a group of persons because of their belonging to a specific
religion," "negation of crimes against humanity," and "provocation of racial hatred." Kontre
Kulture and Soral were also ordered to pay 8,000 euros each to the league as well as a part of
its legal expenses. In December 2014 a court overturned the previous ruling on the "Anthologie"
and it was again allowed to be sold.
The media reaction focused principally on the book by Léon Bloy. Bloy's
great-grandchild, Alexis Galpérine, reminded readers in Le Figaro that Bloy was a
"philosemite" and that "Le salut par les juifs" had been recommended as a "book against
antisemitism" by Franz Kafka. Pierre Glaudes, a professor at the Sorbonne, wrote in the weekly
magazine Le Nouvel Observateur: "This decision of justice arouses astonishment and disquiet by
attacking a literary work that is 122 years old and has been republished several times without
having attracted lightning strikes by justice. This condemnation sets a dangerous precedent.
Why not censor 'The Merchant of Venice' by Shakespeare, 'Gobseck' by Balzac or 'Money' by Zola
for their antisemitic statements?"
The case of the comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala merits notice particularly for the
legal manner in which the performance of his show "The Wall" in Nantes was forbidden in January
2014.
Dieudonné, the son of a Cameroonian man and a French woman, performed for several
years early in his career with a Jewish partner, and their sketches often made fun of racism.
Eventually he came to hold Jews responsible in large part for the slave trade, he expressed
resentment at the attention given to the Holocaust in comparison with that given to the
slavery, and he came to regard Jews not as fellow victims of prejudice but instead as important
members of a power structure in which people of the Third World and of Third World origin are
kept down. His new acts were sharply criticized, and he responded with provocations such as
including Robert Faurisson, notorious as a denier of the Holocaust and gas chambers, in his
acts. Dieudonné was found guilty of racial insult or defamation on numerous occasions,
for example, for saying that a television host financed the Israeli Army, "which doesn't
hesitate to kill Palestinian children"; for characterizing Holocaust remembrance as "memorial
pornography"; for stating that the directors of a pro-Israeli website were trying to paint him
as an antisemite and "son of Hitler"; for describing the International League Against Racism
and Antisemitism as one of the "mafia-like associations that organize censorship, that deny all
concepts of racism except that concerning the Jews. In fact, they are nothing but Israeli
agents."
Largely excluded from television and other standard venues, he has nonetheless maintained an
enthusiastic and politically and racially mixed following through his stage shows and videos.
In January 2014 his stage show "The Wall" was challenged by the government as a threat to
public order and to the dignity of the human person. Its performance in Nantes was banned by
the prefecture of the Loire-Atlantic region, which judged that it contained antisemitic remarks
that would incite racial hatred and constitute an apology for discriminations, persecutions and
exterminations perpetrated in the course of the Second World War. The ban was lifted on the day
of the show by the region's administrative tribunal, which held that the show "could not be
regarded as having as its essential purpose an affront at human dignity," but the tribunal's
ruling was overturned and the ban reinstated later the same day by a judge of the Council of
State, the highest court in the administrative-law system, after an urgent request by Interior
Minister Manuel Valls.
French people in general seem content with the way free speech questions are handled. If in
private they will occasionally murmur that "one can't say anything anymore," in public there is
very little disagreement over the necessity of punishing infractions involving remarks
characterized as racist or antisemitic or "negationist." Prominent cases, such as the many
brought against Jean-Marie Le Pen, are approved, explicitly or implicitly, by the vast majority
of commentators in the press and on the radio and television. Even publications that push the
limits of public tolerance in other ways -- for example, with crude or even violently obscene
and sacrilegious writings and cartoons -- do not defend the targets of anti-racism or
anti-contestation laws on general free-speech grounds; quite the contrary.
There is no high-profile organization or figure that publicly espouses the famous words that
Voltaire apparently never really said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it." Over all the attitude is closer to that attributed to the
revolutionary Saint-Just, "No liberty for the enemies of liberty." The slogan of the
International League Against Racism and Antisemitism, one of the organizations most active in
denouncing speech offenders, is "Racism is not an opinion but a criminal offense." Even a group
such as Reporters Without Borders, which works to further the freedom of the press throughout
the world, generally makes no objection to the laws discussed above, although it did oppose the
one criminalizing the denial of legally recognized genocides. In an interview, Antoine
Héry, in charge of the group's activities in the European Union and the Balkans,
explained to me: "I think that the problem in France is that there really are racist statements
-- many. This climate exists; it isn't a phantasm. There is, from this point of view, a
necessity to regulate a little the domain of speech, because there are abuses. I don't think
that in the United States one finds this sort of mass behavior -- because it is massive, it
isn't just one guy in his corner doing his thing."
There have been dissident voices on the subject of the criminalization of so-called
negationism and other "memorial laws." One of the most prominent is a group called
Liberté pour l'Histoire, which was formed in 2005 in response to what seemed about to
become a wave of such laws. In a public appeal signed by nineteen historians in December of
that year and later by hundreds more, it stated that "in a free state, it is not the business
of the parliament nor of the judicial authority to define historical truth" and called for "the
abrogation of these legislative measures unworthy of a democratic regime." But even this
unambiguous stand is not so solid as it might appear. In 2010, at the International Congress of
Historical Sciences in Amsterdam, the group's president, Pierre Nora, spoke of the Gayssot Law
and stated: "It is now twenty years since the law was voted, and even if we continue to regret
it intellectually speaking, the association Liberté pour l'Histoire does not campaign
for its suppression and does not wish to challenge it for the simple reason that this legal and
official challenge would only be seen in the public eye as authorizing and even encouraging the
denial of the Jewish genocide." There could hardly be a better illustration of the French
ambivalence on the matter than this.
This ambivalence derives from an evident fact: the characteristics of the system that make
it vicious from a free-speech perspective -- the vagueness and elasticity of the definitions of
the crimes, the politically selective application of the laws, the tendency of the trials to
become examinations of the defendants' thoughts and beliefs rather than merely of their public
statements -- are virtues for a system of political repression, and in France there is a
general consensus that the "extreme right" needs to be kept down and that expressions of
"racism" and "antisemitism" deserve to be squelched. While there are pockets of dissidence --
such as the websites Polémia and Boulevard Voltaire, the independent rightist station
Radio Courtoisie and the Internet television channel TV Libertés -- the assumption
remains widespread that anyone arguing that freedom should extend to such speech must have evil
motives.
The legal procedures through which speech is restricted do sometimes come under criticism.
For instance, the ban on Dieudonné's show "The Wall" was widely criticized because it
imposed a prior restraint, seen as equivalent to censorship in a way that punishing the
performer afterward would not be. Jack Lang, who was minister of culture in the Mitterrand
administration, said that the Council of State had opened a Pandora's box of potential abuses;
he objected as well to basing the decision on a vague principle of "human dignity" and pointed
out that the risk to public order was not credible. Michel Tubiana, a former president of the
Human Rights League, which also objected to the ban, told me in an interview that
Dieudonné should have been allowed to do his show and then he could have been prosecuted
in the normal way. On the league's website, one reads: "Clearly it is necessary to let nothing
pass, to systematically bring prosecutions against the delinquent, to denounce systematically
his crimes."
For the future, there is pressure to increase the surveillance, particularly of the
Internet. At its annual dinners, which are grand affairs similar to those of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee in the United States, the Representative Council of Jewish
Institutions of France presses the attending government officials hard for ever more stringent
restrictions, especially on Internet communications. In March 2016, for example, its president,
Roger Cukierman, urged that the state of emergency "should also apply to the Internet," and
this year its new president, Francis Kalifat, called for "zero tolerance" for bloggers "of
hateful content."
In the meantime, France, like the other countries of the European Union, is a party to the
Council Framework Decision "on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia
by means of criminal law," adopted unanimously by the ministers in the Council of the European
Union in November 2008. In a report in January 2014 on the implementation of this decision, the
European Commission stated: "Member States must ensure that the following intentional conduct
is punishable when directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by
reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin:
publicly inciting to violence or hatred, including by public dissemination or distribution of
tracts, pictures or other material; publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising
crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8
of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; or the crimes defined in Article 6 of the
Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August
1945, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against
such a group or one or more of its members."
And France does its part, by continuing to reinforce its laws. On August 5 of this year it
made illegal any "nonpublic" insult or defamation (as, for example, made during a meeting in a
company's offices) "made toward a person or group of persons because of their origin or
belonging or not belonging, real or supposed, to an ethnic group, a nation, a putative race or
a particular religion; [or] because of their sex, their sexual orientation or gender identity,
or their handicap."
The law provides for fines of 1,500 euros initially and 3,000 euros for recidivists. It also
gives a judge the option of augmenting the punishment with a compulsory course in
citizenship.
Lawrence G. Proulx is a retired copy editor who worked for more than 30 years at the
Washington Times, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune and International New York
Times.
"[Neo]Liberalism" is a religion. It defines orthodoxy and heresy and punishes the latter.
It asserts the right to punish those who traduce its icons and who violate its taboos.
From all this long history of curtailment and punishment of free speech of various sorts,
it seems like the French never really had their hearts in it, whether they had their
constitution of the 5th Republic with its weasel-out words "but shall be responsible for such
abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." or even if they had had the same supposed
"law of the land" as the US Constitution with its Amendment I.
Our Constitution was upheld pretty well for about 3/4 of the total time since it was
written, but it takes the kind of people who care about basic principles. That would pretty
much mean mostly descendants of the Founders with only such influx of newcomers that could be
assimilated into the culture that values basic principles over political expediency. It goes
without saying that women shouldn't have been allowed to vote here, but I said it just in
case. In France, I think there weren't so many people that ever got the real idea of free
speech and the quote that Voltaire didn't say.
Worse yet for France is the codifying of certain areas of knowledge, normally subject to
debate, as "Government-Approved Non-arguable Truth" , which is what the legal
maneuvers you write about amount to. Of course, the elites, along with the cucks of the land
arrange these Truths to be based on any opposition to foreign immigrant invasion, defending
of one's race, but opposition to the Government will always be number 1, as that locks it all
in. It's a nice Catch-22 there – "YOUR government's speech policy clearly specifies
what you can and can't talk about. The speech policy happens to be one of the things you
can't talk about."
The Ministry of Truth is probably not even necessary anymore, as it seems like the
unprincipled French have let the bulk of it be put in place already – maybe the
Ministry of Truth is all part of "The Cloud". Instead of the answer to, or way out of, this
1984 society lying "with the proles", I'd say it's more up to the hackers now.
Definitional hypertrophy
"This ambivalence derives from an evident fact: the characteristics of the system that make
it vicious from a free-speech perspective -- the vagueness and elasticity of the definitions
of the crimes"
In an earlier piece Mr. Proulx wrote about 'defintional hypertrophy' which seems to
characterize our Zeitgeist. A great great phrase which sums up the elasticized properties of
the big three sins of our times, racism, sexism and homophobia.
Racism used to mean Birmingham Regulations regarding public facilities and separate but equal
schools, now due to definitional hypertrophy it means 'noticing any racial characteristics'
especially if you are white. Sexism used to mean, say banning women from non nurturing
occupations and now it means saying "You look good!" to a woman in a absent minded fit of
masculinity. Homophobia used to mean 'Hey keep it in the closet pal i don't want to think
about what you do" and now homophobia means you must clap loudly and quickly at all
homosexual activities or Homo Tinkerbell will die.
Over time these definitions have expanded as the Majority's freedoms have contracted.
Free speech is an illusion, it seems. Most people want to shut their enemies up, and often
succeed in doing so. Some countries are just more upfront about it.
Is there not class distinction which helps fo understand what these laws are about. Any
intelligènt edicated person ought to be verbally adroit enough to convey his meaning
in an indirect way so as to avoid the thrust of the law. Thus, e.g.
I think we should discuss how we can combat the very commonly stated view that X and the
alarming number of people who can see nothing wrong with it. It is not a matter so much as
truth or falsehood but we need to ensure that children are indoctrinated from an early age so
they will never even ask the disturbing queston "is this true?". By the time they have grown
up to participate in the political life of the nation the whole question will have been
swallowed by a memory hole and become a non issue. Much safer for the tranquillity of society
than continued cantankerous debates erupting over the truth or falsity of something
permanently consigned to be false.
Long but worth it. As author Proulx says, you can skip over sections in the middle and
jump to his conclusion. This is one of the most thoroughly researched, best organized and
most clearly written articles I've ever read on Unz.com. The internet needs more copy editors
writing like this.
The article is really helpful in understanding the current situation in France.
The European context is mentioned at the end. It would be interesting to read a comparison
of France and other European countries.
In the land of "Liberte, Fraternite, et Egalite" there is from all appearances very little
"liberte" and that little international clique of "freres" enjoys a lot more "egalite" than
the rest.
I think the situation in Spain has shown just how little the EU pretenses of 'democracy'
mean. Indeed, we all know the famous quote about what 'democracy' really means.
Regrettably though I think things will need to get much worse before they get better. I
think the 'normal' people will need Muslims to make up at least 50% of the overall population
before they realize just what a horrific future they are heading to..
One of the first things I came across when trying to pinpoint when the Islamic threat was
first being 'ginned up' in the US was this essay written in 1992. It is so accurate it could
have been written yesterday. I think anyone could guess at which foreign country had the
individuals and journalist and congressional clout in the US to create the idea of a 'Green
Peril'.
The "Green Peril": Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
By Leon T. Hadar
August 27, 1992
excerpts..
The Making of a "Peril"
The Islamic threat argument is becoming increasingly popular with some segments of the
American foreign policy establishment. They are encouraged by foreign governments who, for
reasons of self-interest, want to see Washington embroiled in the coming West vs. Islam
confrontation. The result is the construction of the new peril, a process that does not
reflect any grand conspiracy but that nevertheless has its own logic, rules and
timetables.
Indeed, like the Red Menace of the Cold War era, the Green Peril is perceived as a cancer
spreading around the globe, undermining the legitimacy of Western values and political
systems. The cosmic importance of the confrontation would make it necessary for Washington to
adopt a long term diplomatic and military strategy; to forge new and solid alliances; to
prepare the American people for a never ending struggle that will test their resolve; and to
develop new containment policies, new doctrines, and a new foreign policy elite with its
"wise men" and "experts."
The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who
leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources
reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then
augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists
and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media
end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the
sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating
the threat coming from the new bad guys.
In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their
publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press
briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and
eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is
now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a
new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several
months.
The Israeli government and its supporters in Washington are trying to play the Islamic
card. The specter of Central Asian republics and Iran equipped with nuclear weapons helps
Israel to reduce any potential international pressure on it to place its own nuclear
capabilities and strategy on the negotiating table. More important, perhaps, the Green Peril
could revive, in the long run, Israel's role as America's strategic asset, which was eroded
as a result of the end of the Cold War
The operational message is that the United States "must refocus its policy on the basic
problems facing the Islamic world rather than only the Arab-Israeli conflict."[23]
Jerusalem's attempts to turn that conflict into a Jewish-Moslem confrontation and to place
America on its side to help contain radical Moslem forces in the region may become a
self-fulfilling prophecy. The result is likely to be strengthened anti-American feelings in
the Middle East and anti-American terrorist acts, which, in turn, will invite a new round of
American military intervention."
How marginalization of opposition works: Once the extreme positions on an issue (left of
right) are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position in (which the lobbyists could not
easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes the new "extreme". As a bonus its
advocates can be accused of being closet supporters of the banned position and as such
ostracized.
I've been banned from the Antiwar comment section more than once for explicitly mentioning
Jewish influence on foreign policy without masking it with terms like "Zionists,"
"Neocons," "Likudniks," or the "War Party."
As much as the older crowd on our political spectrum hate to admit it, Daily Stormer and
Pol have actually opened up a space for a rational discussion of Jewish influence on
politics. When you have anonymous accounts literally calling for all Jews to be gassed, a
couple pundits talking soberly about Jewish influence seem fairly moderate by
comparison.
And the readers of DS and Pol are definitely the younger generation who will make up the
majority of the Right in the future. I envision a day in the near future when the mention
of Israel elicits boos at the Republican National Convention.
As much as the older crowd on our political spectrum hate to admit it, Daily Stormer and
Pol have actually opened up a space for a rational discussion of Jewish influence on
politics. When you have anonymous accounts literally calling for all Jews to be gassed, a
couple pundits talking soberly about Jewish influence seem fairly moderate by
comparison.
This is of course exactly how banning opinions distorts debate and why identity lobbyists
love to impose such taboos on discourse.
Once the extreme positions on an issue are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position
in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes
the apparent "extreme" and as a bonus its advocates can be accused of being closet supporters
of the banned extreme. They then have to spend all their time and energy defending themselves
against being harassed and trying to word their arguments carefully so they can't be accused
of falling foul of the taboo (or as with some of the accusations against Giraldi's piece here
– of not trying hard enough to avoid the supposed appearance of falling foul of
it).
That's how proposals to limit mass immigration are labelled "race hatred" and banned in
many forums, and how reasonable raising of an important issue such as in Giraldi's piece gets
one smeared as an "antisemite" (or potentially prosecuted in the UK) and excluded from
mainstream publications.
As much as the older crowd on our political spectrum hate to admit it, Daily Stormer and
Pol have actually opened up a space for a rational discussion of Jewish influence on
politics. When you have anonymous accounts literally calling for all Jews to be gassed, a
couple pundits talking soberly about Jewish influence seem fairly moderate by
comparison.
This is of course exactly how banning opinions distorts debate and why identity
lobbyists love to impose such taboos on discourse.
Once the extreme positions on an issue are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position
in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes
the apparent "extreme" and as a bonus its advocates can be accused of being closet supporters
of the banned extreme. They then have to spend all their time and energy defending themselves
against being harassed and trying to word their arguments carefully so they can't be accused
of falling foul of the taboo (or as with some of the accusations against Giraldi's piece here
- of not trying hard enough to avoid the supposed appearance of falling foul of it).
That's how proposals to limit mass immigration are labelled "race hatred" and banned in
many forums, and how reasonable raising of an important issue such as in Giraldi's piece gets
one smeared as an "antisemite" (or potentially prosecuted in the UK) and excluded from
mainstream publications.
Once the extreme positions on an issue are rendered taboo and excluded, the next
position in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme"
initially) becomes the apparent "extreme" and as a bonus its advocates can be accused of
being closet supporters of the banned extreme.
I'm glad your insightful comment was recognized as such
Reminds me of how Marine Le Pen's father was marginalized as an 'anti-Semite' (for simply
telling the obvious truth), and once he was effectively maligned, (they) set their sights on
the moderate daughter, as being "far right", which simply means not as far left as (they)
are.
today they call the AfD "far right", in order to marginalize their extremely reasonable
and moderate positions – as advocating an invasion of Poland
and of course, were Mr. G to sob his contrition and re-write the article, (not likely ; ),
they'd simply set their sights on the next target, having moved the goal posts and tilted the
playing field always more and more in their favor.
"... I've always treated neoliberalism as a political project carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. They desperately wanted to launch a political project that would curb the power of labor. ..."
"... In many respects the project was a counterrevolutionary project. It would nip in the bud what, at that time, were revolutionary movements in much of the developing world ..."
"... So in that situation there was, in effect, a global threat to the power of the corporate capitalist class and therefore the question was, What to do?. The ruling class wasn't omniscient but they recognized that there were a number of fronts on which they had to struggle: the ideological front, the political front, and above all they had to struggle to curb the power of labor by whatever means possible. Out of this there emerged a political project which I would call neoliberalism. ..."
"... The ideological front amounted to following the advice of a guy named Lewis Powell . He wrote a memo saying that things had gone too far, that capital needed a collective project. The memo helped mobilize the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. ..."
"... Ideas were also important to the ideological front. The judgment at that time was that universities were impossible to organize because the student movement was too strong and the faculty too liberal-minded, so they set up all of these think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Ohlin Foundation. These think tanks brought in the ideas of Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and supply-side economics. ..."
"... This process took a long time. I think now we've reached a point where you don't need something like the Heritage Foundation anymore. Universities have pretty much been taken over by the neoliberal projects surrounding them. ..."
"... With respect to labor, the challenge was to make domestic labor competitive with global labor. One way was to open up immigration. In the 1960s, for example, Germans were importing Turkish labor, the French Maghrebian labor, the British colonial labor. But this created a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest. ..."
"... Instead they chose the other way -- to take capital to where the low-wage labor forces were. But for globalization to work you had to reduce tariffs and empower finance capital, because finance capital is the most mobile form of capital. So finance capital and things like floating currencies became critical to curbing labor. ..."
"... At the same time, ideological projects to privatize and deregulate created unemployment. So, unemployment at home and offshoring taking the jobs abroad, and a third component: technological change , deindustrialization through automation and robotization. That was the strategy to squash labor. ..."
"... It was an ideological assault but also an economic assault. To me this is what neoliberalism was about: it was that political project ..."
"... I think they just intuitively said, We gotta crush labor, how do we do it? And they found that there was a legitimizing theory out there, which would support that. ..."
I've always treated neoliberalism as a political project carried out by the corporate
capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards
the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. They desperately wanted to launch a political project that
would curb the power of labor.
In many respects the project was a counterrevolutionary project. It would nip in the bud
what, at that time, were revolutionary movements in much of the developing world -- Mozambique,
Angola, China etc. -- but also a rising tide of communist
influences in countries like Italy and France and, to a lesser degree, the threat of a
revival of that in Spain.
Even in the United States, trade unions had produced a Democratic Congress that was quite
radical in its intent. In the early 1970s they, along with other social movements, forced a
slew of reforms and reformist initiatives which were anti-corporate: the
Environmental Protection Agency , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
consumer protections, and a whole set of things around empowering labor even more than it had
been empowered before.
So in that situation there was, in effect, a global threat to the power of the corporate
capitalist class and therefore the question was, What to do?. The ruling class wasn't omniscient
but they recognized that there were a number of fronts on which they had to struggle: the
ideological front, the political front, and above all they had to struggle to curb the power of
labor by whatever means possible. Out of this there emerged a political project which I would
call neoliberalism.
BSR Can you talk a
bit about the ideological and political fronts and the attacks on labor? DH The ideological front amounted to following the advice of a guy
named Lewis
Powell . He wrote a memo saying that things had gone too far, that capital needed a
collective project. The memo helped mobilize the Chamber of Commerce and the Business
Roundtable.
Ideas were also important to the ideological front. The judgment at that time was that
universities were impossible to organize because the student movement was too strong and the
faculty too liberal-minded, so they set up all of these think tanks like the Manhattan
Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Ohlin Foundation. These think tanks brought in the
ideas of Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and supply-side economics.
The idea was to have these think tanks do serious research and some of them did -- for
instance, the National Bureau of Economic
Research was a privately funded institution that did extremely good and thorough research.
This research would then be published independently and it would influence the press and bit by
bit it would surround and infiltrate the universities.
This process took a long time. I think now we've reached a point where you don't need
something like the Heritage Foundation anymore. Universities have pretty much been taken over
by the neoliberal projects surrounding them.
With respect to labor, the challenge was to make domestic labor competitive with global
labor. One way was to open up immigration. In the 1960s, for example, Germans were importing
Turkish labor, the French Maghrebian labor, the British colonial labor. But this created a
great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest.
Instead they chose the other way -- to take capital to where the low-wage labor forces
were. But for globalization to work you had to reduce tariffs and
empower finance capital, because finance capital is the most mobile form of capital. So
finance capital and things like floating currencies became critical to curbing labor.
At the same time, ideological projects to privatize and deregulate created unemployment.
So, unemployment at home and offshoring taking the jobs abroad, and a third component:
technological change ,
deindustrialization through automation and robotization. That was the strategy to squash
labor.
It was an ideological assault but also an economic assault. To me this is what neoliberalism
was about: it was that political project, and I think the bourgeoisie or the corporate
capitalist class put it into motion bit by bit.
I don't think they started out by reading Hayek or anything, I think they just intuitively
said, We gotta crush labor, how do we do it? And they found that there was a legitimizing
theory out there, which would support that.
"Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information
infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually -
do in fact believe just that.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the
official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure
that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS
Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
"... In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position: ..."
"... In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM. ..."
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's
where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from
the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS
Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened
to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say
whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come
to mind
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be
dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong
doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a
leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting
layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran
a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it
discussed in the MSM.
"... The history of the 20th and 21st centuries is largely what it is because of political conspiracies,
wherein the state does one thing or another using covert methods and then sells the opposite story to
the gullible public. It is basically a form of military deception by other means. ..."
"... There is no doubt that the public (the real enemy of the state) sure are gullible. ..."
"... a conspiracy, as Mr Unz indicates, is just a perjorative term used by the state to divert attention
from what are otherwise normal covert operations. The real issue is that these events have had massive,
gigantic global consequences but operate completely below the radar of the intellectual classes. ..."
"... This is an old clip showing admittance of the CIA that they use the mainstream media to manipulate
the thoughts and ideas of American citizens in the USA. This has not changed obviously and is good to
know happened in the past due to our reality today. http://youtu.be/5ED63A_hcd0 ..."
"... 9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony in full: https://www.c-span.org/video/?408953-1/tom-charles-huston-testimony-church-committee
..."
"... Secrecy is important to the extent that people would be in a position to thwart the conspiracy
should they come to know about it. To minimize the need for secrecy, the conspirators might try to foster
a general, childlike ignorance about public affairs, so that the public would not recognize a conspiracy
even if it were being discussed openly. ..."
"... In this regard, the capture of major media (pace Mr. Unz) would be key to achieving this aim.
Marginalization is another strategy, so that those few who become aware of a conspiracy do not have
enough social capital to muster any significant action against it. ..."
"... "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who
leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates
and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence
reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search
for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form
an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information
substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys. ..."
"... following the collapse of Soviets, they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding
raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan, and even in Malayasia back in 1992. ..."
"... Conspiracy theory -- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and
practiced by the government all the time. It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to
agenda . The moment they use false narrative, weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution
abusing the authorities, abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propaganda preaching
journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy. ..."
Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then
the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not
essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence
of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or
secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.
The history of the 20th and 21st centuries is largely what it is because of political conspiracies,
wherein the state does one thing or another using covert methods and then sells the opposite story
to the gullible public. It is basically a form of military deception by other means.
There is no doubt that the public (the real enemy of the state) sure are gullible.
I think Mr Unz is trying to work out in his own mind why it is that the sell job always works
and is so successful.
Consider the following false flag events:
REICHSTAG FIRE: carried out by Nazi party and blamed on communists. Allowed Hitler to rise
to power.
PEARL HARBOUR: The grandaddy of them all. A setup by Roosevelt to allow the US to enter
WW2.
ASSASSINATION OF JFK: Stopped JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam and allowed massive
expansion of the war.
GULF WAR 1991: A setup by Bush I to allow US assets to be moved into the Middle East.
9/11, 7/7 False flag events to enable Iraq war, GWOT and set the stage for perpetual war.
These events are all clearly 'conspiracies', but a conspiracy, as Mr Unz indicates, is
just a perjorative term used by the state to divert attention from what are otherwise normal covert
operations. The real issue is that these events have had massive, gigantic global consequences
but operate completely below the radar of the intellectual classes.
(1975) CIA Admits Using News To Manipulate the USA
This is an old clip showing admittance of the CIA that they use the mainstream media to
manipulate the thoughts and ideas of American citizens in the USA. This has not changed obviously
and is good to know happened in the past due to our reality today.
http://youtu.be/5ED63A_hcd0
Secrecy is important to the extent that people would be in a position to thwart the conspiracy
should they come to know about it. To minimize the need for secrecy, the conspirators might try
to foster a general, childlike ignorance about public affairs, so that the public would not recognize
a conspiracy even if it were being discussed openly.
In this regard, the capture of major media (pace Mr. Unz) would be key to achieving this
aim. Marginalization is another strategy, so that those few who become aware of a conspiracy do
not have enough social capital to muster any significant action against it. Believing that
a conspiracy needs secrecy is the perhaps optimistic belief that neither dumbing down the general
public nor marginalizing the watchdogs is sufficient: there's still a significant chance that
public exposure could derail the conspirators.
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support
the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the
beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for
some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.
"The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials
who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect
debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by
colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers.
Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration
from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and
help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and
policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14)
The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter
Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing
force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces
grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship
in Algeria.
Printing a ticket and getting a Passport ,if all that you have, then you are in the right league
. Join those in NYT, WaPo, Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland, because
following the collapse of Soviets, they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding
raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan, and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory -- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common
and practiced by the government all the time. It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance
to agenda . The moment they use false narrative, weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer
solution abusing the authorities, abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting
propaganda preaching journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging
in conspiracy. It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.
The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam
. Its a multilayered multi focal interconnected open production of a vast conspiracy – achieved
without any shred of evidence or even plausible reason for the existence of any such threat .
This is a quote from an article published in 1992 and quotes 90 sources .
" In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their
publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings.
A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines
and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated
into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of
the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.(13)
THE GREEN PERIL
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
Leon T Hadar ,a former bureau chief for Jerusalem Post.
"WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, ABC news and Economist all gathered the Islamic experts
out of the same offices that used to house the Soviet experts, painted them green removed the
red markings and asked them to follow the direction . ( Well I made this up But that's exactly
what happened .)
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts
in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news
management.
@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most
of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy
vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out
to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
@Chief SeattleSo, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become
"fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid
mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ,"
without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple
reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not
quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence
US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s ** t up.
...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time
conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst
to the employees or shareholders.
@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy
theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about
what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you
do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have
taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of
"talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren
Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments,
newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical
of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government,
foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative,
but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives
working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper
has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if
in fact, it ever ceased.
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement
within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously
referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism
has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud
being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
"... Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss. ..."
"... The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther. ..."
"... It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by -- on the payroll of – the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. ..."
"... Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in. ..."
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and
although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the
American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been
faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts
of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and
those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were
universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of
human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented
in the pages of our most respectable newspapers!from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant
local case of petty urban corruption!could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory"
but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for
those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of
establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with
the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never
described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our
television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime
would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous
"conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen
Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses,
and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the
most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the
minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK
assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have
frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the
initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to
denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest
national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon
becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and
its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead
regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's
arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some
70% of the American
public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade
Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information
Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone
with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no
one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
one
of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose
influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in
shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his
examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into
WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes,
but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those
possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was
marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public
intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from
respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally
contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in
American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the
very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be
implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a
conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more
importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a
major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His
own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely
contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was
potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense,
elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of
suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are
probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own
case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the
same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern
liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier
George Soros
claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative
thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for
the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American
tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually
stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its
exclusion from respectable discourse.
Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and
then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it
is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never
prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be
little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and
by definition not be a conspiracy.
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote
with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had.
The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate
the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we
figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
Note: This paper was published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994. This is the
original typescript sent to the journal, it does not include any editorial changes that may
have been made. The journal itself is not available online, to my knowledge.
Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Ted Goertzel1
Running Head: Belief in Conspiracy Theories.
KEY WORDS: conspiracy theories, anomia, trust
Table Three
Means Scores of Racial/Ethnic Groups on Attitude Scales
White[W] Hispanic[H] Black[B]
Scale
Belief in Conspiracies 2.5[W] 2.8[H] 3.3[B]
Anomia 3.4[W] 3.8[H] 4.1[B]
Trust 3.7[W] 3.3[H] 3.1[B]
Note: All scales varied from 1 to 5, with 3 as a neutral score.
One of the most interesting discussions of the paper:
It is puzzling that conspiratorial thinking has been overlooked in the extensive
research on authoritarianism which has dominated quantitative work in political psychology
since the 1950s. One possible explanation is that much of this work focuses on right-wing
authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1988), while conspiratorial thinking is characteristic of
alienated thinkers on both the right and the left (Citrin, et al., 1975; Graumann, 1987;
Berlet, 1992). Even more surprisingly, however, conspiratorial thinking has not been a
focus of the efforts to measure "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stone, 1980; Eysenck, 1981;
LeVasseur & Gold, 1993) or of research with the "dogmatism" concept (Rokeach, 1960)
which was intended to overcome the ideological bias in authoritarianism measures.
On a more fundamental level, the difficulty with existing research traditions may be their
focus on the content of beliefs rather than the res[p]ondent's cognitive processes or
emotional makeup. As I have argued elsewhere (Goertzel, 1987), most studies of
authoritarianism simply ask people what they believe and then assume that these beliefs
must be based on underlying psychological processes which go unmeasured. Since these
scales ask mostly about beliefs held by those on the right, it is not surprising that they
find authoritarianism to be a right-wing phenomenon. Research with projective tests
(Rothman and Lichter, 1982) and biographical materials (Goertzel, 1992), on the other hand,
has confirmed that many aspects of authoritarian thinking can be found on both the left and
the right.
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views
already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are
discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent
example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the
election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible
explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations)
for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government
of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with
explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44.
Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed
British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the
country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo
boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following
over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government
concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all
lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with
Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that
seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were
sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations
including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of
Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the
momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have
included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime
(dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security
troops – or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
Simplifying one "contradiction": Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian. Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward
Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our
elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our
elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist
forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.
Mr. Unz's direct confrontation with this topic leads me to feel a sense of sentimentality
or coming full circle as my "red-pilled" experience literally started with his The Myth of
American Meritocracy a little over 2 years ago (I finally looked into the "white
privilege" I was "highly exposed" to in college).
Long story short, I was a lazy liberal beforehand, now a highly motivated conservative;
nothing helps one get their ish together better than understanding the trajectory at which
our society is heading. The Myth of American Meritocracy singularly led me to have a
more open mind in understanding how non-congruent the mainstream narrative can be with man's
shared universal reality, and having spent way too much time in school learning research
methodology, I finally applied it via whim thereafter to criminal statistics (but we know
where this story ends), then WW2, the mainstream narrative of which I grew up worshiping
For someone who, when I was naive, hung on to every word one heard or read in the
countless amount of hours I've spent in American history classes, for me to learn the hard
way of Operation Keelhaul, the Haavara Agreement, the disease epidemic, the migrant crisis
(before hand), the hand THE banksters probably played (in playing both sides), and so
on, it becomes all too clear how amazingly systematically corrupt our academic system has
become. Not once did I ever hear one smidgen about those extremely large plot points; they're
so consistently implicitly left out of the script its terrifying.
Alternating to my freshman year of high school now, when I was still naive, I
complained to our just hired 22 year old (conveniently) Jewish teacher (fresh out of the Ivy
League but back to sacrifice where he had graduated high school, he had always reminded us)
over having to read about the Little Rock 9 and Ann Frank for literally (in my case) the 4th
time (each). Point is, even when I was entirely clueless, and had no defensive instinct at
all, it still didn't feel healthy to read over and over again; I was emotionally exhausted
already. I accepted their stories at face value, faced the guilt, and just wanted to move on,
yet according to my teacher I "lacked empathy" (so if only we were taught about how the Irish
were treated in the 17th we'd be fine). It really is this kind of dwelling on the past that
has been institutionalized, and its borderline brain-washing, regardless of the said
tragedy's validity.
There is one such particular event of WW2 that, once naive, I've personally cried over
more than any other historical event easily (perhaps even more than anything subjectively
experienced), much in thanks to programmed televising So what's so weird about all of this,
is its like a meta-intellectual betrayal, but with all the emotional connotations of a woman
who wronged you in all the worse ways (and she's inevitably waiting in seemingly every dark
corner of history you delve into, thus the "endless rabbit hole" you fall through). And its
this implicit brand of deceit that is patently feminine which can be inductively read from
the MSM to "read the tea leaves"
I could go on and on but really I initially just wanted to thank you Mr. Unz, your
publication, and your current and past writing staff. I don't even want to imagine a world
where I had never stumbled upon your work!
Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've
completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly
hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now
completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And
they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that
got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.
I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in
the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful
point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain
widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often
subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on
conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life,
I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of
mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time of not taking arguments seriously,
and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in
which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the
attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social
habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument
itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood "
or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to
their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No
doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his
feelings" ! I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the
thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so
many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments
seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities
as well as venal collective interests.
One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have
taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who
question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed
on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being
representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the
narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at
some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press.
Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are
those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and
shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?
Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many
actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need
not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to
contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at
Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long
distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American
political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11! so that base is covered; no need to say
more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been
published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the
evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as
much as what MK-Ultra was about.
@Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag
operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government
of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with
explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44.
Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed
British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the
country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo
boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following
over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government
concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all
lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with
Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that
seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were
sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations
including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of
Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the
momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have
included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime
(dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security
troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory? I accept that your explanation of
the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that
Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not
in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but
that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and
evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?
@anonymous One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of
what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit
those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were
crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being
representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the
narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at
some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press.
Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are
those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and
shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?
Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many
actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need
not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to
contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at
Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long
distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American
political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit
and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but
rather is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or ! beyond the usual
understandings about human nature ! is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and
manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If
the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and
institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning ! by
the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point?
How did it happen?
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit
and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but
rather is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond
the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit
and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures?
If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and
institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning --
by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what
point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption? It would be worth considering the different
contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant
culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult – like
whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many
brains: slavery.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of
Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about
Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I
have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?–is on
Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a
major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most
important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the
idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his
readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally
harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind,
elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense
against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping
them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy
theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore
their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a
matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the
unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes,
there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons,
liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only
in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists.
Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the
attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by
James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon
Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having
read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has
drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science.
And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political
philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he
could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might
say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few
people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that
is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself
a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked
it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political
science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory."
But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well,
because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
@Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short
shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article
makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may
nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful
forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing
legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on
conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life,
I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of
mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and
at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which
deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude
of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of
the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's "
blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect
challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as
conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the
depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the
thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so
many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments
seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities
as well as venal collective interests. "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind
and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered
and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and
"not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions,
professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man
who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The
minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind
it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I
remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent
dissembling.
It's good to see that Mr. Beard is getting some well deserved good press. It's also good
to have people put on alert about Leo Strauss; his name should be a household word, and that
of derision. I first learned of the fool at LewRockwell.com, and I feel it's worth investigating him as
a source of the goofy neocon outlook that the world's been suffering under for decades. "Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient
world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power. Straussian neoconservatism is not conservatism as it has ever been understood in America
or anywhere else "
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the
Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very
right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
Popper and Strauss. Neoliberal thought unites with neoconservative thought. Explicitly
different rationales, but the same goals and the same method of achieving those goals. Sounds
like target marketing of the two biggest target markets of American exceptionalism –
dumb and dumber. Apparently critical thinkers are a minority that they believe can be easily
marginalized.
@JL Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've
completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly
hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now
completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And
they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that
got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.
Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests
that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire
media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched,
easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in
support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved
from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite.
Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the
national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power
of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of
wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of
ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into
politically-expressed contexts.
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human
values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit
and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but
rather is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond
the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit
and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures?
If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and
institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning --
by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what
point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents
during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring
to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness
of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there,
can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal
access/opportunity to redeem?
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a
secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network
of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy
theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory". No
what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological
works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g.
this book .
The great flaw in the Western system of "democratic" government is that hardly anyone
knows the meaning of the word "epistemology", let alone have any grasp of the underlying
challenge of knowing what they know, or rather knowing how little they know beyond what they
know from direct personal experience. This is a challenge made vastly more difficult in the
modern age when almost everything we know is derived not from personal experience, or from
other people of whose character and intellectual competence we have some personal knowledge,
but from the arrangement of ink on paper or of pixels on a video screen. To this problem,
there is probably no solution, although either a sharp restriction of the franchise to those
of some maturity and education, or a division of the franchise according to what each
particular individual could be expected to know something about, would be a step in the right
direction.
As it is, we will, inevitably, continue to be the target of high powered manipulation by
corporate owned media and other powerful interests.
Professor Lance Haven de Smith, whose book you mention is an expert on SCADS, or state
crimes against democracy. An article by him on this topic is available here .
There is some interesting academic material about SCADs here .
In spook circles, leaving [false] clues is referred to as inoculation. Refer to the work of Bill
McGuire in the late 50s and early 60s. For example, we here in Langley and Ft. Meade have
left intact on the internet the early picture of the 20′ entry hole left by the
"757″ in the facade of the pentagon before the explosion and complete collapse of the
exterior wall ..inviting the conspiratorial question " where are the wings, the mangled
cadavers, the tail?". This is all just too easy
Highly reccomend Chris Buckley's book.
"Little Green Men" The plot is that the entire UFO thing was set up after WW3 by the DOJ to
keep the money flowing. Like all Buckley's books, it's a great read. I stopped believing in anything written in newspapers around 1966 because they were so pro
black criminal and anti police
@biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and
sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g.
this book .
No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and
sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.
Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining
"conspiracy theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in
producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The
conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly
links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a
supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of
the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a
picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific
conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to
secrecy and are probably guilty."
@Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything
Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate
version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and
libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have
read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on
Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of
Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books (
Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern
philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss
simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against
anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them
hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy
theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore
their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a
matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the
unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that
considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian
paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical
and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives,
agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The
neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible
2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account
of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes
without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has
drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science.
And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political
philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he
could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might
say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few
people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that
is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself
a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked
it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political
science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory."
But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well,
because there is no evidence of such in his writings. C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained
as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess
his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he
demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of
disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard
to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.
@SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative,
then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical
orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he
demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss
was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book
reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's
Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for
understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by -- on the payroll of – the
CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off
the ground.
@SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative,
then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical
orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he
demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the
1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said
that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he
was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt -- something Schmitt himself
acknowledged.
@SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important
influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time
the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's
Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for
understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by -- on the payroll of - the CIA
while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the
ground. So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly?
Kristol's concerns–data-driven social science–were not Strauss's. And so on and
on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible,
partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for
elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
@Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of
Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right
through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper
thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged. This is complete nonsense.
Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real
sweet spot was academic politics.
@5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a
weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. Schmitt disagreed with
you.
@5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a
weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. At any rate it's sort of
absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that
Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make
Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of
politics -- i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of
Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says
so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own
attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern
rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.
@anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly
encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan
"struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating
(and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to
December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi
Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR
manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen? "FDR never intended that 2,400
Americans would die there."
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a
lesser number?
@Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss
correctly? Kristol's concerns -- data-driven social science -- were not Strauss's. And so on and
on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible,
partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for
elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think
about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and
Unz can't back it up.
Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?
The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
Some conspiracies are eventually acknowledged. For recent examples, our government finally
admitted that our CIA overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. The sinking of the
Lusitania because it carried tons of munitions and weapons during WW I has been mostly
accepted since 1982, after the sunken ship was discovered and searched by divers. For
example, Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The Lusitania was carrying a cargo of rifle ammunition and shells (together about 173
tons), and the Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt
themselves fully justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their
enemy. The German government also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on
the surface and the British announcement of intentions to arm merchant ships, prior warning
of potential targets was impractical."
If we truly had aggressive news competition in the USA, this story would remain in the
headlines, but of course its implications are not acceptable. However, stories about Russian
hackers persist with no hard evidence.
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a
large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media
narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched,
easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in
support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved
from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite.
Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the
national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power
of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of
wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of
ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into
politically-expressed contexts.
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human
values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo. I suppose my
comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably
valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of
certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest,
though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from
somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will
even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human
values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an
end for them.
Beard was an interesting guy, but's let's not forget that his central thesis regarding the
founding of this country doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny:
Meanwhile, I think it helps to think about conspiracies philosophically ! rigorous thought
can help clear up sloppy thinking (which is found in many such theories):
With respect to conspiracies, there are two equally absurd extreme views which distract
from reality: one is the childish rejection of all conspiracy theories and the other the
childish belief that every appreciable newsworthy event with a political, economic or social
impact is the result of a nefarious conspiracy. The truth, of course, is to be found in the
middle....
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think
about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and
Unz can't back it up.
Can't back it up or has not done so, so far? The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky. I know Strauss's
books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss
what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he
could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted. As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets
everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says.
@Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything
Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate
version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and
libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have
read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on
Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of
Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books (
Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern
philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss
simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against
anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them
hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy
theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore
their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a
matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the
unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that
considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian
paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical
and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives,
agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The
neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible
2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account
of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes
without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has
drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science.
And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political
philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he
could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might
say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few
people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that
is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself
a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked
it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political
science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory."
But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well,
because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version
of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous
about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can
recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?
.The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to
one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly
became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration He apparently
considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very
influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing
the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is
presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ
considerably from your own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss
that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it
was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised
fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into
"anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way
be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines.
This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was
instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important
part of his political philosophy
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention,
and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and
easily correct me.
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit
and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but
rather is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond
the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit
and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures?
If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and
institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning --
by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what
point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption? To my mind, the real point of deviation in the
history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America
from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a
vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the
rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the
Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).
Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded – thanks to
the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy
Roosevelt, inter alia – and the nation went on to embrace the role of international
arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic
results for the world.
@5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the
comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their
"no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be
here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet. [Oh
well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw?
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version
of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous
about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can
recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do
you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in
part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but
quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He
apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even
that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely
summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political
scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views
might differ considerably from your own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss
that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it
was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised
fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into
"anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way
be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines.
This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was
instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important
part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention,
and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and
easily correct me. The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The
most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming
out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to
making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the
failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account
nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to
differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is
defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the
simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar?
All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as
hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and
a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is
bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in
Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other
intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but
I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian
particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into
Strauss's mouth.
If government doesn't believe in conspiracies, why have secret services in the first
place? Either they want to thwart conspiracies or they are creating their own or both.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version
of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous
about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can
recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do
you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in
part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but
quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He
apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even
that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely
summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political
scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views
might differ considerably from your own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss
that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it
was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised
fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into
"anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way
be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines.
This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was
instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important
part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention,
and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and
easily correct me. While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written,
he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom
I somewhat trust.:
@JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points
are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents
the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular
movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are,
exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from
somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will
even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human
values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely
means to an end for them.
Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely
the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time
determining who these groups are, exactly.
Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1%
population contains 10,000 – 50,00o potential players, globally.
It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of
resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big
picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy.
@Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything
Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate
version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and
libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have
read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on
Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of
Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books (
Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern
philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss
simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against
anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them
hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy
theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore
their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a
matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the
unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that
considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian
paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical
and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives,
agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The
neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible
2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account
of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes
without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has
drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science.
And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political
philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he
could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might
say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few
people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that
is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself
a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked
it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political
science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory."
But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well,
because there is no evidence of such in his writings. Actually I don't think Ron is so far
off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic
philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out
the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron
said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did
read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what
books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression
is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors
understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
@Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most
sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist
has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his
case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the
failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account
nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to
differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is
defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the
simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar?
All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as
hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and
a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is
bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in
Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other
intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but
I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian
particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into
Strauss's mouth.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most
sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out
as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion
in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full
translation of Strauss's controversial missive.
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently
didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive
feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he
was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon
liberal donors and institutions
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not
tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from
the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles,
is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable
appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby
abomination There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism,
as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.
By reading Ron's American Pravda series of columns, I am learning things that
otherwise I would not have known. I am developing a clearer understanding of the real
truth . This is an important contribution to my understanding of of reality! And I trust this because of the quality and earnestness of the source. This is all very much appreciated.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most
sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out
as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended
discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to
a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently
didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive
feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he
was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon
liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate
us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the
principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it
possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to
the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There
is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as
somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.
What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic
and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled
Liberalism Ancient and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He
also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or
nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere,
and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not,
have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American
liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter
to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar–and would become
appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And
he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly
consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near
term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and
homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he
conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless.
Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss
aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.
@Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be
overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there,
certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher
follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did
read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what
books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression
is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors
understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah. The
reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss.
That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot
prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have
seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real
world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with
caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued
his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other
points).
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field
offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack
such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."
And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before
JFK's assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZ
@Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K
loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of
course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War.
He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real
world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with
caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued
his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other
points). Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a
skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here.
@Kirt Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something
evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a
conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition,
you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and
there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would
become known and by definition not be a conspiracy. "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement
by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably
everything think that what he does is good, not evil
@Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no
better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during
their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were
trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it
became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't
it ? ? ?
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there
might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were
-like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
then why am i crying inside
@Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K
loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of
course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War.
He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real
world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with
caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued
his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other
points).
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail
from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do,
according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the
bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid
discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the
media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss
bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain
among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will
sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story
about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael
Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real
world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with
caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued
his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on
other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I
didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a
ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did
not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there.
Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What
audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves
that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do
not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do,
according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the
bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid
discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the
media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss
bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain
among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will
sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story
about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael
Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real
world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with
caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued
his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on
other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of
philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree
Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that
Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop
right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting
hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think
he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
Love it.
My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could
pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to
sound "profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous
quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients
were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of
Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make
particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad
it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return.
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do
not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do,
according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the
bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid
discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the
media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss
bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain
among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will
sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story
about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael
Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real
world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with
caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued
his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on
other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of
philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree
Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that
Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop
right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting
hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think
he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for. Kristol is
a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a
Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets
of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven
social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which
emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that
Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal
going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about
the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say
about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor
of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize
the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed
the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was
imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using
that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy
is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a
"conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the
conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under
modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient
idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he
believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said
or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the
thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they
don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
@Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag
operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government
of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with
explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44.
Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed
British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the
country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo
boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following
over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government
concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all
lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with
Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that
seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were
sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations
including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of
Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the
momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have
included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime
(dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security
troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory? So true!
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus,
shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?)
and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong
One resents (first), and eventually hates whom they have to lie to. In what regard would
our elites, in our electoral democracy, hold us voters in (by now)?
Kinda answers itself doesn't it?
Popper's point about conspiracy theories really makes no sense. This is the assumption
that a conspiracy is like a start-up, one that requires lots of transparency to work because
of the need to recruit members for the conspiracy. As soon as one member disagrees, the
conspiracy falls apart.
The problem is that a conspiracy is not like a start-up. The purpose of the start-up is
the start-up itself. The purpose of the conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself. Conspiracies
are simply vehicles by which like minded people actually find each other. The secrecy is
built-in because they are like-minded.
@Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do
something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he
does is good, not evil "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"
Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always
done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than
perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the
charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast
right-wing conspiracy".
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the
Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no
less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the
Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very
right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades
Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't
been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around
over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an
intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to
remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that
people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about
the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well
provide a few of the provocative extracts:
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA
officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim
under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a
piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a
background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies
that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.
Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's.
One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA
agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency
except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful
to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments!asking questions to
which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy,
assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most
valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA
employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late
publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times
policy!set by Sulzberger!to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham
was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover
purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you
could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with
him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in
1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which
journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous
propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was
probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently
knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the
material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use
of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official.
"We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or
of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the
summaries described the activities of foreign journalists!including those working as
stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject
say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who
maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.
From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA
officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the
CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with
journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or
five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major
newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the
twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the
information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his
affiliation or both!particularly because so many of them were prominent in the
profession.
@Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would
discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there
would be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart
fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real
conspiracies. Take your pick.
" then whole Cold War was fake."
Wow, now here's a conspiracy theory to sink one's teeth into. That would make a great
Matrix/MI/Bourne sequel.
@Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under
Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought
any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss
attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A
later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you
want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every
Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no
meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about
the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say
about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor
of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize
the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed
the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was
imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using
that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy
is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a
"conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the
conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under
modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient
idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he
believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said
or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the
thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they
don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Thanks for that response, gave
me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do
think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical
preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go
back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli;
it's one of the thousands of books I've read! not though one of the few I finished. Brushing
up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough,
if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the
esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he
named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was
really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the
work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read
closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers?
I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the
while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing
profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first
thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but
bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good
for learning.
@Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under
Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought
any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss
attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A
later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you
want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every
Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no
meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about
the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say
about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor
of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize
the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed
the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was
imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using
that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy
is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a
"conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the
conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under
modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient
idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he
believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said
or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the
thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they
don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Fascinating. A reminder that one
should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right .
@Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short
shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article
makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may
nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful
forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing
legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on
conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life,
I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of
mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and
at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which
deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude
of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of
the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's "
blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect
challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as
conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the
depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the
thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so
many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments
seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities
as well as venal collective interests. Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it
consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
@Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag
operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government
of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with
explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44.
Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed
British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the
country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo
boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following
over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government
concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all
lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with
Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that
seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were
sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations
including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of
Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the
momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have
included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime
(dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security
troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory? The Israelis learned their false
flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as
part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before
they invaded Poland.
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what
would be the point? I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I
mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the
cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to
adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther"
version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think
could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the
cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't
believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside
constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let
on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been
far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime
as a home-grown conspiracy.
@Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he
did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write
history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have
a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli;
it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished.
Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim
strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the
esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he
named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was
really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the
work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read
closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers?
I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the
while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing
profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first
thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but
bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good
for learning. First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly
enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say
about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer
treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've
known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's
trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since
Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss
simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with)
wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the
last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with
the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original"
in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically
defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him,
or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later
preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and
Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread.
Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric
purpose.
@exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I
mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the
cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to
adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther"
version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think
could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the
cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't
believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside
constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let
on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been
far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime
as a home-grown conspiracy.
My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been
far different.
Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity !
While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman
introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of
Homeland Security.
Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship
after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security
and Government Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has
been the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but
they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the
smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively
suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected
conspiracies.
I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss),
Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories'
and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly
motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power
to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the
men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy
theories" in the first place.
From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to
understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being
the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to
see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of
hackneyed notions of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made
by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well
acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality!judiciously,
as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to
just study what we do."
that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with
what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as
911.
That at least, is how I've seen it
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that
particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as
regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
@Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly
enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say
about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer
treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've
known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's
trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since
Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss
simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with)
wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the
last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with
the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original"
in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically
defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him,
or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later
preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and
Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread.
Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric
purpose.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original"
in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically
defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him,
or tries to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and
understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in
which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human,
psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in
Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence,
and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent
Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but
Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also
conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively
newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to
separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of
the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your
man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of
political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than
Maurizio Viroli.
(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not
universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best
defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382
)
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one
of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in
Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and
organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc. biz, you obviously missed it.
Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.
@Rurik Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they
might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth
functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress
or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo
Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy
theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of
highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use
power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be
the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of
"conspiracy theories" in the first place.
From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to
understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being
the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to
see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of
hackneyed notions of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made
by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well
acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality!judiciously,
as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to
just study what we do."
that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with
what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as
911.
That at least, is how I've seen it...
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that
particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as
regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
Thanks again sir. Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind! I swear these
things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you
can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
after snowden, every conspiracy theory got a 99% boost in credibility. he confirmed the
big bad boogeymen watching and spying on us all. nothing else is impossible, nothing. every theory is now possible, everything.
@Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things
are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't
pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness. Wait, a quote from
Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you
serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more
accurately, have allowed others to select for you.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in
the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically
defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him,
or tries to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and
understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in
which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human,
psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in
Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence,
and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent
Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but
Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also
conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively
newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to
separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of
the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church. If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your
man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of
political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than
Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB
Redeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223
For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583
(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not
universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best
defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel."
https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 ) First, you
are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the
exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in
itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the
most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil
sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a
lot of time with it because it is hard.
Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The
argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that
their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The
greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such,
but Nick was one.
The CIA's Project Mockingbird had all the network news anchors using the words "conspiracy
theory" like the brainless parrots that they were. And Americans remain well brainwashed,
although it's actually hard to get anything significant done without a "conspiracy."
@Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly
enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say
about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer
treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've
known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's
trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since
Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss
simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with)
wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the
last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with
the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original"
in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically
defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him,
or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later
preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and
Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread.
Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric
purpose. Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has
been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even
mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be
lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander!the teacher knew no
felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture
notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still
learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late
Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an
afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled
Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read
comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine
Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one
has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being
disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would
find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct
that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet
does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/
Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere."
The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he
was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine
some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the
Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the
stories we tell ourselves .how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask
your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make
sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that
in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the
Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also
believe that no one else understands it adequately either"
What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the
body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on
this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally,
cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his
mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:
It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human
body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the
correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body,
while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial
correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence
of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains
eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.
" Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence
itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind
will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It
fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what
a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that
Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body
. In the final analysis, his system coheres.
That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The
soul will blame the body for its actions."
Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an
antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote
his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that!he had all the inside jokes
he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog
who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute
end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's
good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue
with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's
observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not
entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us
around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets
some of us into more trouble than others.
I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms.
@Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything
about Strauss? Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more
accurately, have allowed others to select for you. Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue,
plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down . I can't say
it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains
and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might
explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which
is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those
Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go
into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.
@Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that
you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is
derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e.,
against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a
neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says
so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own
attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern
rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through. When you can pin Strauss down to a
definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned
down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of
before.
My favourite historical conspiracy is the so-called "Gunpowder Plot," which is still,
despite all of the evidence that has been discovered in more modern times, represented in
history books, as being exclusively the work of disgruntled Catholic noblemen and their
Jesuit confessors. It was actually a government projection of the Cecil ministry, completely
riddled with moles who nurtured it along, right up until the point when it could be revealed
to the public for maximum political effect, and to the King, so that he would become more
terrorified, and, thus, more dependent upon the Cecils and their "constitutionalist" Puritan
proteges. The "evidence" has, indeed, always been in plain sight, and it has been dealt with
in numerous books, such as The Gunpowder Plot, Faith and Treason , by Antonia Fraser,
and another book, entitled "God's Secret Agents,' but, still, to this day, the myth of
conspiring priests is still propagated in atavistic anti-Catholic British history.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire.
You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural
pillars were untouched by fire). I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation
for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash
that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of
fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened
it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?
@Laurel The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud
of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very
hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther. Thank you for inserting the word
"truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the
truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist.
@Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA,
and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy
theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called,
WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's
Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never
said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in
April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that
Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow
an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old
Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for
denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up
to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/ If the Zionists
can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that
the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a
land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas
chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas
chambers in Auschwitz .
"... Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts, leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse. ..."
"... "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation" ..."
"... Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill? ..."
"... As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just solely be on Russia? ..."
"... Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this? ..."
There are members of Congress who don't want anyone on TV saying America's foreign policy is a
disaster and it costs a fortune, Daniel McAdams, executive director, Ron Paul Institute, told
RT.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2018, which
passed the US Senate earlier this week, carries some added provisions that have little in
common with the military.
Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian
broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts,
leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse.
The plan is buried inside a tiny amendment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The part about Russia is summarized in just a few lines, between details on funding of the US
military.
Amendment
No 1096 , which aims to "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being
required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian
Federation" .
RT: Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill?
Daniel McAdams: There is an obsession on Capitol Hill and within the mainstream media with
RT because RT is effective and RT is watched. But also, and this is very important because RT
carries perspectives that are not available in the mainstream media. Commentators on RT that I
know would say the same thing that they say on RT if they were invited by any of the mainstream
media, but they won't. The matter of fact is that John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the people who
were behind this amendment, the Atlantic Council and the others are trying to silence RT. They
are the totalitarians, they are the enemies of free speech; they're the enemies of the First Amendment;
they don't want anyone coming on television saying that America's foreign policy is a disaster;
it is broken; it is making us more vulnerable to attack, and it's costing a fortune. It cannot
stand competition in the area of ideas.
RT: As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only
Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just
solely be on Russia?
DM: The attention should be on none of these stations. It should be viewer beware. If you're
watching RT and you know that it is funded, or its funding comes from the Russian government,
you take that into consideration just as any intelligent person would do. When I watch France
24, when I watch the BBC, I know that that takes the perspectives of the British government into
consideration, because it is funded by that.
This is a free market of ideas; this is what this is all about. But the people on Capitol Hill
are again totalitarians – they don't want a free market in ideas. They want to control the debate.
They don't want Americans to wake up and see that the foreign policy that they are pushing is
resulting in a charred Earth and a disaster that is coming home to roost.
RT: Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill
to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this?
DM: This is how it's done, absolutely. I have read a million defense spending bills in my 15
years on the Hill. This is called planting a seed – you plant this kernel, and it starts to grow.
If someone objects, later on, you can say – this is already passed in the defense bill; you've
already voted on this; this is already part of the law; this is just suggesting, clarifying, or
going further. This is how they do things: you bury it in a huge bill like this; you plant a seed
and you watch it grow.
I don't know the exact language in the bill; I am sure Russia is not only the flavor of the
month, it is the flavor of the year. There is the 'Investigate Russia'
committee , where a bunch of Hollywood liberals got together with a bunch of neocons and are
finding reds under our beds. There is a hysteria going on in America. I still would like to believe
that the average American thinks it's absolutely nuts; I hope it stays that way. Hopefully, this
will blow over at some point, and not blow up .
Hollywood was once on the receiving end of McCarthyism in the 50s, and now it looks like they
want to dish out McCarthyism on everyone else.
"... In all those discussions, be it Obamacare, neoclassical economics, neoliberalism, globalization, automation, or supposed Russian interference in elections the key question is how to effectively resist truth-killing efforts of various agencies not interested in revealing the truth on the particular subject. ..."
"... Now those disinformation efforts can be easily amplified via Internet, which serves as a kind of echo-chamber. For example, just a half-dozen of like-minded people can drive Internet discussion in the necessary direction and spam or smear opponents. Essentially such informal cliques are quite capable to dominate discussion in popular blogs. ..."
"... The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth - factual reality - is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. ..."
"... Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. ..."
In all those discussions, be it Obamacare, neoclassical economics, neoliberalism, globalization,
automation, or supposed Russian interference in elections the key question is how to effectively
resist truth-killing efforts of various agencies not interested in revealing the truth on the
particular subject.
Now those disinformation efforts can be easily amplified via Internet, which serves as
a kind of echo-chamber. For example, just a half-dozen of like-minded people can drive Internet
discussion in the necessary direction and spam or smear opponents. Essentially such informal cliques
are quite capable to dominate discussion in popular blogs.
Paul R. Pillar in his May 2 essay in National interest provided an interesting overview of
this problem. While his analyses is related to Trump climate change policies some points have
wider applicability:
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign
and domestic, because truth - factual reality - is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate
and debate policy on any subject.
Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it
means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently.
To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the
political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that
is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.
"... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House, but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
"... And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites and posturing. Granted, this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best technique is based on so-called wedge issues. ..."
"... A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center", mostly clueless undecided voters. ..."
"... Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the adversaries to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless in your direction. Wash, repeat. ..."
"Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House, but he and his
third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first
place and how to address the root despair of the western working class." VietnamVet
I do not know how highly rated the staff was, but it was sufficiently high. If the opponent
has fourth-rate staff, it would be wasteful to use anything better than third-rate. Figuring what
gave rise to the deplorable is a wasted effort, sociologist differ, and in politics the "root
causes" matter only a little.
And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites and posturing. Granted,
this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best
technique is based on so-called wedge issues.
A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center",
mostly clueless undecided voters.
Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the
adversaries to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless
in your direction. Wash, repeat.
(Never mind that if Thomas Frank is correct, and the Democrats are the party of the professional
classes, the Democrats cannot possibly be the party of "marginalized" people.) Being the sort of
person I am, my first thought was to ask myself what the heck Reid could mean by "tribe," and how
a "tribe" can act as a political entity.[1] Naturally, I looked to the Internet and did a cursory
search; and it turns out that, at least at the scholarly level, the very notion of "tribe" is both
contested and a product of colonialism.
David
Wiley, Department of Sociology and African Studies, Michigan State University, 2013
Tribe, a concept that has endeared itself to Western scholars, journalists, and the public
for a century, is primarily a means to reduce for readers the complexity of the non-Western societies
of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the American plains. It is no accident that the contemporary
uses of the term tribe were developed during the 19th-century rise of evolutionary and racist
theories to designate alien non-white peoples as inferior or less civilized and as having not
yet evolved from a simpler, primal state. The uses and definitions of 'tribe' in the sociological
and anthropological literature are varied and conflicting. Some authors appear to define tribe
as common language, others as common culture, some as ancestral lineages, and others as common
government or rulers. As anthropologist Michael Olen notes, "The term tribe has never satisfied
anthropologists, because of its many uses and connotations. Societies that are classified as tribal
seem to be very diverse in their organization, having little in common." Morton H. Fried and this
author contend that "the term is so ambiguous and confusing that it should be abandoned by social
scientists."
Even more striking is the invention of ethnic (labeled tribal) identities and their varied
and plastic salience across the African continent. In some cases, "tribal identifies" have been
invented in order to unite colonial and post-colonial clerical workers or other occupational and
social groups to serve the interests of the members even though they were not bound together by
language or lineage.
In the United States, where similar derogatory language of tribe has been used to characterize
and stereotype Native American or First Nations peoples, the identity has been reified in federal
legislation that requires "tribes," formerly under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to accept that
formal tribal identification in order to access the hunting, fishing, farming, and casino rights
of reservations. Almost humorously, the Menominee peoples of Wisconsin decided to decline that
nomenclature because many members lived in Milwaukee and other non-reservation sites; however,
they then learned they must reverse that vote and re-declare themselves as "a tribe" in order
to regain their reservation rights.
So, from the 30,000 foot level, it seems unlikely that what scholars mean (or do not mean) by
"tribe" is the same as what Reid means, simply because there is no coherent meaning to be had.[2]
My second thought was to try to fit "tribe" into the framework of identity politics, where tribes
would be identities, or possibly bundles of allied[3] identities. Here's a handy chart showing the
various ways that identity can be conceptualized, from
Jessica A. Clarke*, "Identity and Form," California Law Review , 2015:
(Clarke gives definitions of ascriptive, elective, and formal identity --
for Adolph Reed on ascriptive identity, see here -- but I think the definitions are clear enough
for our purposes from the examples in the table.) However, if we look back to Reid's quote, we see
that she conflates ascriptive identity ("black or brown") with elective identity ("the sort of Pabst
Blue Ribbon voter, the kind of Coors Lite-drinking voter")[4], and also conflates both of those with
formal identity (if one's ethnicity be defined by one's own citizenship papers, or those of one's
parents, or a changed surname; one thinks of Asian cultures putting the family name last in American
culture, for example). So there is no coherence to be found here, either.
Let's return then to Reid's words, and look to her operational definition:
which party goes out and find more people who are like them
JANELLE MONÁE: Hi, sweetie. You know I love, love, love you. First: pronouns! I want to make
sure that I'm being respectful of how I'm referring to you. I know that the way we view ourselves
and how we want to be addressed can change depending on where we are in life.
AS: I love that you asked me! Thank you. I have felt at times that she/her pronouns weren't
entirely fitting, but I've never felt uncomfortable with them. It's more important for me to open
up that conversation around pronouns and how gender itself is a construct that doesn't make much
sense in our society.
JM: Got it. I remember seeing you for the first time in Colombiana, and then, like many people,
I was drawn to your character in The Hunger Games as Rue. I'm a huge sci-fi nerd, so just seeing
this little black girl in a dystopian world being a hero for an oppressed community, I was intrigued!
The way you embodied this character felt like you were mature enough to understand how important
she was to the movie but also how important the Rues all over the world are to our society.
AS: That's one of the best compliments that I've received! I remember we saw each other at
the Tyler, the Creator show; we took a picture with Solange. You were wearing a jacket that said
"black girl magic" on it, and I flipped out.
JM: Me, too! I was like, I am right between you and Solange, two people who are the epitome
of black girl magic! I saw you later on, and you had just shot Everything, Everything, which,
by the way, you are incredible in. The original story was written by a black woman [NicolaYoon],
and your director [Stella Meghie] is also a black woman. What was going through your mind as you
were considering the role?
AS: I kind of wrote it off initially because I figured it was one of those instances where
I was receiving a script for a YA romance project that was intended for a white actress. I thought
maybe they'd float the idea of casting it in a more diverse manner but that ultimately it wouldn't
end up going that direction, because that's happened to me a lot. Then I realized that this project
was based on a book written by a black woman and that the casting was intentionally diverse. I'd
never seen a story like this made for an interracial couple. I'm not someone who generally has
a pop or mainstream sensibility, but I see the incredible power of infiltrating these larger movies
that show a lot of people who we are and how diverse and beautiful our community is. I thought
it would be really powerful to see a black girl [lead] character like Maddy who is joyous and
creative and dimensional specifically marketed to teenagers and young adults. We don't always
get to see black women carrying that energy. That's one of the reasons why I respect and love
you so much!because I feel like you perpetuate such whimsy and joy!
JM: Aw! Well, whenever I see you doing your thing, I feel like we're from the same tribe
because I take a similar approach when I'm choosing projects. With the roles of Teresa in
Moonlight and Ms. Mary Jackson in Hidden Figures , they're two women of color
from totally different backgrounds and eras!from the hood to NASA, these black women were the
backbones of their communities. I thought it was so important to let the rest of the world know
that we're not monolithic. And with Hidden Figures in particular, I was so proud to be a part
of exposing that if it were not for these women, we would not have gone to space. That's American
history! Black history is part of American history, and it should be treated as such.
(Note in passing that I loathe the phrase "open up," which I define as "carefully engineered for
a celebrity by public relations professionals." ) Of course, both actors are -- and rightly --
proud of their work, but note the carefully calibrated ways they establish that they are (as
Joy Reid says) "like" each other. Oh, and do note the caption: "Miu Miu dress, price upon request."
Class snuck in there, didn't it? In fact, we might go so far as to formalize Reid's definition of
"tribe" as follows:
Tribes are people who are "like" each other when class is not taken into account
With that, let's take an alternative approach to conceptualizing tribes and tribalism, one that
incorporates class. From former Arab Spring
activist Iyad El-Baghdadi , I present the following charts, taken from
the Twittter . (I'll present each
chart, then comment briefly on it.) There are five:
Figure 1: Tribal Divisions
Comment: I'm taking El-Baghdadi's "ethnic affiliation," as a proxy for Reid's "tribe"; the verticality
is clearly the same.)
Figure 2: Class Divisions
Comment: El-Baghdadi's representation of class divisions is fine as a visual shorthand, but I
don't think it's an accurate representation. I picture the class structure of the United States not
as a "normal distribution" with a fat "middle class" (I don't even accept
"middle class" as a category) but as a power curve with a very few people at the head of the
curve (
the "1%," more like the 0.01% ), followed by a steep shoulder of
the 10% (white collar professionals, from Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal ), and trailed
by a long tail of wage workers (and unwaged workers, as I suppose we might call the disemployed,
unpaid caregivers,
System D
people like loosie-selling Eric Garner, and so on). If you want to find who hasn't had a raise
in forty years, look to the long tail, which I would call l "working class," rather than "lower class."
Figure 3: Privilege Divisions
Comment: Taking once again El-Baghdadi's "ethnic affiliation," as a proxy for Reid's "tribe,"
and conceptualizing WASPs as a tribe, it's clear to me, if I look at my own history, that I'm
more likely ti have good luck than some other tribes. I'm more likely to have intergenerational
wealth in the form of a house, or even financial assets, more likely to be highly educated, more
likely to have the markers and locutions that enable me to interact successfully with bureaucratic
functionaries, etc. I didn't earn any of those advantages; I would have had to have chosen to be
born to different parents to avoid them. I think we can agree that if we were looking for an operational
definition of justice, this wouldn't be it.
Figure 4: Punching Sideways
Comment: Classically, we have owners following Gould's maxim by bringing in (mostly black) scabs
to break
the Homestead Strike in 1892, with a resulting "tribal" conflict -- although those scabs might
protest -- and rightly -- that (a) they were only trying to provide for their families and
(b) that the Jim Crow system
had denied them the "good jobs" that in justice would have given them (leaving aside the question
of who implemented Jim Crow, and for what material benefits). In modern times we have "tribes" (white,
black, Asian, at the least) battling on the field of "affirmative action" having weaponized their
ascriptive identities. Here again, representatives of some "tribes" would protest -- and
rightly -- that systems like "legacy admissions" give some "tribes" unjust advantage over others, but
the hidden assumption is one of resource constraint; given a pie of fixed size, if Tribe A is to
have more, Tribe B must have less. Note that programs like "tuition-free college" tend to eliminate
the resource constraint, but are "politically feasible" only if Tribes A and B solve their collective
action problem, which is unlikely to be done based on tribalism.
Figure 5: Punching Up
Comment: This diagram implies that the only "legitimate" form of seeking justice is vertical,
"punching up." This eliminates clear cases where justice is needed within and not between classes,
like auto collisions, for example, or the household division of labor. More centrally, the nice thing
about thinking vertically is that it eliminates obvious absurdities like "Justice for black people
means making the CEO of a major bank black (ignoring the injustices perpetrated using class-based
tools disproportionately against black people in, say, the foreclosure crisis, where
a generation's-worth of black household wealth was wiped out under America's first black President).
Or obvious absurdities where justice is conceived of as a woman, instead of a man, using the power
of office to kill thousands of black and brown people, many of them women, to further America's imperial
mission.
* * *
Concluding a discussion on politics and power that has barely begun -- and is of great importance
if you believe, as I do, that we're on the midst of and ongoing and highly volatile legitimacy crisis
that involves the break-up and/or realignment of both major parties -- it seems to me that El-Baghdadi
visual representation, which fits tribalism into a class-driven framework, is both analytically coherent
(as Reid's usage of "tribe" is not) and points to a way forward from our current political arrangements
(as Reid's strategy of bundling "punching sideways" tribes into parties while ignoring class does
not).
More to come .
"... The narratives are, after all not intended to reveal any truths, but to get their subjects
to do something the elites want them to do, and in the course their doing it, to cement the elites'
power. Subjects, being what they are, have fallen for lies since the Pharoahs told whoppers to get their
peasants to invest in pyramids, or the Archdruids got their's to die hauling and arranging 20T rocks
on a dreary plain. ..."
"... As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's
good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he
never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made
them elites. Nothing else. ..."
"... Much more interesting is what happens when narratives break down ..."
This is their starting position: It is a hoax until proven otherwise.
If it's turned out to be a hoax the last 20x it happened, why would you insist on starting at
the opposite end? Seems inefficient, no?
What is perhaps even more inefficient on the part of Dinh and Revusky is to go interminably
'round and 'round this spot. Ok, we know that the narratives elites feed their subjects are invariably
false. They have to be, or they wouldn't work. Twas ever thus.
The narratives are, after all not intended to reveal any truths, but to get their subjects
to do something the elites want them to do, and in the course their doing it, to cement the elites'
power. Subjects, being what they are, have fallen for lies since the Pharoahs told whoppers to
get their peasants to invest in pyramids, or the Archdruids got their's to die hauling and arranging
20T rocks on a dreary plain.
As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was
true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He
never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier.
That's what made them elites. Nothing else.
Much more interesting is what happens when narratives break down, which is why Dinh's
vignettes from the fraying seams of the American Narrative are more fascinating than these half-baked,
pseudo-forensic analyses of "terror events". Maybe he thinks too many people still believe these
bugaboos and should be brought around to enlightenment. That's as may be, but one wonders whether
he understands that if enough people "come around", the forces unleashed are far more disruptive
than when they accept, if not believe, the lies.
As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true,
that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never
has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier.
That's what made them elites. Nothing else.
In other words, society has always been divided into two classes: those who write the script,
and those who live it; the programmers and the users.
What's gone wrong? Are too many people finding the root shell?
"..... American Israel Empire is working nonstop to deform the Middle East, North
Africa, Europe and, frankly, the rest of the world."
I think the author misses the role of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, who appear to be
the main financiers of the work performed by the above American Israel Empire.
Perhaps the term Petrodollar Empire would be more accurate?
As a bonus, it also complies better to the rules of political correctness. Hey
Simpleguest,
Do you happen to notice Israel's boundless capability for diplomatic duplicity and
efforts to instill cognitive dissonance even among its most loyal US government
servants?
Israel and Saudi Arabia have forged a military agreement against "terrorism" except of
course the Wahabbi-brand which benefits both rogue nations. In addition, as you know, the
Saud family royals & Zionists are commited to extinction of the Islamic Republic of
Iran.
Presently, I am for one in awe how Zionists are trying to throw Saudi Arabia "under the
bus" for doing 9/11.
Their practice of "Deception" has no moral code whatsoever. It's "phooey" to
international rules of nation-to-nation conduct and reprimands.
Naturally, Israel will risk further "deformation" of the Middle East by pointing at
Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 and providing subsequent cover for their role in the mass
murder & immoral Wars of (!) Terror.
Given international & Corporate Media backing, "Deception" is high art, it has no
boundaries, and noble journalist voices are squelched. We are fucked.
Fear is "a powerful thing" and such zeitgeist pervades America to an extent that people
fear independent thought for concern that they will be deterred from upward employment
mobility. In short, we suffer the enforcement of an institutional hindance to Free
Speech.
Call it what it is – TERRORISM.
"Terror"
1. Intense, overpowering fear.
2. One that instills intense fear.
3. The ability to instill intense fear.
4. Violence committed or threatened by a group, especially against civilians , in
the pursuit of political goals.
On Sunday night, Social Justice Warriors in Baltimore filmed themselves desecrating and damaging
a 225-year-old monument to Christopher Columbus -- this, in the name of racial and economic justice:
Late last week,
someone desecrated a statue of St. Junipero Serra in Mission Hills, Calif. The Franciscan priest
is hated by Social Justice Warriors for his work in establishing mission churches in the 18th century.
The group is seeking the removal of 13 statues in the city, including the equestrian monument
to Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square. That monument, which commemorates Jackson's victory at the
Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, has been a particular target of the group because Jackson
owned slaves and, as president, was responsible for violently forcing Native Americans off their
land in what came to be known as the Trail of Tears.
The group also wants the city to rename dozens of streets, buildings and institutions. In all,
there are more than 100 symbols it wants removed or renamed.
Andrew Schneck, 25, who was released from probation early last year after being convicted in
2015 of storing explosives, was charged in a criminal complaint filed in federal court, Acting
U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez said in a statement Monday.
Schneck was arrested Saturday night after a Houston park ranger spotted him kneeling in bushes
in front of the Dowling monument in the park, Martinez said.
When confronted Saturday night in the park, he tried to drink some of the liquid explosives
but spit it out, officials said.
The ranger then asked if he planned to harm the statue, and he said he did because he did not
"like that guy," according to a sworn statement submitted in federal court by an FBI agent investigating
the case.
This attachment is less surprising when we consider that sports fans typically use their fandom
as a means of telling themselves who they are. Sports fandom has become, to borrow a term from
the philosopher Michel Foucault, a practice of subjectivization -- a phenomenon in which individuals
subject themselves to a set of behavioral regulations, and by doing so, acquire a sense of their
own identities.
Just as a practicing Christian may create and obtain new forms of self-knowledge through confession,
prayer and the observance of Lent, a sports fan can come to understand himself as a particular
sort of person -- a Southerner, for example, or a "real man" -- by adhering to certain rituals,
like reading the sports page and watching ESPN every day to gather more and more knowledge about
his team, by talking with other fans about that team in the right ways (and proving that he knows
more than them), by learning and participating in the songs, chants, dress, tailgate rituals,
game-day traditions and home décor choices of its fans.
The extraordinary reach of football into fans' lives makes perfect sense when we see it for
what it is: the most popular mechanism in contemporary America for cultivating a sense of self
that is rooted in a community. In a world of uncertainty, fragmentation and isolation, sports
fandom offers us clear winners and losers, connection to family and community -- and at its best,
the assurance that we are really No. 1.
Yet this "we" of fandom ought to give us pause -- perhaps just as much as the scandals, the
violence and the exploitation that surround the game.
Lord Nelson, one of England's greatest heroes. My God.
Whether or not any or most of these people will succeed in their goal is not my concern here.
Rather, I'm interested in what this new period of iconoclasm tells us about where we are as a society,
and where we may be going.
Iconoclasm often accompanies radical, even violent, change in a society. The word comes from the
Greek meaning "image-smashers," and was first used to describe a turbulent period in the Byzantine
empire in which the
Emperor attempted to ban the use of religious icons as idolatrous. He failed, as you can see
by visiting an Orthodox church today. But the word stuck because it was useful.
Whether religious or political (e.g., French revolutionaries, militants in China's Cultural Revolution),
real iconoclasts are violent. The damage Reformation-era iconoclasm did to religious art in Europe
was incalculable.
For example, in England:
Even now there is denial about the scale of the erasing of our medieval past. The Tate estimates
we lost 90% of our religious art. It was probably even more than that. The destruction was on
a scale that far outstrips the modern efforts of Islamist extremists. And it was not only art
we lost, but also books and music.
We think of Henry VIII and the destruction of the monasteries, but that was not the end of
the destruction, it marked the beginning. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, hailed
the reign of his son, the boy king Edward VI, as that of a new Josiah, destroyer of idols. After
his coronation an orgy of iconoclasm was launched. In churches rood screens, tombs with their
prayers for the dead, and stain glass windows, were smashed. The Elizabethan antiquarian John
Stow complained, some of this Christian Taliban "judged every image to be an idol", so that not
only religious art, but even the secular thirteenth century carvings of kings in Ludgate were
broken.
And:
The civil war, and the further destruction it brought, took place two generations after England
had gone through what has been described as a "cultural revolution designed to obliterate England's
memory of who and what she had been". There was not much of that past left. In our cultural history
the Reformation is nearly always depicted as a force that opened up England from a closed minded
past. But it was our knowledge of that past that was closed and if one future opened to us, we
will never know what might have been, not least in art.
That's often what iconoclasm tries to do: erase cultural memory. The zealotry with which iconoclasts
go after their targets has to do with their conviction that the image, and what it stands for, is
so offensive that it cannot be tolerated, nor can its defenders be reasoned with. They can only be
conquered by force.
In the case of our present iconoclasts, what they are attacking are aspects of what leftist academic
critics "whiteness" . It is
understandable why black Americans and others would object to monuments commemorating Confederate
figures (though it is worth asking why all of a sudden removing these objects became an urgent imperative
at this particular time). But those statues are the low-hanging fruit. As the New Orleans protesters
signal, any American figure who had anything to do with slavery is on the hit list. Donald Trump
was not wrong to wonder if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are going to be next.
Both men were compromised
by slaveholding.
The argument in favor of eliminating Confederate statues but not those of the slaveholding Founders
is that we honor the latter in spite of their owning slaves, but the former have monuments
built to them because they fought to preserve slavery. That's a reasonable position to take,
but it assumes that reason is driving this iconoclasm. Why is Columbus under siege, both in his monuments
and in his holiday (e.g., the Oberlin, Ohio, city council just voted to replace Columbus Day with
Indigenous People's Day)? Why are vandals going after St. Junipero Serra and St. Joan of Arc?
Because they represent European culture and civilization, which entails Christianity. Because,
in the minds of the iconoclasts, they represent whiteness.
This morning I picked up a book from my shelves that I haven't looked at since it came out in
2004: the late political scientist Samuel Huntington's Who
Are We? The Challenges To America's National Identity. It was startling to read Huntington
in light of recent events, including most of all the Trump election. It was even more startling --
and deeply dismaying -- to read Huntington and consider that the odious white nationalists might
have a clearer understanding of what's going on now than respectable people. Let me explain.
Huntington, who taught at Harvard, writes that the country has been losing a sense of coherent
identity for some time now. It's not that Americans were a homogeneous people, but rather that its
Anglo-Protestant founding culture was able to assimilate immigrants. This has partly to do with strong
belief in the "American Creed," a commonly held set of assumptions about what the nation stood for:
liberty, equality under the law, equality of opportunity (if not of result), individualism, populism,
limited government, and free-market economics. These ideas, Huntington said, came out of Protestant
England and its reception of the Enlightenment.
On assimilation, the glaring exception, of course, were the descendants of the unwilling immigrants
among us: those of African slaves, for whom the American Creed did not apply. Nevertheless:
American national identity peaked politically with the rallying of Americans to their country
and its cause in World War II. It peaked symbolically with President Kennedy's 1961 summons: 'Ask
not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.'
Starting in the 1960s, writes Huntington, "deconstructionists" of national identity encouraged
"individuals were defined by their group membership, not common nationality." Pushing identity politics
was a time-tested strategy for colonialist regimes, for the sake of dividing and conquering subject
peoples. But the governments of nation-states instead focused on uniting their disparate peoples.
(Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement was about compelling the white majority to extend the promises
of the Constitution and the Creed to black Americans -- in other words, to fully unite them to the
whole.)
Huntington says that this did not start from below, but was imposed from the top, by American
political, legal, and cultural elites. He writes, "These efforts by a nation's leaders to deconstruct
the nation they governed were, quite possibly, without precedent in human history."
By 1992, the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warned that all this had become "a cult,
and today it treatens to become a counter-revolution against the original theory of American as 'one
people,' a common culture, a single nation." Huntington continues, talking about how the promises
of the Civil Rights movement were turned on their head by racial preferences:
This replacement of individual rights by group rights and of color-blind law by color-conscious
law was never approved by the American people and received only intermittent, passive, and partial
acceptance by American legislators. "What is extraordinary about this change," the distinguished
sociologist Daniel Bell commented, "is that, without public debate, an entirely new principle
of rights has been introduced into the polity." "Group rights and equality of condition," Belz
agrees, "were introduced into public opinion as a new public philosophy that distinguishes among
individuals on racial and ethnic grounds and that ultimately denies the existence of a common
good."
The implications of this view were cogently stated by the Thernstroms: "Racial classifications
deliver the message that skin color matters -- profoundly. They suggest that whites and blacks
are not the same, that race and ethnicity are the qualities that really matter. They imply that
individuals are defined by blood -- not by character, social class, religious sentiments, age,
or education. But categories appropriate to a caste system are a poor basis on which to build
that community of equal citizens upon which democratic government depends."
If you want to talk about racializing American society, it didn't start with Richard Spencer and
his crew. Led by elites, America has been balkanizing along racial and ethnic lines since the late
1960s. Multiculturalism, that 1990s buzzword, led to colleges emphasizing ethnic studies and non-Western
courses, and devaluing those in Western civilization. Huntington, quoting Schlesinger Jr:
"The mood is one of divesting Americans of the sinful European inheritance and seeking redemptive
infusions from non-Western cultures." At the turn of the century, none of fifty top American colleges
and universities required a course in American history.
He who controls a culture's memory controls the culture. Huntington says that if a nation "is
a remembered as well as an imagined community, people who are losing that memory are becoming something
less than a nation."
One of the most remarkable things about Huntington's narrative is how this disuniting of America
was led by elites, despite resistance from the population. Look, from the vantage point of a nation
led by President Donald Trump, at this passage from Huntington's 2004 book. The political scientist
is talking about the simple demographic and political fact that whites, especially white males, are
losing power and place in US society:
It should not be difficult to see that "rebellion" and the reasons for it. It would, indeed,
be extraordinary and possibly unprecedented in human history if the profound demographic changes
occurring in America did not generate reactions of various sorts. one very plausible reaction
would be the emergence of exclusivist sociopolitical movements composed largely but not only of
white males, primarily working-class and middle-class, protesting and attempting to stop or reverse
these changes and what they believe, accurately or not, to be the diminution of their social and
economic status, their loss of jobs to immigrants and foreign countries, the perversion of their
culture, the displacement of their language, and the erosion or even evaporation of the historical
identity of their country. Such movements would be both racially and culturally inspired and could
be anti-Hispanic, anti-black, and anti-immigration. They would be the heir to the many comparable
exclusivist racial and anti-foreign movements that helped define American identity in the past.
Huntington points out that should they emerge, "the new white nationalists" (the term is political
scientist Carol Swain's) will not be like the fringe extremists. They don't advocate white supremacy,
but rather "racial self-determination and self-preservation." They will reject national identity,
and locate culture in race. They don't want white culture replaced by black or brown culture.
Furthermore, whites attracted to these ideas will be those sick and tired of preferential treatment
policies that violate the American Creed and disadvantage them. They will, Huntington predicts (remember,
he wrote this in 2004), be stirred up by the loss of jobs and widening income inequality due to globalization.
And they will hate the media for using what they consider to be bias against them. Finally, immigration
may make them feel that they have their backs against the wall.
Because of several sociological factors, Huntington says that middle class and lower middle class
whites have come to see themselves as victims. He quotes another political scientist who says these
whites feel that they have no real culture or identity, so they are embracing victimization.
Whites, in sum, will start to act like any other ethnic or racial group in America. I have to
confess that reading Huntington makes me question the (yes, liberal) media narrative on this new
battlefront in the culture wars. Broadly speaking, the media construe the conflict as racist whites
reacting to minority progress. No doubt there's truth to that, but that is not the whole truth, or
even most of the truth. What we're seeing might be thought of as the entirely predictable and normal
reaction of a particular group within a pluralistic society, when members of that group come to believe
that they are losing ground. In this sense, when white grievance and protest is presented by the
media as solely a manifestation of racism, it allows others to justify dismissing those
grievances and consider themselves morally responsible for doing so.
The makings of serious white nativist movements and of intensified racial conflict exist in
America. Carol Swain probably overdramatizes the possibility, but her eloquent warning deserves
serious though. We are witnessing, she says, "the simultaneous convergence of a host of powerful
social forces." These include "changing demographics, the continued existence of racial preference
policies, the rising expectations of ethnic minorities, the continued existence of liberal immigration
policies, growing concerns about job losses associated with globalization, the demands for multiculturalism,
and the Internet's ability to enable like-minded individuals to identify with each other and to
share mutual concerns and strategies for impacting the political system." These factors can only
serve "to nourish white racial consciousness and white nationalism, the next logical stage for
identity politics in America. As a result, America is "increasingly at risk of large-scale racial
conflict unprecedented in our nation's history."
Huntington also talks about the bottoming out of public trust in government and institutions.
It's been declining since 1960s. Today,
only the military,
police, and small business are the only institutions in whom trust has been stable or grown.
Think about what that means. Aside from small business people, by far the most trusted institutions
in society are those armed and charged with defending it from foreign enemies and maintaining internal
order. If that doesn't tell you something about how our society is coming undone, you are ineducable.
Huntington puts a troubling question to his readers:
Because of the Creed, "many Americans came to believe that America could be multiracial, multiethnic,
and lack any cultural core, and yet still be a coherent nation with its identity defined solely
by the Creed. Is this, however, really the case? Can a nation be defined only by a political ideology?
Several considerations suggest the answer is no. A creed alone does not a nation make."
He says that historically, American identity has involved four key components: Race, Ethnicity,
Culture (especially language and religion), and Ideology. Race and ethnicity as a defining core of
nation is long gone. Culture is "under siege" (even more so today than when Huntington wrote his
book). All that's left is ideology -- that is, the Creed. Writes Huntington: "For the Creed to become
the sole source of national identity would be a sharp break from the past."
He points out that the only other examples we have of creedal nations are the communist countries.
This is not an encouraging thought. After the ideology failed and the coercive power of the state
collapsed, those countries more or less came apart along ethnic lines. China is the great exception,
but it held together, he says, because of the widely shared Han Chinese identity.
Huntington concludes that because the American Creed emerged from Anglo-Protestant culture, it
probably won't survive its demise.
Finally, the Harvard political scientist predicted that the rise in US religious consciousness
in the 1980s and 1990s would would increase. He was quite wrong about that, as we now know. At end
of book, Huntington cites research showing that globally, "those countries that are more religious
tend to be more nationalist." I suppose this would help explain white Evangelical support for Donald
Trump. As regular readers know, I am averse to nationalism mixing with the Christian religion, because
it can easily lead to Christians making an idol of the state. That said, the data Huntington cites
would lead one to predict that the decline of Christianity in the US will also hasten the unraveling
of the social and cultural fabric.
If Christianity, with its universalist values, is declining, then something will take its place.
Something will fill the vacuum it leaves. We should not at all be surprised if this turns out to
be a heightened, even militant, racial consciousness. This is the logical outcome of identity politics.
This is what I mean by constantly saying that Social Justice Warriors of the Left have no idea
what kind of demons they are summoning from the Right. And American elites of all kinds have no idea
what they are doing by pushing the "diversity is our strength" lie. We are seeing from this side
of the Atlantic how the resolute refusal of the European political and cultural establishments to
take the radical challenge from mass immigration seriously is opening up a big space for the radical
right to flourish. It's going to happen here too, for somewhat different reasons, ones I've explored
in this blog post.
Taboo and sacredness are among the most important words needed to understand Charlottesville
and its aftermath. Taboo refers to things that are forbidden for religious or supernatural reasons.
All traditional societies have such prohibitions -- things you must not do, touch, or eat, not
because they are bad for you directly, but because doing so is an abomination, which may bring
divine retribution. But every society also makes some things sacred, rallying around a few deeply
revered values, people, or places, which bind all members together and make them willing to sacrifice
for the common good. The past week brought violent conflict over symbols and values held sacred
-- and saw President Trump commit an act of sacrilege by violating one of our society's strongest
taboos.
More:
That torchlight march, and the main rally the next day, gave the country the shocking spectacle
of fellow Americans chanting "Jews will not replace us" while making Nazi salutes and anti-black
slurs. It was a rejection -- a desecration -- of the story shared by most Americans in which we
are not a nation based on "blood and soil," we are a nation of immigrants who accepted the American
creed. That creed includes the idea that "all men are created equal." Americans know that we do
not yet live up to our aspirations, but publicly accepting the premises of the nation's founding
documents is a requirement for political leadership in America. To deny those premises is blasphemy,
and so white supremacism, the KKK, and neo-Nazis are by definition blasphemous.
By the way he handled the Charlottesville violence (appearing to equivocate):
In that moment, Trump committed the gravest act of sacrilege of his presidency. In that moment,
the president rendered himself untouchable by all who share the belief that Nazis and the KKK
are not just bad -- they are taboo.
I'm not so sure about that. The
new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows broad disapproval of the way Trump handled Charlottesville,
but strong approval of it among Republicans. If you go
deep into the poll , you'll see that 83 percent of Americans believe it is unacceptable to hold
white supremacist views. That would appear to validate Haidt's thesis. Happily, white supremacy remains
a taboo.
But it is plain that most Republicans do not believe Trump violated that taboo. That
is no small number of Americans. Whether you believe they are right or wrong in that assessment is
not the point. The point is that on an issue of intense feeling -- a feeling that Haidt correctly
likens to religious conviction -- there is no broad agreement on what constitutes violating that
taboo. My sense is that among elites -- including Republican elites -- there is shared conviction
that Trump touched the third rail. But that sense is not shared by the broad mass of GOP voters any
more than the Republican elite's 2016 disgust by candidate Donald Trump was.
Along those lines, I would love to see polling on the extent to which whites (Southern and otherwise)
see attacks on Confederate monuments as an attack on white supremacy, and the extent to which they
see these attacks as assaults on them . Again, notice the ABC/Post poll, which
shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans reject white supremacy. The
PBS/Marist poll from last week showed that only 27 percent of all Americans believe that Confederate
monuments should be taken down. The racial breakdown is: whites 25%; blacks 40%; Latinos 24%.
It is reasonable to assume that a nation in which over 80 percent of the people believe white
supremacy is unacceptable, but only 27 percent believe the Confederate statues should come down,
is not a nation that sees those statues as symbols of white supremacy. So what do they symbolize?
And who do they symbolize? The answer is important.
In light of Samuel Huntington's book, it seems to me that the culture war has shifted into a dangerous
phase, accelerated by both Donald Trump and progressive militants, who feed off each other. Our unity
is fragile -- more fragile than people think. This is not the time to be iconoclastic towards cultural
symbols. The fact that we are seeing iconoclasm emerge, and that it is not only unchallenged, but
actually encouraged by liberal elites, is a bad sign for the future. Remember how we started this
post: with a recognition that iconoclasm usually accompanies or precedes actual violence.
The disassembling of the American Creed has been a 50-year project of American elites, but we
are all going to reap the whirlwind. You cannot destroy symbols of people's identity without calling
forth rage.
This is a weak and way too long article. That demonstrated inability to think in scientific terms such neoliberalism,
neocolonialism and end of cheap oil. Intead it quckly deteriorated into muchy propaganda. But it touches on legacy of Troskyst
Burnham, who was one of God fathers of neoliberalism.
Zelikov is the guy who whitewashed 9/11. This neocon does not use the term neoliberalism even once but he writes like
a real neoliberal Trotskyite.
Notable quotes:
"... The Managerial State ..."
"... Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet
he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated
admiration." ..."
"... Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham
was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster. ..."
"... Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie
partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice." ..."
"... Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept
is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong
all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted." ..."
"... "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all." ..."
"... Nineteen Eighty-Four. ..."
"... By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the
capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became
one of the original editors of the National Review ..."
"... Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism ..."
"... What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values"
of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. ..."
"... Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record
in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our ..."
"... "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no
matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes." ..."
My first prophet was a man named James Burnham. In 1941 Burnham was 35 years old. From a wealthy family -- railroad
money -- he was a star student at Princeton, then on to Balliol College, Oxford. Burnham was an avowed Communist. He joined
with Trotsky during the 1930s.
By 1941, Burnham had moved on, as he published his first great book of prophecy, called The Managerial State
. The book made him a celebrity. It was widely discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.
Burnham's vision of the future is one where the old ideologies, like socialism, have been left behind. The rulers are
really beyond all that. They are the managerial elite, the technocrats, the scientists, and the bureaucrats who manage
the all-powerful enterprises and agencies.
You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias.
You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.
It's a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine
themselves and their future.
In this and other writings, Burnham held up Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as the pure exemplars of these
emerging managerial states. They were showing the way to the future. By comparison, FDR's New Deal was a primitive version.
And he thought it would lose.
Burnham's views were not so unusual among the leading thinkers of the 1940s, like Joseph Schumpeter or Karl Polanyi.
All were pessimistic about the future of free societies, including Friedrich Hayek, who really believed that once-free
countries were on the "road to serfdom." But Burnham took the logic further.
Just after the second world war ended, my other prophet decided to answer Burnham. You know him as George Orwell.
Eric Blair, who used George Orwell as his pen name, was about Burnham's age. Their backgrounds were very different.
Orwell was English. Poor. Orwell's lungs were pretty rotten and he would not live long. Orwell was a democratic socialist
who came to loathe Soviet communism. He had volunteered to fight in Spain, was shot through the throat. Didn't stop his
writing.
Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet
he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of
fascinated admiration."
Orwell
wrote : For Burnham, "Communism may be wicked, but at any rate it is big: it is a terrible, all-devouring
monster which one fights against but which one cannot help admiring." To Orwell, Burnham's mystical picture of "terrifying,
irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement." irresistible power" amounted to "an act
of homage, and even of self-abasement."
Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham
was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster.
Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie
partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice."
Orwell thought that "power worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that
present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept
is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is
wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted."
Finally, Orwell thought Burnham overestimated the resilience of the managerial state model and underestimated the qualities
of open and civilized societies. Burnham's vision
did not allow enough play for "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to
hold together at all."
Having written these critical essays, Orwell then tried to make his case against Burnham in another way. This anti-Burnham
argument became a novel -- the novel called Nineteen Eighty-Four.
That book came out in 1949. Orwell died the next year.
By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the
capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham
became one of the original editors of the National Review and a major conservative commentator. In 1983, President
Reagan awarded Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Not that Burnham's core vision had changed. In 1964, he published another book of prophecy. This was entitled Suicide
of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism . The Soviet Union and its allies had the will to power.
Liberalism and its defenders did not. "The primary issue before Western civilization today, and before its member nations,
is survival." (Sound familiar?)
And it was liberalism, Burnham argued, with its self-criticism and lack of commitment, that would pull our civilization
down from within. Suicide.
So was Burnham wrong? Was Orwell right? This is a first-class historical question. Burnham's ideal of the "managerial
state" is so alive today.
State the questions another way: Do open societies really work better than closed ones? Is a more open and civilized
world really safer and better for Americans? If we think yes, then what is the best way to prove that point?
My answer comes in three parts. The first is about how to express our core values. American leaders tend to describe
their global aims as the promotion of the right values. Notice that these are values in how other countries are governed.
President Obama's
call for an "international order of laws and institutions," had the objective of winning a clash of domestic
governance models around the world. This clash he called: "authoritarianism versus liberalism."
Yet look at how many values
he felt "liberalism" had to include. For Obama the "road of true democracy," included a commitment to "liberty, equality,
justice, and fairness" and curbing the "excesses of capitalism."
What about our current president?
Last month
he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom
and sovereignty. "
A week later, two of his chief aides, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster,
doubled
down on the theme that America was promoting, with its friends, the values that "drive progress throughout the world."
They too had a laundry list. They omitted "sovereignty." But then, narrowing the list only to the "most important," they
listed: "[T]he dignity of every person equality of women innovation freedom of speech and of religion and free and fair
markets."
By contrast, the anti-liberal core values seem simple. The anti-liberals are for authority and against
anarchy and disorder. And they are for community and against the subversive, disruptive outsider.
There are of course many ways to define a "community" -- including tribal, religious, political, or professional. It
is a source of identity, of common norms of behavior, of shared ways of life.
Devotees of freedom and liberalism do not dwell as much on "community." Except to urge that everybody be included,
and treated fairly.
But beliefs about "community" have always been vital to human societies. In many ways, the last 200 years have been
battles about how local communities try to adapt or fight back against growing global pressures -- especially economic
and cultural, but often political and even military.
So much of the divide between anti-liberals or liberals is cultural. Little has to do with "policy" preferences. Mass
politics are defined around magnetic poles of cultural attraction. If Americans engage this culture war on a global scale,
I plead for modesty and simplicity. As few words as possible, as fundamental as possible.
Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record
in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our government does.
Also, until the late 19th century, "democracy" was never at the core of liberal thinking. Liberal thinkers were very
interested in the design of republics. But classical liberal thinkers, including many of the American founders, always
had a troubled relationship with democracy. There were always two issues.
First, liberals were devoted, above all, to liberty of thought and reason. Pace Tom Paine, the people were
often regarded as intolerant, ill-informed, and superstitious -- unreliable judges of scientific truth, historical facts,
moral duty, and legal disputes. The other problem is that democracy used to be considered a synonym for mob rule. Elections
can be a supreme check on tyranny. But sometimes the people have exalted their dictators and have not cared overmuch about
the rule of law. It therefore still puzzles me: Why is there so much debate about which people are "ready for democracy"?
Few of the old theorists thought any people were ready for such a thing.
It was thought, though, that any civilized people might be persuaded to reject tyranny. Any civilized community might
prefer a suitably designed and confining constitution, limiting powers and working at a reliable rule of law.
By the way, that "rule of law" was a value that Mr. Cohn and General McMaster left off of their "most important" list
-- yet is anything more essential to our way of life?
Aside from the relation with democracy, the other great ideal that any liberal order finds necessary, yet troubling,
is the one about community: nationalism.
Consider the case of Poland. For 250 years, Poland has been a great symbol to the rest of Europe. For much of Polish
and European history, nationalism was an ally of liberalism. Versus Czarist tyranny, versus aristocratic oligarchs.
But sometimes not. Today, Poland's governing Law and Justice party is all about being anti-Russian, anti-Communist,
and pro-Catholic. They are all about "authority" and "community." At the expense of ? Poland's president has just had to
intervene
when the rule of law itself seemed to be at stake.
We Americans and our friends should define what we stand for. Define it in a way that builds a really big tent. In 1989,
working for the elder President Bush, I was able to get the phrase, "commonwealth of free nations," into a couple of the
president's speeches. It didn't stick. Nearly 20 years later, in 2008, the late Harvard historian Ernest May and I came
up with a better formulation. We thought that through human history the most adaptable and successful societies had turned
out to be the ones that were "open and civilized."
Rather than the word, "liberal," the word "open" seems more useful. It is the essence of liberty. Indian prime minister
Narendra Modi uses it in his speeches; Karl Popper
puts it at the core of his philosophy; Anne-Marie
Slaughter makes it a touchstone
in her latest book. That's a big tent right there.
Also the ideal of being "civilized." Not such an old-fashioned ideal. It gestures to the yearning for community. Not
only a rule of law, also community norms, the norms that reassure society and regulate rulers -- whether in a constitution
or in holy scripture.
Chinese leaders extol the value of being civilized -- naturally, they commingle it with Sinification. Muslims take pride
in a heritage that embraces norms of appropriate conduct by rulers. And, of course, in an open society, community norms
can be contested and do evolve.
The retired Indian statesman, Shyam Saran,
recently lectured on,
"Is a China-centric world inevitable?" To Saran, "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and
legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran
said, had the "civilizational attributes."
... ... ...
Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia, and is a former
executive director of the 9/11 Commission.
"... All correct, I'm sure, but let me add a less obvious but ultimately more important hypothesis: the sudden hysteria is a result of decades of pent up exasperation over failure at achieving racial equality. ..."
"... Think of the Monumental Madness as social engineering quackery -- it probably will accomplish little if anything but it feels better than doing nothing. What encourages this desperate quest for today's "miracle" is that so many past solutions, at least according to all the learned experts, were "guaranteed" to perform as advertised and all failed. ..."
"... A similar guaranteed cure was political empowerment, that is, the Department of Justice would ensure that blacks would live in cities run by black elected officials and self-government would cure everything from crime to joblessness. The upshot, of course, have been urban disasters like Detroit and Selma, AL. And let's not forget tough anti-discrimination laws that would ban employers from using racist job descriptions, and affirmative action programs that would temporarily give a leg up to those who began the race a few steps behind. ..."
"... All and all, genuine successes are rare, typically only cosmetic, and if there were a Museum of Failed Cures for America's Racial Problems, it would be the size of Washington's Smithsonian. ..."
"... What has permitted this quackery to explode is that Confederate statutes and similar hateful objects are everywhere and the cost of exorcizing the evil spirits is trivial vis-a-vis past solutions. Just compare the difficulties of purging racism from a police department with scrutinizing at a city map to find streets named after slave-owners and demanding that they be re-named. The especially good news is that this quest can be life-time employment. In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there were some 700 Confederate statutes and monuments on public property and who knows how many schools, streets and cemetery markers similarly radiate hate ( Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2017, A3). Further add 10 Army bases names after Confederate generals. So much hate, so little time. ..."
"... The cost of this hysteria far exceeds upsetting those who cherish the Confederate legacy. Yet again the public debate will carefully dodge that Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: racial equality is impossible, and its quest can only generate yet more Noble Lies and, worst of all, increasingly totalitarian measures that accomplish nothing other than needlessly expand government power. But then again, perhaps this is what today's madness is all about -- far easier to rave and rant about Robert E. Lee than confront a very unpleasant reality. By that standard, tearing down statutes and re-naming schools is a great investment for those intent on keeping the racial peace. ..."
"... Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: After the election of a black President, and the election of a white President, who is doing nothing to roll back racial favoritism for blacks, blacks now feel that they can move to a highly visible form of white dispossession. They feel they're on top and they want to rub whitey's nose in it. ..."
"... Racial equality is off topic here. Racial hatred worldwide and at home is caused by competition between groups having gone deeply personal. The onset of this malaise is, more often than not, heritage from a Colonial past. Very stubborn to address because of it personal aspect, it still can be lessened by reducing ongoing factors which inflame it. ..."
"... "...this quest can be life-time employment." This quote explains much of this ..."
"... All correct, I'm sure, but let me add a less obvious but ultimately more important hypothesis: the sudden hysteria is a result of decades of pent up exasperation over failure at achieving racial equality. ..."
"... I think this is exactly it. It's like when a married couple gets into a big argument over some little thing around the house – it's always really about something else. And it's never an isolated incident – it's always an accumulation of resentment, not feeling appreciated, etc. ..."
Decades from now experts will surly debate today's Summer of Monumental Hysteria. After all, by
all objective criteria -- assuming, of course, that anything can be objective if it involves race
-- it should not have happened. How many Americans really can correctly identify Robert E. Lee, let
along Roger B. Taney? (According to one recent
survey , half the American public did not know when the Civil War happened.) Do racially sensitive
African Americans even notice the names on these statutes or plaques when they encountered them?
Why now since most of these offense-giving inanimate objects have existed for decades?
Most critically, is there any evidence to suggest that the very existence of a park or a school
horning a Confederate dignitary has adversely affected anybody, regardless of race in the slightest
way? Do black children enrolled in
J.E.B. Stewart Middle
School under-perform academically compared to those attending the
Malcolm
X Academy ? Does the Jefferson Memorial emit a dangerous racial version of
Radon ? Can visitors be "protected" by having a warning: Be advised that Jefferson once owned
slaves so proceed at one's own risk." Tellingly, nobody is even interested in an evidence-based argument
regarding this toxicity. "Everybody knows" that anything about the Confederacy is hateful and all
hatefulness has to be exorcised from American life since hate, like asbestos and tobacco, is bad.
At least leftish professors don't have to invent "studies" to make this point.
Some explanations for this sudden and unexpected hysteria immediately come to mind. There are
countless
organizations skilled at turning almost any event into a fund-raiser while those obsessed with
bashing President Trump will find any excuse to condemn him. And let's not forget all those who enjoy
cheap moral highs by marching against hate and bigotry even if the source of the "hate" is a coffee
mug decorated with the stars and bars.
All correct, I'm sure, but let me add a less obvious but ultimately more important hypothesis:
the sudden hysteria is a result of decades of pent up exasperation over failure at achieving racial
equality. In a nutshell, for at least a half-century, perhaps longer, America has struggled
with its "race problem" and while proposed solutions exceed dozens, and expenditures in the trillions,
progress has been scant. In fact, on at least some indicators, for example, illegitimacy and crime,
race-related matters where better off in the 1950s. Not even electing a black President has cured
America's race strife despite all the assurances that Obama would be a "post-racial" President that
would, once and for all, bring everybody together. What we have gotten for all our efforts is Black
Lives Matter and yet even more black condemnation of whites.
This accumulated frustration can be likened to a situation where a patient with a grim prognosis
grows ever more desperate as one standard treatment after the next fails to reverse the illness.
These frantic patients often gravitate to quacks despite the low odds of a cure. Nevertheless, the
very act of visiting a faith healer or drinking a magical herbal concoction outshines passivity.
And who knows, the world abounds with testimonials to quack cures and "doing something" calms the
despair.
Think of the Monumental Madness as social engineering quackery -- it probably will accomplish
little if anything but it feels better than doing nothing. What encourages this desperate quest for
today's "miracle" is that so many past solutions, at least according to all the learned experts,
were "guaranteed" to perform as advertised and all failed. Recall when the surefire cure
was improved education -- ending segregation, equalizing school expenditures, hiring more black teachers
and administrators, altering textbooks to make it more relevant to black youngsters, intensive pre-school
(Head Start, Sesame Street) and, more recently, eradicating unconscious teacher bias and no longer
disproportionately disciplining blacks. We've had Bush's
No Child Left Behind
and Obama's Race to
the Top and countless other expensive remedies.
A similar guaranteed cure was political empowerment, that is, the Department of Justice would
ensure that blacks would live in cities run by black elected officials and self-government would
cure everything from crime to joblessness. The upshot, of course, have been urban disasters like
Detroit and Selma, AL. And let's not forget tough anti-discrimination laws that would ban employers
from using racist job descriptions, and affirmative action programs that would temporarily give a
leg up to those who began the race a few steps behind.
All and all, genuine successes are rare, typically only cosmetic, and if there were a Museum
of Failed Cures for America's Racial Problems, it would be the size of Washington's Smithsonian.
In other words, by the summer of 2017, the frustration over repeated failures plus the lack of
any more "guaranteed" solutions on the agenda had created a perfect setting for quackery. Now, as
with all serious but likely intractable problems, the marketplace supplies something to meet these
needs, and to continue our parallel with those suffering from incurable cancer, taking down statutes
of Confederate soldiers or re-naming buildings is the equivalent of using
Laetrile among countless
other bogus cures . Yes, there is no scientific evidence that past crusade against "hate" has
even helped African Americans, but given the sorry record of past efforts, why not give it a try?
Hard to resist anything that feels so good.
What has permitted this quackery to explode is that Confederate statutes and similar hateful
objects are everywhere and the cost of exorcizing the evil spirits is trivial vis-a-vis past solutions.
Just compare the difficulties of purging racism from a police department with scrutinizing at a city
map to find streets named after slave-owners and demanding that they be re-named. The especially
good news is that this quest can be life-time employment. In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center
estimates that there were some 700 Confederate statutes and monuments on public property and who
knows how many schools, streets and cemetery markers similarly radiate hate ( Wall Street Journal,
August 22, 2017, A3). Further add
10 Army bases names after Confederate generals. So much hate, so little time.
This is vigilante justice and everyone, regardless of training or brains, can anoint themselves
as soldiers to overcome racial inequality and win a Participation Trophy. Be a hero; just find a
statute of Stonewall Jackson hidden in storage room.
The cost of this hysteria far exceeds upsetting those who cherish the Confederate legacy.
Yet again the public debate will carefully dodge that Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: racial
equality is impossible, and its quest can only generate yet more
Noble Lies and, worst of all,
increasingly totalitarian measures that accomplish nothing other than needlessly expand government
power. But then again, perhaps this is what today's madness is all about -- far easier to rave and
rant about Robert E. Lee than confront a very unpleasant reality. By that standard, tearing down
statutes and re-naming schools is a great investment for those intent on keeping the racial peace.
When will BLM and other radicals demand a statue to honor John Brown? Of all the characters
in our history, he should be their hero, but he was white! The US Navy even named a ship after
the battle where US Marines (led by Robert E. Lee) crushed his violent attempt to end slavery,
and executed Brown.
Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: After the election of a black President,
and the election of a white President, who is doing nothing to roll back racial favoritism for
blacks, blacks now feel that they can move to a highly visible form of white dispossession. They
feel they're on top and they want to rub whitey's nose in it.
Next step will be explicit white-to-black transfers under the guise of "reparations for slavery."
Yet again the public debate will carefully dodge that Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name:
racial equality is impossible, and its quest can only generate yet more Noble Lies and, worst
Racial equality is off topic here. Racial hatred worldwide and at home is caused by competition
between groups having gone deeply personal. The onset of this malaise is, more often than not,
heritage from a Colonial past. Very stubborn to address because of it personal aspect, it still
can be lessened by reducing ongoing factors which inflame it.
All correct, I'm sure, but let me add a less obvious but ultimately more important hypothesis:
the sudden hysteria is a result of decades of pent up exasperation over failure at achieving
racial equality.
I think this is exactly it. It's like when a married couple gets into a big argument over
some little thing around the house – it's always really about something else. And it's never an
isolated incident – it's always an accumulation of resentment, not feeling appreciated, etc.
Blacks wouldn't feel so slighted by a Confederate monument if they weren't already feeling
so disrespected, that they are seen as inferior, they have all the menial jobs and live in the
worst neighborhoods, that white people don't want to be around them, etc.
But white people working ever harder to be extra nice to blacks won't work either, and the
niceness will just be seen as condescending and patronizing, because it is. The problem is that
white people end up being humiliating to blacks just be existing. The races are different, and
the contrast is plain to see everywhere all the time.
Granted it's primarily white liberals more than blacks who are the instigators of tearing down
these monuments. But that's just because white liberals feel bad for blacks given the realities,
and also enjoy seeing themselves in the role of the heroes.
The problem is that everyone has bought into the mid-20th-century Franz Boas anthropology hoax
that there are no genetic differences between the races. The truth is getting out though, I think
it's happening right now – this might really be it. The establishment is obviously scared, hence
the increasing attempts at censorship.
Acknowledgement of this truth actually provides a way to understand and be more sympathetic
to the Confederates and the segregationists and other white people throughout history. They weren't
evil – they thought the races were different, and they were right, and they were struggling with
what to do about it.
This doesn't mean we need to agree with their conclusions – let's not bring back slavery. But
I think we all need to start thinking seriously about what comes next once the truth is acknowledged
and how to treat blacks as fairly as possible.
I'm hopeful that the solution will be just to stick to equality of individual opportunity and
accept the unequal group outcomes, while trying to make society better for people on the low end
of the IQ bell curve regardless of race. And if I'm feeling extra optimistic, maybe acknowledging
the truth will actually dial down the hostility, because we won't have to be thrashing around
looking for scapegoats all the time to blame for the differences.
spending nearly
$13.7 billion. Just two years ago, it seemed that Seoul and Beijing were embarking on a honeymoon
phase when President Park Geun-hye attended a military parade in Tiananmen Square commemorating the
end of World War II!the only U.S. ally to do so.
Then THAAD happened.
In July 2016, Seoul and Washington announced their decision to deploy the anti-missile system.
China opposed the deployment, saying it undermined China's security and would destabilize the region
because its radars could be used by the United States to track China's missile activities.
China wanted to "teach South Korea a lesson" for the effrontery of the THAAD deployment. Shortly
after the announcement, Beijing
banned the airing
of Korean TV shows, films, and K-pop acts in China. After it was revealed that Lotte Group!a South
Korean conglomerate operating 112 stores in mainland China!once owned the land THAAD would be based
on, Chinese state media called for a nationwide boycott of the company. By March 2017, nearly half
of Lotte's stores on the mainland
were shutdown , due to vague "safety violations." That same month, Beijing banned its travel
agencies from selling trips to Korea, resulting in a 66 percent
decrease in Chinese
visitors from last year. Shortly after President Moon Jae-in was elected to the Blue House in May
2017, he announced the suspension of further THAAD deployments until further review.
Many South Koreans told me they expected blowback from the decision to deploy THAAD, but the swiftness
and intensity of Beijing's retaliation caught them off guard. Beijing's response to THAAD, they said,
"opened our [South Korean] eyes to China's true colors ." Simply put, they believed Beijing
could not be relied on to consider South Korea's interests if China's interests were on the line.
This disillusionment is fanning mistrust and has damaged China's image in South Korea. A March 2017
Asan Institute poll found that,
for the first time ever , Koreans had a more favorable view of Japan than of China. This was
a shocking finding; Japan has consistently been South Koreans' least favorite country after North
Korea.
In spite of growing mistrust, South Koreans recognize the crucial role Beijing plays in reining
in Pyongyang. Many interlocutors said they believed, in spite of THAAD, that Chinese officials wanted
to maintain good relations with South Korea!albeit on China's terms.
the purpose of identity politics is to avoid economic issues when they are more pressing
than at any time since ww ii. the brainwashing of americans against socialism has continued
for those born after 12/26/1991. as long as the alt-right is dominated by the brainwashed it
will fail.
It needs to stop calling itself conservative and right.
What the majority of the
electorate wants is bernie sanders, a wall, e-verify and the subsequent self-deportations,
more environmental regulations, the end of affirmative action, etc..
the purpose of identity politics is to avoid economic issues when they are
more pressing than at any time since ww ii. the brainwashing of americans against socialism
has continued for those born after 12/26/1991. as long as the alt-right is dominated by the
brainwashed it will fail. it needs to stop calling itself conservative and right. what the
majority of the electorate wants is bernie sanders, a wall, e-verify and the subsequent
self-deportations, more environmental regulations, the end of affirmative action, etc..
Yes,
identity politics are a distraction, it's the political equivalent of sugar, it gets you high
but eventually ruins you.
It also answers the question why is Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the bankers all of a
sudden are supporting identity politics? Because it's a counter to populism and economic
awareness.
This keeps people from noticing their politicians are all owned by wealthy special
interests who don't give a shit about the people and it fact plan to reduce most to serfs in
the name of profit. No one ever talks about why Wall Street gets a multitrillion dollar bail
out for what amounted to was a scam concocted by the bankers and real-estate moguls and bond
ratings agencies. Yet no one ever went to jail over this.
It distracts the young why they can't file for bankruptcy after graduating with a
worthless college degree that they paid $150k for.
So said Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, during a keynote address
he gave at the Stigler Center's
conference on the political economy of finance that took place in June.
Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about
the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in
areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion.
In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is
anger focused on trade? 2. Why now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements?
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
There's quite a bit more. I don't agree with everything he (Raghuram) says, but thought it might
provoke discussion.
The understanding of exploitation
Of wage earning production workers
Is a better base then the 18 th century liberal ideal of equality
Exploitation and oppression are obviously not the same
even if they make synergistic team mates oftener then not
So long as " them " are blatantly oppressed
It's easy to Forget you are exploited
Unlike oppression
Exploitation can be so stealthy
So not part of the common description of the surface of daily life
Calls for equality must include a careful answer to the question
" equal with who ? "
Unearned equality is not seen as fair to those who wanna believe they earned their status
Add in the obvious :
To be part of a successful movement aimed at Exclusion of some " thems " or other
Is narcotic
Just as fighting exclusion can be a narcotic too for " thems "
But fighting against exclusion coming from among a privileged rank among
The community of would be excluders
That is a bummer
A thankless act of sanctimony
Unless you spiritually join the " thems"
Now what have we got ?
Jim Crow thrived for decades it only ended
When black arms and hands in the field at noon ...by the tens of millions
were no longer necessary to Dixie
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
I thought this sort of thinking was widely accepted only in 2016 we were told by the center
left that no it's not true.
"Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke
about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities
in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion."
Instead the center left is arguing that workers have nothing to complain about and besides
they're racist/sexist.
'"These communities have become disempowered partly for economic reasons but partly also because
decision-making has increasingly been centralized toward state governments, national governments,
and multilateral [agreements]," said Rajan. In the European Union, he noted, the concentration
of decision-making in Brussels has led to a lot of discontent.'
I'd suggest that this part is not true. Communities have become politically disempowered in
large part because they have become economically disempowered. A shrinking economy means a shrinking
tax base and less funds to do things locally. Even if the local government attempts to rebuild
by recruiting other employers, they end up in a race to the bottom with other communities in a
similar situation.
I'd also suggest that the largest part of the "discontent" in the EU is not because of any
"concentration of decision-making", but because local (and regional, and national) politicians
have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for any required, but unpopular action.
One of the side-effects of these periodic moral panics that sweep through
American society --
Trayvon ,
Ferguson , Charlottesville -- is that they unmask people -- bring
out their inner nature.
Well, two weeks ago on the podcast
I said some kind words , or at least not un -kind words, about
TV talking head Charles Krauthammer. I said that while I'd written him off for
years as a, quote, "cucky neocon Israel-first GOP establishment front man,"
more recently I've been warming to him because of the mostly sensible things
he's said on Tucker Carlson's show.
Well, I'm biting my tongue. Last Tuesday on Fox News Krauthammer reverted
to cucky type, acting scandalized that Trump dared suggest there is anything
wrong with masked anarchists throwing rocks at citizens lawfully demonstrating.
Fortunately Laura Ingraham was there to counter him. I have,
as I have often noted , a very soft spot for Ms. Ingraham. Not to be shy
about it, I would walk over hot coals for her, leap the ice floes of a swollen
river for her, wrestle alligators for her.
So OK, I yield. I got Krauthammer right the first time: cucky neocon
shill.
"Shill"? A shill is a bogus competitor employed by a casino to promote
interest in the blackjack tables. Krauthammer isn't a shill.
He's had a certain political trajectory over the years: from mainline
Democrat to dissenting Democrat to mainline Republican (a trajectory traversed
over the period running from about 1979 to 1995). There is no indication
he's ever advocated anything but what he thinks or that he favors the party
he's not formally affiliated with; his antagonism to Trump is an indicator
of the crevasse which separates starboard opinion journalists from starboard
voters.
A real shill would be someone employed by the media to play a Republican.
The WaPoo hired David Weigel to do this, but the act wasn't credible after
his private correspondence was published in the Journ-O-List scandal.
Tyler Cowen, whose public writings suggest he's consumed with anxiety
about status considerations in faculty settings, might be seen as a manifestation
of libertarian pseudo-opposition on the George Mason payroll (since he never
critiques any progtrasn sacred cows). Bruce Bartlett, the Republican whose
signature is attacking other Republicans, might be considered a shill or
a poseur depending on who is paying his bills.
And, of course, 'neocon' is a nonsense term.
Krauthammer is a Canadian-reared scion of a very prosperous family. He's
lived pretty much all his life in New York, Montreal, Boston, and Washington.
His brother spent his adult life in Los Angeles. His son lives in the Bay
Area, his niece and her husband in Washington.
Between them, his parents lived in a half-dozen countries during the
course of their lives before landing in Quebec. He does not have any natural
affinity for the Trump constituency.
The best he can do is to attempt to appreciate it, and at that he is
very hit-and-miss.
"... Many of the memo's assertions were risible, such as the idea that women are not coders because they are less intrigued by "things" than men are. ..."
"... Assertions in that category are not "risible" unless you have a strong ideological determination to find them so. The claim that men have one less rib than women could fairly be called "risible" since it is so easily disproved. Damore's claim, as stated, is of a different kind. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, it has not been disproved: but even if it has been, it's still not "risible," as the disproving would have involved painstaking research and lengthy debates in scholarly journals. To persons not current with all that specialized research, it is a thing that might be true . ..."
"... Google is 80% male in its most technical departments. This hiring "anomaly" cannot be blamed on the young Damore, as I doubt he has any say in hiring matters. Brin, Page and Schmidt built up the company in its present form. ..."
"... Should Larry Page be so foolish as to write the sneering epistle suggested by the Economist, he would then have a hard time explaining Google's demographic makeup as he would have thrown away many of his best arguments. ..."
If all this sneering and gloating were not sufficiently emetic, this issue gives over
four full pages to grinding a boot heel into the face of James Damore, the programmer fired
by Google on August 7th for his internal company memo on sex differentials in suitability for software
work.
This was actually The Economist's second attempt to break this particular butterfly on
the wheel. Their previous edition (August 12th-18th) had run
a 600-word editorial and
a 1,000-word article in the Business Section both arguing that Google should not have
fired Damore but that his arguments about women and men displaying different interests were wrong,
wrong, wrong .
From the editorial:
An unbiased eye would light on social factors rather than innate differences as the reason
why only a fifth of computer engineers are women It would have been better for Larry Page, Google's
co-founder and the boss of Alphabet, its holding company, to write a ringing, detailed rebuttal
of Mr Damore's argument.
From the article:
Many of the memo's assertions were risible, such as the idea that women are not coders
because they are less intrigued by "things" than men are.
This is just ideological enforcement. Why is it more "unbiased" to presume social factors than
to presume innate differences? It's not more unbiased; it's just more CultMarx-compliant.
And why is that latter assertion "
risible " ("causing or
capable of causing laughter; laughable; ludicrous ")? It's not preposterous; it's in the category
of things that might or might not be true. Whether it is true or not can be determined by
careful empirical enquiry.
Assertions in that category are not "risible" unless you have a strong ideological determination
to find them so. The claim that men have one less rib than women could fairly be called "risible"
since it is so easily disproved. Damore's claim, as stated, is of a different kind.
To the best of my knowledge, it has not been disproved: but even if it has been, it's still
not "risible," as the disproving would have involved painstaking research and lengthy debates in
scholarly journals. To persons not current with all that specialized research, it is a thing that
might be true .
Well,
the four-page heel-grinding in this current issue is an attempt to write the "ringing, detailed
rebuttal of Mr Damore's argument" that The Economist recommended to Larry Page in last week's
editorial. It is a jeering, sneering specimen of equalist triumphalism.
Your interpretation is wrong. Your memo was a great example of what's called "motivated reasoning"!seeking
out only the information that supports what you already believe.
Uh: pot, kettle?
It was derogatory to women in our industry and elsewhere. Despite your stated support for diversity
and fairness, it demonstrated profound prejudice.
You should be free of ideological prejudices,
pure of
heart , as we are!
Your chain of reasoning had so many missing links that it hardly mattered what your argument
was based on. We try to hire people who are willing to follow where the facts lead, whatever their
preconceptions. In your case we clearly made a mistake.
So then wouldn't it be right to fire him?
You don't seem to understand what makes a great software engineer You clearly don't understand
our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire.
See previous.
I shouldn't have had to write this: I'm busy and a little effort on your part would have made
it unnecessary. But I know I have it easy. Women in our industry have to cope with this sort of
nonsense all the time.
Yours,
Larry
My impression is that Damore put considerable effort into his memo. And again, while some of his
assertions could be wrong, they are not missing-rib-level "nonsense."
But then, who's this James Damore pest, anyway? How many billion is he worth? Feugh!
Google is 80% male in its most technical departments. This hiring "anomaly" cannot be blamed
on the young Damore, as I doubt he has any say in hiring matters. Brin, Page and Schmidt built
up the company in its present form.
Should Larry Page be so foolish as to write the sneering epistle suggested by the Economist,
he would then have a hard time explaining Google's demographic makeup as he would have thrown
away many of his best arguments.
I share Joe Levantine's sorrow over the demise of this once great weekly. What a shame.
At the planned rightist march in Berkeley today, very few conservatives
or alt-righters showed up, but antifa did. From the LA
Times :
Some anti-facists protesters, known as antifa, pounced when Joey Gibson, founder of the
right-wing group Patriot Prayer, showed up with his crew. The protesters beat one man with a
shield and another person wearing an American flag.
Some of the antifa protesters also threatened to break the cameras of anyone who filmed
them, including journalists. One reporter tweeted that he had been pepper sprayed in one
scuffle.
Moderate counter protesters were upset with the violence. "We need to get antifa out of
here," said Jack Harris, who helped break up a fight.
Andrew Noruk, who was wearing a T-shirt denouncing both the Republican and Democratic
parties when two young women came up to him and started yelling at him.
"You're a Nazi," they shouted, leaving Noruk, who said he came out to protest Trump
supporters, confused.
Noruk denounced the fights breaking out near the park, claiming antifa and black bloc
anarchists have given Trump's supporters exactly what they wanted: footage of violence
perpetrated against the presidents supporters in a historically liberal city.
"We can't keep producing this audio visual propaganda," he said. "It is recruiting for the
right."
Damn right it is. Why do the police allow this? Why are they not arresting antifa and
throwing the book at them? This is outrageous, the way the Berkeley police behaved. From the
Sacramento Bee :
Black-clad anarchists on Sunday stormed into what had been a largely peaceful Berkeley
protest against hate and attacked at least five people, including the leader of a politically
conservative group who canceled an event a day earlier in San Francisco amid fears of
violence.
The group of more than 100 hooded protesters, with shields emblazoned with the words "no
hate" and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, busted through police lines,
avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons. Then the anarchists
blended with a crowd of 2,000 largely peaceful protesters who turned up to demonstrate in a
"Rally Against Hate" opposed to a much smaller gathering of right-wing protesters.
Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how police handled the protest, saying
they made a strategic decision to let the anarchists enter to avoid more violence.
Greenwood said "the potential use of force became very problematic" given the thousands of
peaceful protesters in the park. Once anarchists arrived, it was clear there would not be
dueling protests between left and right so he ordered his officers out of the park and
allowed the anarchists to march in.
More:
Police pulled one supporter of President Donald Trump out of the park over a wall by his
shirt as a crowd of about two dozen counter-demonstrators surrounded him and chanted "Nazi go
home" and pushed him toward the edge of the park. At least two people were detained by
officers for wearing bandannas covering their faces.
Anti-rally protesters chanted slogans "No Trump. No KKK. No fascist USA" and carried signs
that said: "Berkeley Stands United Against Hate."
So an American man cannot peacefully state his support for the President of the United
States without a mob of bullies surrounding him and physically coercing him?
Berkeley does not stand united against hate. Berkeley hates. Keep it up, leftists. You are
doing the work of your enemies. Here's a short clip showing an antifa mob attacking a teenage
boy Trump supporter and his father in Berkeley today, plus a short interview with them after
the event. Warning: there's an f-bomb in the first few seconds of the crowd footage:
"... the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire ..."
"... To distill it to an aphorism, "A million guys with one buck, are no match for one guy with a million bucks." ..."
"... Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics. ..."
"... What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common? An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats. ..."
"... Some minorities are more equal than others. The Deep State, for example. ..."
"... It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation via the Republicans. ..."
My thesis is very simple: the reason why the US always support
foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress
the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate
and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the
AngloZionist Empire. That's all there is to it.
I think that minorities often, but not always, act and perceive things in
a way very different from the way majority groups do. Here is what I have observed:
Let's first look at minorities inside the US:
They are typically far more aware of their minority identity/status
than the majority. That is to say that if the majority is of skin color
A and the minority of skin color B, the minority will be much more acutely aware
of its skin color. They are typically much more driven and active
then the majority. This is probably due to their more acute perception of being
a minority. They are only concerned with single-issue politics , that single-issue being, of course, their minority status. Since minorities
are often unhappy with their minority-status, they are also often resentful
of the majority . Since minorities are mostly preoccupied by their minority-status
linked issue, they rarely pay attention to the 'bigger picture' and that, in
turn, means that the political agenda of the minorities typically does
not threaten the powers that be . Minorities often have a deep-seated
inferiority complex towards the putatively more successful majority.
Minorities often seek to identify other minorities with which
they can ally themselves against the majority.
To this list of characteristics, I would add one which is unique to foreign
minorities, minorities outside the US: since they have no/very little prospects
of prevailing against the majority, these minorities are very willing
to ally themselves with the AngloZionist Empire and that, in turn, often
makes them depended on the AngloZionist Empire, often even for their physical
survival.
The above are, of course, very general characterizations. Not all minorities
display all of these characteristics and many display only a few of them. But
regardless of the degree to which any single minority fits this list of characteristics,
what is obvious is that minorities are extremely easy to manipulate and that
they present no credible (full-spectrum) threat to the Empire.
The US Democratic Party is the perfect example of a party which heavily relies
on minority manipulation to maximize its power. While the Republican Party is
by and large the party of the White, Anglo, Christian and wealthy voters, the
Democrats try to cater to Blacks, women, Leftists, homosexuals, immigrants,
retirees, and all others who feel like they are not getting their fair share
of the proverbial pie. Needless to say, in reality there is only one party in
the US, you can call the the Uniparty, the Republicracts or the Demolicans,
but in reality both wings of the Big Money party stand for exactly the same
things. What I am looking at here is not at some supposed real differences,
but the way the parties present themselves. It is the combined action of these
two fundamentally identical parties which guarantees the status quo in US politics
which I like to sum up as "more of the same, only worse".
I would like to mention an important corollary of my thesis that minorities
are typically more driven than the majority. If we accept that minorities are
typically much more driven than most of the population, then we also immediately
can see why their influence over society is often out of proportion with the
numerical demographical "weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities
being more intelligent or more creative and everything to do with them willing
to being spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most
people.
So we have easy to manipulate, small groups, whose agenda does not threaten
the 1% (really, much less!), who like to gang up with other similar minorities
against the majority. Getting scared yet? It gets worse.
Western 'democracies' are mostly democracies only in name. In most of them
instead of "one man one vote" we see "one dollar one vote" meaning that big
money decides, not "the people". Those in real power have immense financial
resources which they cynically use to boost the already totally disproportional
power of the various minorities. Now this is really scary:
Easy to manipulate, small groups, highly driven, whose agenda does not threaten
the ruling plutocracy, who like to gang up with other similar minorities against
the majority and whose influence is vastly increased by immense sums of money
invested in them by the plutocracy. How is that for a threat to real people
power, to the ideals of democracy?!
The frightening truth is that the combination of minorities and big money
can easily hijack a supposedly 'democratic' country and subjugate the majority
of its population to the "rule of the few over the many".
Once we look this reality in the face we should also become aware of a very
rarely mentioned fact: while we are taught that democracies should uphold the
right of the minorities, the opposite is true: real democracies should
strive to protect majorities against the abuse of power from minorities!
I know, I have just committed a long list of grievous thoughtcrimes!
At those who might be angry at me, I will reply with a single sentence: please
name me a western country where the views of the majority of its people are
truly represented in the policies of their governments? And if you fail to come
up with a good example, then I need to ask you if the majority is clearly not
in power, then who is?
I submit that the plutocratic elites which govern the West have played a
very simple trick on us all: they managed to focus our attention on the many
cases in history when minorities were oppressed by majorities but completely
obfuscated the numerous cases whereminorities oppressed majorities.
Speaking of oppression: minorities are far more likely to benefit and, therefore,
use violence than the majority simply because their worldview often centers
on deeply-held resentments. To put it differently, minorities are much more
prone to settling scores for past wrongs (whether real or imagined) than a majority
which typically does not even think in minority versus majority categories
.
Not that majorities are always benign or kind towards minorities, not at
all, humans being pretty much the same everywhere, but by the fact that they
are less driven, less resentful and, I would argue, even less aware of their
"majority status" they are less likely to act on such categories.
Foreign minorities play a crucial role in US foreign policy. Since time immemorial
rulers have been acutely aware of the " divide et impera " rule, there
is nothing new here. But the US has become the uncontested leader in the art
of using national minorities to create strife and overthrow a disobedient regime.
The AngloZionist war against the Serbian nation is the perfect example of how
this is done: the US supported any minority against the Serbs, even groups that
the US classified as terrorists, as long as this was against the Serbs. And,
besides being Orthodox Slavs and traditional allies of Russia, what was the
real 'crime' of the Serbs? Being the majority of course! The Serbs had no need
of the AngloZionists to prevail against the various ethnic (Croats) and religious
(Muslims) minorities they lived with. That made the Serbs useless to the Empire.
But now that the US has created a fiction of an independent Kosovo, the Kosovo
Albanians put up a
statue of Bill Clinton in Prishtina and, more relevantly, allowed the Empire
to build the
Camp
Bondsteel mega-base in the middle of their nasty little statelet, right
on the land of the Serbian population that was ethnically cleansed during the
Kosovo war. US democracy building at its best indeed
The same goes for Russia (and, the Soviet Union) where the US went as far
as to support the right of self-determination for
non-existing
"captive nations" such as "Idel-Ural" and "Cossakia" . I would even argue
that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo (What in the world
is a "Belarussian"?!).
I am fully aware that in the typical TV watching westerner any discussion
of minorities focusing on their negative potential immediately elicits visions
of hammers and sickles, smoking crematoria chimneys, chain gangs, lynchmobs,
etc. This is basic and primitive conditioning. Carefully engineered events such
as the recent riots in Charlottesville only further reinforce this type of mass
conditioning. This is very deliberate and, I would add, very effective. As a
result, any criticism, even just perceived criticism, of a minority immediately
triggers outraged protests and frantic virtue-signaling (not me! look how good
I am!!).
Of course, carefully using minorities is just one of the tactics used by
the ruling plutocracy. Another of their favorite tricks is to created conflicts
out of nothing or ridiculously bloat the visibility of an altogether minor topic
(example: homo-marriages). The main rule remains the same though: create tensions,
conflicts, chaos, subvert the current order (whatever that specific order might
be), basically have the serfs fight each other while we rule .
In Switzerland an often used expression to describe "the people" is "the
sovereign". This is a very accurate description of the status of the people
in a real democracy: they are "sovereign" in the sense that nobody rules over
them. In that sense, the issue in the United States is one of sovereignty: as
of today, the real sovereign of the US are the corporations, the deep state,
the Neocons, the plutocracy, the financiers, the Israel Lobby – you name it,
anybody BUT the people.
In that system of oppression, minorities play a crucial role, even if they
are totally unaware of this and even if, at the end of the day, they don't benefit
from it. Their perception or their lack of achievements in no way diminishes
the role that they play in the western pseudo-democracies.
How do with deal with this threat?
I think that the solution lies with the minorities themselves: they need
to be educated about the techniques which are used to manipulate them, and they
need to be convinced that their minority status does not, in reality, oppose
them to the majority and that both the majority and the minorities have a common
interest in together standing against those who seek to rule over them all.
Striving to remain faithful to my "Putin fanboy" reputation, I will say that
I believe that Russia under Putin is doing exactly the right thing by giving
the numerous Russian minorities a stake in the future of the Russian state and
by convincing the minorities that their interests and the interest of the majority
of the people are fundamentally the same: being a minority does not have to
mean being in opposition to the majority. It is a truism that minorities need
to be fully integrated into the fabric of society and yet this is rarely practiced
in the real world. This is certainly not what I observe today in Europe or the
US.
The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant motto
to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement "Equality
and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only political movement
in France which does not want to favor one group at the expense of the other.
Everybody else either wants to oppress the "français de souche" (the native,
mostly White and Roman-Catholic majority) on behalf of the "français de branche"
(immigrants, naturalized citizens, minorities), or oppress the "français de
branche" on behalf of the "français de souche". Needless to say, the only ones
who benefit from this clash is the ruling Zionist elite (best represented by
the infamous
CRIF , which makes the US AIPAC look comparatively honorable and weak).
As for Soral, he is vilified by the official French media with no less hate
than Trump is vilified in the US by the US Ziomedia.
Still, equality and reconciliation are the two things which the majorities
absolutely must offer the minorities if they want to prevent the latter to fall
prey to the manipulation techniques used by those forces who want to turn everybody
into obedient and clueless serfs. Those majorities who delude themselves and
believe that they can simply solve the "minority problem" by expelling or otherwise
making these minorities disappear are only kidding themselves. To 'simply' solve
the "minority problem' by cracking down on these minorities inevitably
"While we all typically [have] several co-existing identities inside
us (say, German, retired, college-educated, female, Buddhist, vegetarian,
exile, resident of Brazil, etc. as opposed to just "White"), in manipulated
minorities one such identity (skin color, religion, etc.) becomes over-bloated
and trumps all the others." -- The Saker
That's a great critique of "identity politics" and one reason why identity
politics is self-limiting, maybe even self-destructive (as well as destructive
of democracy).
Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics.
It's like an Indian movie I once saw that was constructed as a family
history. When the family experienced many setbacks, one after another, until
they were all disheartened, the patriarch of the family spoke up, saying,
"Remember, we are Bengali!" That was the turning point in the film: after
that things began to improve for the family so that the film could have
a happy Bolliwood ending.
That was like saying, "Remember, we have a proud history!"
There was also a Yiddish joke that someone told me, like this: There
was a young Jewish man in some place like Minsk, somewhere in Eastern Europe,
and he saw an advertisement by none other than a great member of the Rothschild
banking family. The ad said "Wanted: young Jewish man for difficult and
physically challenging assignment." So the hero (or anti-hero?) of this
story set out immediately for Paris. Unfortunately, our hero experienced
many tragedies, even losing an arm and a leg. But he was determined and
he persevered, with the help of a crutch. Finally, he had to camp out in
front of the gate of the Rothschild mansion outside of Paris.
Eventually,
the great Rothschild had his carriage stop and spoke to the man, saying,
"You know, I've seen you standing here day after day what is it that you
want?"
Our hero brought out the advertisement that he had carried with him
through all his misadventures. The great Rothschild read the advertisement
and exclaimed, "What's the matter with you? Did you not read that the job
was physically challenging?" To which our hero responded, "Yes, but, Mr.
Rothschild, the ad says "young Jewish man."
Being myself a gentile, I did not at first get the joke, but eventually
I got a chuckle out of it.
What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common?
An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white
and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work
and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the
only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the
working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the
American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats.
I also lived for 5 years in Washington, DC, which was something like
70% Black and, at the time, openly and often rudely hostile to Whites
(I never thought of myself as a color before, but I sure felt like one
during those 5 years). And now I am a "legal alien" living in the US.
Anyway, while I am "White" (what a nonsensical category!)
Nonsensical? Really? Both the DC blacks and their DC (((paymasters)))
hate your "category" but you're still confused and want to hold hands and
educate them ? Do you have children?
The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant
motto to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement
"Equality and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only
political movement in France which does not want to favor one group
at the expense of the other.
Demographically speaking, the native French group ( white category
FYI) is already doomed to lose their homeland unless they reverse the invasion
and punish the plotters. Reconciling with their invaders would be assisted
suicide, surely. Almost as bad as the forced miscegenation idea proposed
by Nicolas "Jew Midget" Sarkozy a few years back.
You need to wake up and check for any vitamin/mineral deficiencies you
might have, Saker. Our ancestors butchered countless invaders to
give us the land we're standing on – they didn't reconcile it away.
One single question shows how profoundly silly The Saker's his "solution"
is:
Why would it be easier to convince resentful, envious minorities to just
get along with the majority than to convince the elites to act better, according
to the noblesse oblige principle?
Elites will always misuse their power. Minorities/majorities will always
quarrel and resent each other.
Give us (back) ethnically homogeneous states instead. No panacea, but
the besf we can hope for.
The ruling elites of US (both democrats and republicans) can be divided
into 2 categories:
1. The ones who think that they are better because of their race.
2. The ones who think that they are better because they were able to overcome
the feeling of being better because of their race. In other words – the
morally superior ubermensch instead of racially superior ubermensch.
In reality, category 2 doesn't exist (at least not among the ruling elites)
– they are all liars. They haven't been able to overcome any feeling of
superiority, they just added another one – the one of moral superiority.
Actually, the ruling elites for the most part are still category 1, only
pretending to be category 2. Not only do they feel they are superior to
other races, they feel they are superior to their own race – the poorer
members of it.
The ruling elites are manipulating the population of US into declaring
that they belong in either one of these 2 camps. Result: Charlottesville
riots.
This post would sound eminently reasonable if the white identitarians
had any kind of state blessing, but they are a de facto criminal element
being suppressed. Not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of the
elite who are Jewish, not Zionist, and not very Anglo.
White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white leadership
were transparently in control over the state. The wellspring of their support
comes from the fact that what whites do exist in the power structure are
absolutely and transparently subservient to other interests.
One of the problems is that the US was (and still is) a republic-with
a small r. The republican form of government assumes that the voters are
too stupid or ignorant to pass laws, so they have to hire professional political
types to write their governing laws for them. The politicos are easy targets
for the powers that be to manipulate, evidently.
The problem is – as always – with the numbers. The large influx of migrants
is changing the demographics and that changes the goals and behaviour of
each group. The minority groups can see the promised land in the future
when they will take over. The majority knows that they cannot stop it by
"equality and reconciliation" (whatever that would mean in practise, maybe
endless workshops to whine about each other?).
The numbers game has gone too far and there is no easy way to restore
stability. E.g. the labor markets in the West cannot be fixed without drastic
restrictions on supply of new labor from the Third World. The article has
some valuable insights, but the lame 'solution' it suggests is useless.
Another issue not addressed is that many minorities are a majority in
their regions leading to a geographic instability by putting borders in
question. That separation actually makes sense in many cases.
What we have had for some time are the elites behaving badly, they have
stopped being responsible and thoughtful. The best solution I can see would
be for the elites to sober up and start taking their role seriously again.
Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos. Those
are the wages of the baby boomer idiocy.
Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.
At the last French elections the political elite did anything possible to
prevent Front National getting legal political power.
With fifteen % of the votes, of those who bothered to vote, some 44%, Macron
got an absolute majority in French parliament, some 360 seats.
FN six or so.
Yet, alas, anyone knows he won the elections, but not the streets.
As his popularity goes down, Sun King habits, the strikes announced for
11 and 12 September will show who really is in power in France.
If you want to lesson the influence of minorities in western democracies,
then its essential to provide a more a la carte form of democracy that is
less open to elite manipulation. Options include getting rid of political
parties and voting directly for heads of government departments, or allowing
voters to vote on which party gets to run each of the key government departments.
It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political
parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote
on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages
which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks
in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor
American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation
via the Republicans.
There is no way around this problem without radically changing the political
system.
Easier said than done. Most minorities would support anti-majority politics
even IF they knew they were being manipulated. You severely underestimate
the human attraction to tribalism.
A more plausible plan would be to turn minorities against so-called 'AngloZionist'
values, which is already partially complete, since minorities are rarely
Anglos and therefore don't subscribe to their values as much. Have a look
at any SJW gathering. Always disproportionately white, even in very diverse
cities. It's much easier to convince even longtime resident minorities like
blacks that things like transgenderism is bullshit, than it is to convince
emotionally committed whites.
This would result in a country that allows multiple competing tribalisms,
but none of which would be very useful as pawns by the elites. Not as good
as homogeneity, but better than the current situation.
"Everybody gang up against the WEIRDs" is a nice thought and I would
love to see it, but it's just not very likely.
There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:
Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being
manipulated
Offer the minorities a future based on equality and reconciliation
Put the spotlight on those who fan the flames of conflict and try to
turn minorities and majorities against each other
Surprisingly weak and naive.
A simple question:
What's wrong with Serb approach in Kosovo before Western intervention?
Spare me "virtue signalling" .. if you can.
I think it would've worked if West hadn't stepped up with overwhelming
FORCE.
It worked in "Operation Storm". Serbs as victims but that's precisely the
point.
Perfect example how it CAN work.
So .following the same logic ..if IF .West used the same approach why
it wouldn't work?
Say .French government does exactly the same as Croats did with Serbs in
Croatia or Serbs with Albanians/whatever in Kosovo.
There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:
Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being
manipulated
While those ideas have merit, I predict they'll be impossible to implement.
Education is an active process and one cannot "be" educated in the passive
sense. People, like other creatures, can be schooled and trained, but that's
not the same as acquiring an education.
There are several reasons why the majority will never acquire any meaningful
education. Most people simply do not possess the requisite curiosity to
begin any sort of educational process and would rather make decisions based
on immediate emotions. A true education requires active questioning of the
standing myths and myths are evidently too comfortable for most to discard
or even doubt. Most folks appear too lazy and or too timid to face the hard
truths and would rather follow the dictates of some slick Peruna peddler.
A shocking percentage of people apparently love the feeling of "superiority"
of "knowing" something even if their belief is utter, easily discardable,
hogwash and actively reject any challenges to it. For example, the mindless
charge of "conspiracy theorist" is used to dismiss, without thinking, anything
but the spoon fed drivel they see on teevee.
I could go on, but this is already too long and is mostly preaching to
the choir.
Which is a key reason that things are not likely to improve for at least
a few more millennia. Accepting wages is a form of slavery, and most folks
simply cannot see beyond that trap. The system has evolved so that people
readily accept the idea of wages as a necessity (along with the extortion
and theft known as taxes). There's a huge difference between making (earning)
a living and holding a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince
anyone of that.
Tolstoy wrote about the concept of wage slavery over a century ago and
it makes good reading to this day.
"But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of [chattel] slavery was
only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary,
and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds
a greater number of people in bondage."
The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only
effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the
working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness
the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others
throats.
All true, except the part about solidarity, which would definitely be
a huge step in the right direction for us proles and peasants, but is probably
as unobtainable as true education of the masses.
As I see it, the best an individual can do is to toss a monkey wrench
into the system whenever we can get away with it, but that requires an understanding
of who are enemies are and that seems nearly impossible to achieve. Thus
it's effective only in theory. In practice, it's probably as ephemeral as
a gas emission in a tornado.
Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos.
Chaos is on the march.
It appears the minority has magically organized itself and planned
a 10-day march from Charlottesville to DC, there to demand the impeachment/removal
of Donald Trump, and to carry on a non-violent occupation (irony
alert).
Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.
An even bigger threat is the manipulat ing minorities aka certain
(most?) elements of the money bag crowd.
This problem has been recognized for millennia and was discussed in detail
by many early Americans who nevertheless argued in favor of a constitution
and a centralized bureaucracy that favored the rich.
Virtue cannot dwell with wealth either in a city or in a house.
-Diogenes of Sinope, quoted by Stobaeus, iv. 31c. 88
But if you will take note of the mode of proceedings of men, you
will see that all those who come to great riches and great power have
obtained them either by fraud or by force; and afterwards, to hide the
ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the false title
of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence.
- Niccolo Machiavelli , HISTORY OF FLORENCE AND OF THE AFFAIRS OF
ITALY, Book 3 chap 3Para 8
" wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want
of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of
dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence."
THOMAS PAINE, DISSERTATION ON FIRST-PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, 1795
AfroAmericans who are descended from slaves should take into account
the fact that their ancestors were protected because they had value. As
a result they now number some 42 million and produced the last President.
Comparison with the indigenous natives who after centuries of genocide number
about 2 million and are mostly on reservations should give pause.
Nonwhites within the borders of the US are not innocent bystanders They
are enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority
into a violently persecuted racial minority within the borders of America..
If you have a greater identification with Muslim "Americans" and Hindu
"Americans" than European American Natives then just go back to Russia..and
take the Hindus and Muslims with you.
It wasn't very nice of you not to let my comment go through yesterday
in response to commenter Eric .on The Vineyard of the Saker
You are waging demographic warfare against my Racial Tribe .
@WorkingClass The Chinese in California are Chinese Race Nationalist
The Hindus in California are Hindu Race Nationalists You are a Civic Nationalist
Cuck.
Using minorities as an excuse to oppress majorities is a classic colonial
technique. The British set themselves up as the "protectors" of the Muslims
in India, the Turks in Cyprus and the Protestants in Ireland, for example.
Putin justifies his actions in Ukraine by claiming that he is "protecting"
the ethnic Russian minority from the dastardly ethnic Ukrainian majority.
Ditto for the various cyber-attacks on Estonia. One assumes that the same
treatment would be meted out to the Belarusians if they dared to assert
their national sovereignty. The US captive nations legislation the author
refers to includes Belarus (designated "White Ruthenia"), Ukraine and the
three Baltic republics. I am unaware of any alliance ever having existed,
or existing today, between Serbia and Russia. Like "Eurasia", that "alliance"
seems to have been invented by US neocons when they were trying to use Putin
as an "asset".
Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted The
Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into a racial
minority?
"Manipulated minorities represent a major danger to democratic states."
Well, yes. But the manipulation of minorities to change legal frameworks
or disassemble governments has been ongoing since the French Revolution.
'They' first foster a sense of oppression, more or less justified, then
move to grant the new rights. Monarchies suffered the strategy. Europe should
know the drill, witness the received oral tradition "Czechoslovaquia is
another spelling for Rothschild."
Breaking up the US along racial lines is exactly what 'they' want. They
want the fighting "whites" to come out, give the reason for changes in law.
The Trump impeachment is deliberate provocation.
There has never been a 'white nation', it is a silly, ahistorical idea.
Nations are built around culture. Fight for the culture. Use the damn high
IQ.
@Issac "White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white
leadership were transparently in control over the state."
Nope, but thanks for playing. White nationalism would have zero credibility
if the leadership actually promoted American–WASP–interests. There is no
escaping the Posterity clause, period. There is no magic dirt, no civic
nationalism, no immersion in American culture, that can replace descendants
of the English colonists that understand the importance of the Rights of
Englishmen. The US was never intended to be the world's largest rest stop
for every poor downtrodden person on Earth. Minorities now all undocumented
immigrants since 1965 (Hart-Cellar).
Homogeneous nation's are born from Heterogeneous nation's. We are witnesses
to the birth pains. The length of the labor depends on how long the majority
will tolerate the minorities. Reconciliation isn't just impossible–its not
even on the table, unless you reverse time. They. Have. To. Go. Back.
@Anon Well..you are wrong about that..America since it's inception has
always been a White Nation If you don't believe me..just ask Professor Noel
Ignatieve-the Father of White Studies. Where I differ from Professor Noel
Ignatieve:I think it's GREAT that America has historically been a White
Nation as did Socialist Labor Leader Samuel Gompers.
As far as your last two sentences go:Bring back the 1888 Chinese Legal
Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!!
Saker
The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc is the Voting
Bloc for War on Christian Russia not Trump's Whitey Racist Voting Bloc..
@Intelligent Dasein Damned right. If anything, he is the descendant
of African slave traders . But his skin is sort of black and he's
got a funky name, so he can pass as one of the "oppressed" minorities.
@jacques sheete 1 Timothy 5:18 ESV /
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."
Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable.
But with what will you replace them?
There's a huge difference between making (earning) a living and holding
a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince anyone of
that.
Try me.
I was a union man back in the day when private sector unions were active
and had support in Washington. We had a contractual relationship with employers
that was qualitatively different from serfdom or chattel slavery and a huge
improvement over the wage slavery that prevailed before the American labor
movement.
As ideologies go the Anarchists have the best of it. But even they are
Utopians. Capitalism sux. There will never be a free market utopia. But
neither will there be a workers paradise. Human beings are limited in what
they can accomplish by human nature. That's the law. I'm only interested
in what works in the real world, however imperfectly.
Nature does not know political frontiers. She first puts the living
beings on this globe and watches the free game of energies. He who is
strongest in courage and industry receives, as her favorite child, the
right to be the master of existence.
If a people limits itself to domestic colonization, at a time when
other races cling to greater and greater surfaces of the earth's soil,
it will be forced to exercise self-restriction even while other nations
will continue to increase.
For some day this case will occur, and it will arrive the earlier
the smaller the living space is that a people has at its disposal. As,
unfortunately only too frequently, the best nations, or, better still,
the really unique cultured races, the pillars of all human progress,
in their pacifistic blindness decide to renounce the acquisition of
new soil in order to content themselves with 'domestic* colonization,
while
inferior nations know full well how to secure enormous areas on this
earth for themselves, this would lead to the following result:
The culturally superior, but less ruthless, races would have to limit,
in consequence of their limited soil, their increase even at a time
when the culturally inferior, but more brutal and more natural, people,
in consequence of their greater living areas, would be able to increase
themselves without limit.
In other words: the world will, therefore, some day come into the
hands of a mankind that is
inferior in culture but superior in energy and activity.
For then there will be only two possibilities in the no matter how
distant future: either the world will be ruled according to the ideas
of our modern democracy, and then the stress of every decision falls
on the races which are stronger in numbers, or the world will be dominated
according to the law of the natural order of energy, and then the people
of brute strength will be victorious, and again, therefore, not the
nations of self-restriction.
But one may well believe that this world will still be subject to
the fiercest fights for the existence of mankind.
In the end, only the urge for self-preservation will eternally succeed.
Under its pressure so-called 'humanity,' as the expression of a mixture
of stupidity, cowardice, and an imaginary superior intelligence, will
melt like snow under the March sun. Mankind has grown strong in eternal
struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.
Hint: today in an appearance on an internationally broadcast program,
a minion from Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD) dismissed as "conspiracy
theory" the suggestion that the USA/(Trump admin) is involved in Afghanistan
"because Afghanistan has vast lithium resources, which US needs for new
technologies" [see this 2010 report,
Read More
Minorities are nothing but trouble, even though political correctness
demands that we not see that or dare to say so. History offers not a single
– NOT ONE SINGLE – example of harmony and mutual love between the minorities
and the majority in any community/country/nation. Prove me wrong, cite one
significant exception.
Don't cite Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans in the American melting
pot. They came with full intent to be melted, they came white, Christian,
and western in outlook and culture. They came pre-cooked for the melting
pot. Can't say the same for the Muslims streaming in today. Nor for the
Hindus and the Orientals coming in today. Leaving aside the Muslims (not
even worth discussing in any talk of assimilation), the Hindus and Orientals
today stand aside and apart, both groups highly conscious of their groups'
share in the American pie. The Hispanics will make Spanish the lingua Franca
– already largely done in California. So what exactly can the melting of
Spanish and English languages produce? Spanglish? No, it will be one or
the other, depending on which group acquires demographic majority and sufficient
political clout. Who will melt whom?
Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted
The Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into
a racial minority?
Please elaborate on what you mean. I definitely do not see myself as
a racial minority in California.
Manipulated Minorities Represent a Major Danger for Democratic States
The solution is an easy one – we must abandon the Jew Matrix of identity
politics and return to the Christian Matrix of neighborliness.
Jew thought is about biological identity, and all the fear and hate associated
with it – the Christian philosophical mindset is an intellectual entreaty
to "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Hmm – one favors gonad driven
actions – the other using our brains to overcome our biology, and make peace
and abundance.
The differences are stark and profound – we can see what the Jew way
has brought us – Jew tribalism is killing America and the West.
If we want a just kind world we cannot abandon philosophical Christianity.
Philosophical Christianity is not about "the virgin birth" and "the ascension
into heaven" – it is about a practical way to peaceably live with each other
and build an abundance for all.
@Cloak And Dagger Non-Hispanic white is now down to 37.7% of the California
population as of 2016 according to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts ..probably
less if you include all the uncounted illegals.
"I would even argue that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo
(What in the world is a "Belarussian"?!)."
Hey, us Anglo-Zionists didn't create Belarus. That was an indigenous
or possibly German puppet state created (sort of) in early 1918. It was
then conquered by the Bolsheviks and reborn as the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, a constituent republic of the USSR till it fell apart, at which
point it became (sort of) independent.
The Anglo-Zionists had nothing to do with any of this, with probable
exception of the collapse of the USSR.
@Intelligent Dasein Actually, if we go back a dozen or two generations,
it's probable most people on the planet are descended from both slaveowners
and slaves. Especially if you're a little loose with the definition of slave.
@Bragadocious If we had ever made a serious consistent effort to kill
all the Indians, they'd be gone. But there seem to be quite a few of them
still around. About 5M, in fact, considerably more than lived in the boundaries
of the USA in 1491.
Argentina had similar Indian problems during the same time period (late
19th century) we were fighting our final Indian wars. But they had a different
approach: extermination.
Quite successful at it, too. Very few Indians left in Argentina. And
they didn't import any other minorities, which means Argentina is now upwards
of 90% "white." Much more so than USA, in fact.
If we accept that minorities are typically much more driven than
most of the population, then we also immediately can see why their influence
over society is often out of proportion with the numerical demographical
"weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities being more intelligent
or more creative and everything to do with them willing to being
spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most
people.
It's true that there is greater activism, but the key ingredient is probably
ethnic patronage.
A.H. gave an (approving) explanation of how it works:
"In the old Austria, nothing could be done without patronage. That's
partly explained by the fact that nine million Germans were in fact rulers,
in virtue of an unwritten law, of fifty million non-Germans. This German
ruling class took strict care that places should always be found for Germans.
For them this was the only method of maintaining themselves in this
privileged situation. The Balts of German origin behaved in the same way
towards the Slav population."
Hitler's Table Talk. Conversation Nº 109, 15th-16th January 1942
American Jewry has been following the same policy since the early 1900′s,
pushing for Jewish candidates in key placings, who if successful, are expected
to return the favour. On a "level playing field" this has a ratchet effect
whereby corporate management and key media, finance and government positions
can be gradually taken over with Anglos squeezed out in a rather unobvious
way ("He wasn't the right candidate for reasons A,B,C X,Y,Z").
Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years. I
believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education. How
has it worked? What does the US Census data show for the indicator median
education level persons over 25 years of age in 1960 demonstrate when compared
to 2010? Compare for both white and black. Wow! we all are much smarter.
Okay, as Rodney King so aptly stated it "why can' t everbody just get along?"
@Wally okay wally, i'm only going to say this once, so please pay attention.
the gas chambers were but one method by which jews were killed. starvation,
disease, forced labor, firing squads, killed legions. what if it was only
4 million jews who perished in the camps? or 3? does that make it better.
one last thing: elie wiesel is not the wonderful man he is purported to
be.
Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable.
But with what will you replace them?
Dear Sir, as I've often stated, I like what you have to say and agree
with 99% of it. I also respect the fact that your reply to me was obviously
respectful and sincere.
My usual answer to your question is to replace them with nothing. For
example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it; I'd rather
do without. Instead of wages and a time clock, I advocate finding other
(hopefully respectable) sources of income.
I realize that in this environment, it's nearly impossible to do without
wages, but that shows how much our system sux, hence my objection to them
and the system. I pretty much became disgusted with the concept after working
at a few jobs that were really akin to slavery or some other unsavory paid
profession, so I worked to make a living without punching time clock. That's
not to say that I did not receive money for my services, but I managed to
do without a direct boss during my earning days. Several other rather cantankerous
members of my family manged to do the same, and some still do. I'm not saying
that to brag, but to point out that it can be done.
I do admit that it now seems nearly impossible to do that sort of thing,
but a close neighbor, in his thirty's, manages to do that and does quite
well. He does have the advantage of both a good work ethic and access to
a family business though.
The bottom line for me is that it's too bad that we have to submit to
bosses for the most part to earn a living. From that we seem to learn to
submit to other forms of "authority" with little or no questioning, and
it seems to be a downhill slide from there. Also, the more power the bosses
get, they more they control, and the less chance there is for people to
become independent. that's no way to live.
Since you consider "working for wages" as not "making a living,"
That is a false statement. It is both illogical and unreasonable based
on what I actually said.
Working for wages in one of several ways of earning a living. It just
happens to be, in my way of thinking, one of the least desirable for many
reasons.
I'm curious what you would consider to constitute "making a living."
Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years.
I believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education.
Most folks are entirely ineducable and seem to like it that way. Of course,
it's a fine sounding pretext for mass brainwashing and it's attendant bureaucracy
and source of profits.
How has it worked?
It's probably worked just as intended but not at all as advertised!
See John Taylor Gatto and Upton Sinclair's "The Goslings" and the Goosestep"
which basically describe schooling in America as a tool for corporations.
what if it was only 4 million jews who perished in the camps? or
3? does that make it better?
Well, in several countries you can go to jail, and many have, for saying
it was less than 6, so go figure. Norman Finkelstein was destroyed by the
"Holocaust Industry" for showing in the simplest terms that if you add up
the numbers of supposed "victims" and "survivors", the official figures
are patently absurd. The more you dig, the more absurd it gets.
The Saker: You are not a "minority." You are a Caucasian, the European
branch, ethnically Russian. You are Christian, specifically Orthodox. You
are one of the interesting groups that make up the Caucasian peoples. You
have nothing in common with blacks/Asians.
The Democratic party is the party of nonwhites, non-Christians, sexual
degenerates. Manipulation has nothing to do with this. Minorities know they
are inferiors. What they are doing is because they realize they can never
accomplish what Caucasians/Europeans/ Christians/neopagans have accomplished.
This means it is time for separation/deportation/repatriation.
This is coming. An RCC priest "confessed" to having been in the KKK when
he was a teenager. The US Conference of Bishops has established an ad hoc
committee to address racism. This is the final nail in the coffin of the
RCC. Homosexuals have taken over the priesthood. Priests do not preach about
hell, sin, repentance. Now that this KKK priest has been exposed, from now
on sermons will only cover "racism," the worst sin.
Caucasian Christans/pagans have to deal with the reality that world history
can be summed up in two words: IQ, which is tied to race. The past 2000
years of Western civilization united under the RCC are gone. There has to
be a new paradigm shift to deal with the future and what needs to be done.
@anonymous I hope they act like they have at every event they have been
a part of and the president acts accordingly. Trump needs to hire people
to record the whole thing and put it all up on a new website thats created
just to host the event. Dozens of live feeds from dozens of angles. All
put up on this new website just so there will be no confusion. Once the
left riots, because they will riot, National guard needs to be called and
these domestic terrorists need to be put down. He then needs to put out
an executive order to shut down all propaganda news agencies that are spinning
this, and if people want to see what happened, view the live feeds from
dozens of angles on the newly created website. And if people bitch about
how its wrong to have this up, fuck them. Its time to take off the kiddy
gloves.
@Tim Howells It was more like around 300,000 in all of the German camps
since their inception back in the mid-1930′s, according to the International
Red Cross. And that refers to all camp inmates of all ethnic backgrounds.
It is entirely possible that many Jews may have been killed on the Eastern
Front or in the Soviet Union, but that can hardly be blamed solely upon
the Germans, who were not known to be savagely cruel or vengeful- even though
the anti-partisan actions may have led to some excesses.
In any case, there is zero evidence for "millions of Jews" killed by
the Germans. There are no mass graves commensurate with such figures, nor
is there any documentary evidence of a deliberate plan of "extermination."
@jacques sheete I understand you quite well I think. I have worked on
commission. I have been self employed. For a time I was a soldier. I have
worked for wages for mom and pop business and for large corporations and
held both union and non union jobs. I did a few years working for a not
for profit homeless shelter. I am a Jack of all trades and (unfortunately)
master of none.
On union jobs (IBEW and Teamsters) I had the great benefit of having
a contract with my employer that spelled out the duties and privileges of
both the worker and the company. This meant that both labor and management
worked from the same set of rules. The path to promotion was defined as
was the possible cause for termination. Personalities had nothing to do
with anything. The boss and I followed the same rules. It was nothing like
being subject to the whims and prejudices of one man.
" For example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it;
I'd rather do without."
Having a "job" can be worse than the gleet.
Unfortunately a mans gotta eat.
@Ivy The white trash (as of 2016, down to 37.7% of California's population)
has simply been replaced by brown trash in California. The only question
remaining is which ethnic elite will run the state ..the jooies or the chinkies
or the hindus. Or will the ethnics simply rule via a de facto coalition?
Whitey's demise in CA is an accomplished fact ..with AZ and TX soon to follow
and eventually OR, WA, ID, and CO. The efforts of James K. Polk are soon
to be fully reversed. And yes, Ivy, you will have employment ..every Chinese
has been promised a white house boy and white concubine by 2050.
the same tolerant technology has been applied five thousand years ago
in the Sumerian civilization
what was a non semitic composed society. Few hundred years prior to the
destruction of that culture
semitic tribes were allowed to settle in, first in smaller numbers , then
in the name of tolerance larger migrating groups were allowed , and enjoyed
benefits of education, comfortable, cultured living. The original majority
of the population were builders and workers , the migrants for the most
part were users, who's interest were to find an easy way to become the more.
The complete opposite of mentality. In time the semitic migrants were able
to build up a fifth column , moved in to powerful positions such as religion
and astrology , and from then on destruction has begun. The original populous
were pushed out, part of them were forcefully crossbred , the rest of them
flee and
build new countries in Europa . The migrants of that time gained written
culture , tailored clothing ,
the benefit of toilet so not to go to the bushes to relieve themselves .
This time around there is no place left to flee.
@WorkingClass I, too, think I understand from whence you come.
I agree with the concept of labor unions but recognize that they too
can be turned against the interests of the workers, and unfortunately, have
been.
I do applaud you for your success working within the system and I have
no doubt that you did it as a sincere, able and good man. I also respect
your views and thank you for sharing them.
As for bosses, I loathe them so much that I myself never hired employees
because I didn't want to be a boss any more than I wanted to answer to one.
I almost get physically sick when I see that the window of opportunity for
youngsters to follow a independent lifestyle is next to nil and getting
tougher all the time.
I do still counsel my younger relatives to acquire as much experience
as they can so that they are in a position to have some control over their
own lives. I'm also actively involved in fortifying my grandkids with both
defiance and the attitudes and skills to back it up.
Is that attitude Utopian? No doubt to some degree it is, but so is the
attitude of submission, i.e., the wish for everything to be taken care of
so long as one submits.
There is much contention as to whether even a single jew was killed
in a gas chamber.
Not only is there much contention, but there is no credible evidence
that it really happened. Besides, the numbers are farcical.
Where do they get 6 million?
"Allowing for a maximum of 100,000 who succeeded in emigrating from
Europe, this would bring the total number of Jews under the direct rule
of Nazi Germany to about 3,200,000."
Distribution of the Jewish Population of Europe 1933-. 1940," prepared
by Mr. Moses Moskowitz
AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK 1941-1942, page 662
"I submit that the real truth is totally different. My thesis is very
simple: the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert
states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population
is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities
present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire. That's
all there is to it."
That is pretty much it, save for the origins. WASP culture's Germanic
basis began by hating the native British Isles. That set the pattern:WASPs
most hate those from whom they steal or otherwise wrong gravely. The Reformation
provided the perfect theological and philosophical justifications for that
pattern to become something much greater.
The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were Judaizing heretics. You cannot over-emphasize
that point. WASAP culture from the moment it was crystalized, truly formed,
was one that saw the world through Jewish-influenced, Jewish-fawning, eyes.
Naturally and inevitably, once the true WASPs gained total control of the
government, with the Puritan Revolution, their fearless leader, Oliver Cromwell,
allied with Jews. He took Jewish money to wage war, to exterminate cultures
and make at least virtual serfs of whole populations.
White Christian populations.
WASP culture began with an alliance with Jews, allowing Jews back into
England, with special rights and privileges that the vast majority of British
Isles native Christians did not have, that allowed the WASPs to continue
waging war to exterminate white Christian cultures.
When WASPs encountered non-whites, they began to grasp the value of using
them – non-whites and non-Christians – as tools and weapons with which to
batter the white Christians they wished to destroy.
That is the reason the 'Anglo-Zionist Empire' uses minorities as it does.
You cannot separate the Jewish Problem from the WASP Problem. You cannot
solve the Jewish Problem without solving the 'WASP Problem.
Buchanan lost it. he does not understand what neoliberalism is about and that dooms all his
attempts to analyse the current political situation in the USA. Rephrasing Clinton, we can say:
This is the crisis of neoliberalism stupid...
And it was President Reagan who presided of neoliberal coup detat that install neoliberal
regime in the USA which promply started dismanteing the New Deal (althouth the process of
neoliberalization started in full force under Carter administration)
Decades ago, a debate over what kind of nation America is roiled the conservative
movement.
Neocons claimed America was an "ideological nation" a "creedal nation," dedicated to the
proposition that "all men are created equal."
Expropriating the biblical mandate, "Go forth and teach all nations!" they divinized
democracy and made the conversion of mankind to the democratic faith their mission here on
earth.
With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this. Result: Ashes in
our mouths and a series of foreign policy disasters, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Behind the Trumpian slogan "America First" lay a conviction that, with the Cold War over and
the real ideological nation, the USSR, shattered into pieces along ethnic lines, it was time
for America to come home.
Contra the neocons, traditionalists argued that, while America was uniquely great, the
nation was united by faith, culture, language, history, heroes, holidays, mores, manners,
customs and traditions. A common feature of Americans, black and white, was pride in belonging
to a people that had achieved so much.
The insight attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville -- "America is great because she is good, and
if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great" -- was a belief shared by almost
all.
What makes our future appear problematic is that what once united us now divides us. While
Presidents Wilson and Truman declared us to be a "Christian nation," Christianity has been
purged from our public life and sheds believers every decade. Atheism and agnosticism are
growing rapidly, especially among the young.
Traditional morality, grounded in Christianity, is being discarded. Half of all marriages
end in divorce. Four-in-10 children are born out of wedlock. Unrestricted abortion and same-sex
marriage -- once regarded as marks of decadence and decline -- are now seen as human rights and
the hallmarks of social progress.
Tens of millions of us do not speak English. Where most of our music used to be classic,
popular, country and western, and jazz, much of it now contains rutting lyrics that used to be
unprintable.
Where we used to have three national networks, we have three 24-hour cable news channels and
a thousand websites that reinforce our clashing beliefs on morality, culture, politics and
race.
... ... ...
To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral "progress" of recent
decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, "This isn't the country we grew up
in."
Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a "basket of deplorables
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic bigots," and altogether
"irredeemable."
So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us
one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are
becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and
fundamentalist faith?
If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us,
what is the compelling case for it?
A sixth of the way through the 21st century, what is there to make us believe this will be
the Second American Century?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this.
The GWOT was never about exporting democracy. It has always been about war profiteering
and imperial hegemony.
We have a democratic facade but we do not have government by consent of the governed Pat.
Our political and financial institutions are absolutely corrupt. Imperial Washington is
determined to rule the Earth by force of arms. Legions of Maoists want to turn white people
into untouchables. It's over for our republic. Our Constitution is stone cold dead. The
empire itself is in steep decline.
After the collapse the U.S. will be just another big country in the Americas. Survivors of
the crash will have an opportunity to build something new.
This is a HUGE topic, hard to cover in a short article.
First, I echo Pat's sorrow at the negativity evidenced viz. our past.
However, the fact is that, much like the present, most of our history comprises lies covering
up huge crimes, mainly massive deception on the part of those in charge. Only in the past two
decades has any idea of the scale of decimation of the indigenous populations in North and
South America emerged. When I was a boy I was told there were only a couple of million of
Indians in America, whereas more recent estimations have it at 50 million plus. And Central
America had larger cities than any in Europe at the time with close to 200 million perhaps,
90% of whom died in a matter of decades, an appalling price to be paid for our arrival. That
most of this was due to lack of resistance to our imported microbes does not excuse that our
history fails to tell this. What an appalling and inhuman lack of respect and decency. We are
not as superior and tolerant as we pretend to be.
Similarly: the slavery story: Slavery is a nasty business, but life back then was
extremely hard, and furthermore blacks weren't the only ones in slavery – for a while
white slaves far outnumbered them. In the late 1800′s children were sent down to the
mines in England, many of them dying young. If you were an able-bodied male, even one as
young as 12, and out at night in the wrong place and time, a press gang was legally allowed
to knock you out and drag you into a life of service on the high seas.And if you tried to
escape, it was the noose for you. It is both hard for us and wrong to judge people in the
past based on our own more delicate sensibilities.
Indeed, it is thanks to their great work, sacrifice and yes, crimes, that we have
progressed to the point that we can look back at many of their practices with disapproval.
Unfortunately we seem unwilling to merge that with understanding, largely because of an
inadequate educational institutions and a sensation-driven public press.
In order for us to unite, we have to dig much deeper, reject the storm und drang of
outrageously polemic, Deep-State-managed press and many other institutions, and tap into our
fundamental humanity along with learning what the constitution is and why it is the way it
is. The attempt is to create a genuinely uplifted, and also flexible, society. But it can be
hijacked by determined powers and become a plutocracy, which is what has happened.
What will unite us, truly, is when we realise the degree to which all normal people, both
'left' and 'right', 'black' and 'white' have been and are being manipulated so that they
don't come together. We should unite to throw off the yoke of oppression placed and used by
the Elites who have infested and bloated all major social institutions, private and
public.
Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists.
And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib
Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in
politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched
when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters
did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually
been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions
they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully
condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist
enough
In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly
lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and
their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the
alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully
deny that they are driven by racial animus.
... ... ...
To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not
only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders
against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars
that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites
exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know
what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant
additional study.
A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in
outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman
in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus,
when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are
taken by surprise.
It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically
from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about
alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.
People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long
now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides
something compelling and firm to grab.
The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a
coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the
side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions
and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days.
People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and
now permanent quest to find new victim groups.
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality
behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein
white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward
identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend
to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.
The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless
The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant
in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin
Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important
work by Thomas Sowell.
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right
of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist
objectives.
It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union,
enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force
and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.
With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American
Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig
Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire abound in contemporary America.
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who
they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they
are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they
are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are
sick and tired of it.
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through
what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors,"
hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball
players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB,
the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now,
and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation
of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's
ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition
much like this:
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election
in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans
and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from
Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt
Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and
53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the
2016 race.
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus
of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even
itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs,
since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's
reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."
In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's
words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That
he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation
of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides
of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.
Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty,
having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not
much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this
point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.
Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we
are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone
even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially
in our humanities departments.
I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested
in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has
grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter
issues that really matter to most Americans.
I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions
to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa
left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by
no means just a problem of the right.
Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good.
The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start
to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made.
Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl,
and it should start NOW.
But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere
near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides
has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are
depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics
themselves in not surprising
One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he
left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the
world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that
he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.
The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their
own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is
now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might
question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity
of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and
heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist
takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits
and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more
social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).
The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such
that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.
The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to
white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to
have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture,
harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe
(Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the
Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be
an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).
Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable,
even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it
was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and
ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).
So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white
supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did
not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked
their butts.
Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise
hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among
pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the
NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar"
was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease
in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed
for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately
and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."
I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural
"Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".
Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is
where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial",
or "feelings" overtake "facts".
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing.
They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful
white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far
from being illiterate.
***
Todd Pierce,
Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu
I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite
a bit of a stretch.
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the
way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites
have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my
frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all
the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players
in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent
years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around
sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they
are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all
sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously,
the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries
who know how to develop soccer talent.)
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors
show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can
see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until
blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's
just the way it has to be.
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called
alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney
left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.
"... I once worked with someone who always had to be Winning™, and as soon as you managed to meet one set of demands a new set popped up – just for the sake of having something to win. Because *having won* didn't matter, it was the act of winning that mattered. I think the activist left is in the hands of this sort of person, and it's going to work out about as well as you'd expect. ..."
"... "It's always struck me as strange that no one reflects that the desire of the Left, to create a true multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democratic society, has never been done before." ..."
"... The problem is the falseness of the American Creed. For minorities and there empathizers it should be discarded. For conservative whites, it creates a terrible cognitive dissonance. Why have they done all the right things: got an education, worked hard, married and still ended up in a precarious situation? ..."
"... In the meantime, the globalist, rich libertarians embedded its false ideology of "equality of opportunity" in working class whites, while simultaneously moving there factories and money outside of the country as quickly as possible. ..."
"... Sure. I prefer the Leninist term, "infantile disorder." ..."
"... Thing is, Mr. grumpy realist, the Confederate statues didn't lie us into the Iraq War, bail out the Wall Street banksters, fail to stop millions of illegals from coming here, or outsource American jobs to Indians and Chinese. ..."
"... I oppose vandalism of statues. Full stop. If we are going to waste time on more culture war nonsense it should be conducted legally. But since everyone loves arguing about this crap -- The Wikipedia article on Serra seems fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jun%C3%ADpero_Serra ..."
"... The Confedercy killed more Americans than any foreign enemy the Republic has ever faced, and yet public statues and monuments to this vile treason, most of which were raised nearly 50 years after the war ended to commerate the (temporary) triumph of the Confederate ideology of White Supremacy, are somehow different and more noble than statues of Dzhersinsky and Lenin? Who committed crimes of the same vulgar type as the Confederate leaders (why is Longstreet not marked by statue or Beauregard? It's because Longstreet fought to defend black rights after the war, and Beauregard was creole). Now, like Communists, some good people fought for the Confederacy for good reasons (home and family in the case of your Confederate ancestor, bread and freedom in the Russian revolution. Read about some of the brutality from the Whites in the Russian Civil War. It will make your skin crawl.) So let the common soldiers be commenrated, but tear down the statues of the traitors who led them. Just as they tore down the statues of Dzhrsinsky, Lenin, and Marx after 1991. ..."
"... "Huntington's book sounds helpful but the work that continues to be even more prescient is Christopher Lasch's "The Revolt of the Elites," describing a ruling class that has severed its ties to its own cultural order as well as to the less powerful and privileged members of it. The result is incomprehension of reaction they provoke and chaos. In the short run, this may increase their illusion of control and power but the long run spells doom and replacement by more cohesive cultures." ..."
"... That's exactly the book I was thinking of in this post. He also talks about how when the "Managerial Elites" replaced the "Wasps" as the ruling class they replaced the sense of responsibility and Noblesse Oblige the Wasps had for the country w/ disregard, selfishness and greed by the managerial meritocracy. Gone is the manufacturing economy replaced by the ephemeral finance and information economy. ..."
"... Interesting interview with Andrew Young on NPR this morning ("Civil Rights Activist Argues to Keep Confederate Monuments"): "A minority cannot be provoking a racist majority that is still underemployed, undereducated, and dying faster than we are. The issue is life and death, not some stupid monument." ..."
"... I still can't get over it. Joan of Arc?!!! ..."
"... Maybe we can make a decision based on artistic merit? I mean, a lot of these statues are mass-produced pieces of sentimental kitch that make me remember the excesses of oratory during the 1890s. Is it really all that terrible if we turn them into something else? Or should we just say: "if it's a statue of some guy on a horse and has moss on it, we'll leave it alone" and impose a statuary equivalent to the legal doctrine of laches? ..."
"... If the sum total of all indicators within the context of group, racial identity and the possible demise of an anglo/protestant cultural heritage is true, then violent conflict looms on the horizon and possibly in the near foreseeable future. Yes, it will not be a fight for racial(i.e. white)supremacy but an at-all-costs battle to avoid extinction. ..."
But it is plain that most Republicans do not believe Trump violated that taboo.
That is because Hugh Hewitt stated that Trump has the right enemies. And for conservatives
they have standing behind Trump since he pursued Birtherism against the enemy.
I was reflecting on this last night and had an epiphany regarding Trump's "good people on
both sides" statement last week.
For over a week now I've been baffled by the president's remark. What "good" person
thinks, "Hey, the KKK and the Nazis are having a rally this weekend. Sounds like my kind of
party!"? But now I'm glad he said it.
What I mean is this: if you watch the videos, you'll notice a large percentage of the
participants in the Charlottesville rally were young white men, probably in their early 20's.
At this age, people are spending a lot of time trying on identities and figuring out what
they believe. This means occasionally doing foolish and embarrassing things.
Trump has basically given these guys an escape path. "Hey, I'm not really a Nazi or a
Klukker. I'm a good person who's concerned about the danger of erasing our collective
history, of throwing the baby out with the racist bathwater."
I know some will snark at that, but consider the alternative, more or less embraced by
everybody else. Howling, "racist" and throwing stones, both rhetorical and literal, only
serves to further radicalize these guys, driving them into the welcoming arms of the national
socialists. (Note the similarities between the profiles for a young white supremacist and a
domestic Islamic terrorist!) "They will hate me no matter what I do at this point," is not
where we want people to be.
I have no idea whether this was the president's intention or even on his radar at the
time, but if you back people into a corner without a path of escape, they will get desperate,
which is to say, radical and violent. "Good people," as distinct from "racist Nazis", is an
opportunity to step back from the abyss.
I am 35 years old, and I believe the country will tear itself apart in my lifetime. The
forces separating us are stronger than those keeping us together, and they are not likely to
be tamed with the weapons currently in our culture's arsenal (i.e., rote recitation of
"Diversity is Strength").
As another commenter wryly noted, I happen to possess every quality
despised by the SJWs (white, heterosexual, Christian, happily married, with four children and
a dog), and their actions/words are increasingly convincing me and my family that they'd
prefer not to share the same country as me.
That's fine; I'm happy to expend what little time
and talent I have devising a way to peacefully (again, I repeat, PEACEFULLY) separate from
those who think my very existence (aka "whiteness") is somehow a threat to their lives. At an
earlier, more naïve point in my life, I thought that we, as a country, would get through
this and start regarding each other according to the content of our character rather than the
color of our skin. Alas, it seems that there is no interest in that type of social
arrangement any longer, so I'm happy to help broker a two-state solution.
"They wouldn't stop. To them, it's a possibility to destroy things they hate and feel self
righteous at the same time. Or, and to get media cheering. Why would they miss a chance like
this?"
It's a chance to use violence to force visible, lasting change in our shared space. To
force their will on us, by violence or the threat of violence. A piece of the world that the
rest of us loved or accepted or at least tolerated is smashed or removed because that's what
they want. The rest of us are supposed to shut up and accept what they have done.
This won't last long. When it swings back in the other direction, as it inevitably will,
many of those now watching in silent rage will cheer for the thugs who come to smash their
faces in.
I once worked with someone who always had to be Winning™, and as soon as you managed to
meet one set of demands a new set popped up – just for the sake of having something to
win. Because *having won* didn't matter, it was the act of winning that mattered. I think the
activist left is in the hands of this sort of person, and it's going to work out about as
well as you'd expect.
"It's always struck me as strange that no one reflects that the
desire of the Left, to create a true multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democratic society, has
never been done before."
That society will function is taken as a given, it seems to me. And it does, if one has
enough money. But if not, there's a breakdown. And that's something I often see – some
of the work I do involves economic and community development in poor communities. There isn't
much to work with, and the language of the Left isn't particularly conducive to strengthening
communities. Generally it is about freedoms from and rights, and rarely if ever – can't
think of a recent example, actually – is it about obligation and responsibilities other
than those for one's own expression and fulfillment.
I'd like to say the Right has stepped into the void, but for the most part they have not,
they are just as insistent on freedoms from and a kind of a moral adjudication by the market,
where struggling communities deserve to die. Dreher and a few others often write about the
importance of community and the unappreciated difficulty of maintaining a civil society, but
as a general rule what they write is misunderstood as an appeal to nostalgia or racism or
both. Which is to say that reflecting on what makes a "multi-ethnic, multi-cultural
democratic society" work is so far off the radar screen for most people that they are unable
to identify a discussion about it.
Which is to say it strikes me as strange also. And then generally, Mr. Dreher, the problem
I have with Huntington is that his keen perceptiveness easily clothes itself with an aura of
prophesy. I don't attribute that to him, it's a thing I do on my own. But it's something I
have to avoid in order to do the work I do. I can imagine numerous futures, and a part of the
struggle for me is maintaining the facility of imagining one that inspires. So I repeat to
myself – It need not be this way.
What we're seeing might be thought of as the entirely predictable and normal reaction of a
particular group within a pluralistic society, when members of that group come to believe
that they are losing ground.
In terms of history, I wish historians would state the Post WW2 Boom (1948 –
1973) was the historical oddity where we saw high increase in working class wages. And any
reading of US history especially before WW1, the white race definition did not include the
latest European immigrants. (Irish, German, East European and Jewish.) In many ways modern US
is closer to American history than post war years.
Although Civil Rights was primarily led by African-Americans, there were a significant
other minorities that benefited in the long run.
In terms of minority economic gains, the area of the economy where the minority gains
have been the most is Tech and we have seen a huge conservative dislike of tech the last 3
– 5 years.
In terms of economy, over the last 15 years the primarily hit more rural WWC towns. So
it must be something and Trump ran on the Clintons free trade agreement and anti-immigrants
to win the election. (I found it strange that it was not Koch Brothers or Apple fault but did
not understand it until after the election.)
Again it is hard to predict the future as there still things vastly better today than a
generation ago. Literally nobody in 1992 stated that the US was on a verge of a historic drop
in crime.
But there is room for all of us white people to extol what is great, and there was a LOT
of great in our ancestors, while strictly denying and removing anything which seems to
highlight profound injustices in the eyes of non-whites. I am now on-board. It's the
christian thing to do. Let's retain all that is Christian about our ancestors, and let go all
of the cultural blindness, willful or not, that resulted in slavery.
I often disagree with Seven sleepers, but this is right on.
I am also noticing that not only do we not hear from black Americans on this board, we
very seldom are moved to take any account of their opinions on this matter. That's OK I
guess, I think we're all white or Asian here (not African American, I mean) but I am struck
by our very consistent blindness on this topic.
Let us suppose for a minute that your Southern, Confederate ancestor was not riding about
on a horse. Let us suppose that he was a field hand in the slave quarters, that he had been
regularly beaten (this practice has been attested to by numerous documents from the old
South), his wife had been taken by the son of the plantation owner, one of "his" children was
suspiciously light of skin, and several of his children had been sold away from him. These
things were not rare and unusual. This was the order of the day.
So now how do you feel about this "Heritage"?
Oh well, that's OK, right? The people who have good reason to feel this way are a
minority. We need not trouble ourselves too much about them. And our Christian obligation to
take care of our brothers and sisters, to love them in fact, to consider their feelings as
well as our own .what happened to that?
"So, putting together ideas from the Clarence Thomas blog and some of Huntington and Swain's
ideas here, I posit: Liberals believe in legal/economic collectivism and cultural
individualism, while conservatives believe in legal/economic individualism and cultural
collectivism. I'm sure somebody on this blog can demolish that hypothesis."
No, it's generally correct but it needs tweaking. The conservatives you describe are not
really conservatives, they're right-liberals. Patrick Deneen is the guy to read on this.
Also, I'm not sure these "conservatives" want cultural collectivism as much as they want
the freedom to reject the tyranny of left's cultural individualism. As J.W. Corrington put it
(regarding a different issue), submitting to the unalterable vicissitudes of history is one
thing. Being expected to genuflect to them is quite another. (paraphrase from memory).
Or to paraphase Fitzjames Stephen, you may not be able to resist being carried away by the
flood, but that doesn't mean you have to sing 'Hallelujah' to the river god while being swept
along.
Huh. Iconoclasts on the left, and on the right we've got the people who want to tear down the
entire political system and who are loudly applauding Trump because he "sticks it to the
conventional Republicans and the Democrats."
Is there really that much difference? We certainly have enough of the latter group on
these threads.
(And Joan of Arc? Really? Makes me think we've just got a plain anarchist who wants to
tear down all statues, period. He'll probably go after the lions at the entrance of the NYC
Public library next.)
"equality under the law, equality of opportunity (if not of result),"
I am able to recognize that those two things are lies. No African-American is going to
think they are equal under the law when the police are killing them. And no thinking American
believes they have had the same equality of opportunity as Donald Trump.
The problem is the falseness of the American Creed. For minorities and there empathizers
it should be discarded. For conservative whites, it creates a terrible cognitive dissonance.
Why have they done all the right things: got an education, worked hard, married and still
ended up in a precarious situation?
If we wanted to be a great nation, we should have adopted policies to create lots of
working class jobs and filled them with Black men, so that they could support homes and
families. But we didn't, instead we gave tepid support to stupidities like affirmative
action. Something the white majority never supported.
In the meantime, the globalist, rich libertarians embedded its false ideology of "equality
of opportunity" in working class whites, while simultaneously moving there factories and
money outside of the country as quickly as possible.
And none of this is too late to fix. The country just needs the right leadership. And it
won't come from Trump, the GOP, or the Democrats.
"Let's just put it more plainly: Trump violated another important taboo pretty much every
week of his campaign. Yet Republicans still elected him. They should be ashamed of
themselves."
Honestly at this point the only Republican response to statements like this is "we tried
thousands of times to get the "lesser of two evils in a two party system" point across to
you. NOT necessarily lesser to you with whatever values you may have, but lesser to US. If
you STILL are going to try this idiotic attempt at shaming, you can go f**** yourself."
Sorry Rod but that's about the thousandth time that's come up here with these people.
Take 'Em Down NOLA movement is demanding, among *many* other things, that Tulane
University change its name because Paul Tulane, whose land donation made the university
possible, owned slaves.
OK. Let's parse that one. One alt-right response to taking down statues of confederate
generals was "Where is it going to stop? Shall we take down statues of Washington and
Jefferson too?" And then, like many poorly-conceived self-fulfilling prophecies, infantile
disordered voices came out saying, yes, indeed we must.
In between a rational voice from a man who supported taking down confederate monuments
affirmed "There is a huge difference between celebrating a flawed man, and celebrating a
man's flaws."
Mr. Tulane has a university named after him because he donated the land for the
university, not because he owned slaves. Braxton Bragg has statues put up because he fought
against the United States of American in defense of slavery. Obvious difference. I think it
might be worthwhile to discuss renaming Fort Bragg -- its an outrage that soldiers in the army
that defeated the confederacy receive basic training at a post named after one of the
generals they defeated. I'm sure my great-great-grandfather who served in the 11th Tennessee
Cavalry, United States Army, would agree.
Can we dispense with Social "Justice" Warrior? Just as a matter of accurate
labeling/description?
Sure. I prefer the Leninist term, "infantile disorder."
By Jove, Melbourne was right–Cicero, Plato, Aristotle and all those gentlemen
were 'pro-slavery'.
Well, that aside, I think they're all greatly over-rated. Surely someone in antiquity said
things more agreeable to my seldom humble self, but his writings had not the random good
fortune to be preserved for late European antiquarians to pore over.
dd: Did you miss the ellipses at the end of my sentence?
And yes, Seven Sleepers is right on target today. There is nobody so crass I can't agree
with him now and then. Even Clarence Thomas gets a few things right. If Seven Sleepers is
Italian, he is also correct that originally his ancestors were not accepted as "white" at
all.
"I am also noticing that not only do we not hear from black Americans on this board, we very
seldom are moved to take any account of their opinions on this matter."
From what I recall Baptiste and Eliminist (I think I spelled that wrong) are black. Dancer
Girl is black, and all of them have weighed in on this.
From a footnote about a statue Joyce mentions in "The Dead": In 1701 an equestrian statue [of
William III] was erected in front of Trinity College. From then on, it was systematically
defaced, daubed, smeared, wrecked, rebuilt, protected, and finally, in 1929 blown up, as an
emblem of oppression." Irish Pat Buchanan would probably be proud of his ancestors!
I'm from Memphis, as was Nathan Bedford Forrest. I admire Forrest as a military
iconoclast, but I must say I had to laugh at the picture of the statue of Forrest mounted on
horse with some prankster's KKK hood draped on his head.
Q. "So what do they symbolize? And who do they symbolize? The answer is important."
A. Whatever I say.
Art is cathartic; hopefully, it begets catharsis, if the artist or sculptor did their job.
In the eye of the beholder it may appear as a "ministering angel" or a "demon" or may be
"just some bloke riding horseback I didn't notice nor did I even care and could care less now
because I have no connection to history or interest in it."
Imagine we had an educated collective of sovereign individuals who participated in
government and kept a watchful eye we'd be in great shape with or without religion or deism.
But, we don't. And because of this, the "American Creed" as you callit, is lost; none of
those items or those you left out exists, none of it exists, absolutely zero.
Carl Bernstein recently said in an interview that obstructing free press is the first step
toward tyranny. The Union can thank Lincoln (the tyrant) and Sherman (the tyrant's bloody
hand).
Sherman to his Adjutant:
"For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we
are all as a people responsible, viz., that any and every people have a right to
self-government; and I would give all a chance to reflect, and, when in error, to
recant."
And
"I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of slave rights, State rights,
freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and such other trash, as have deluded the Southern
people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or
any people."
"Monuments referring to "Savage" Indians defending their homeland are pretty damn offensive,
when you think about it."
====
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the
inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
The right committed an act of vandalism against America that infinitely dwarfs any vandalism
against old statuary. In a rejection of everything good and decent in America, they selected
and then elected Donald Trump. The insult and tragedy of this act only worsens with each
passing day.
And, even as Trump is actively desecrating and dismantling America's binding ideals with
the eager support of most of the right, I'm supposed to fret about how the left is
provoking them?!? That's so absurd it borders on obscene.
It's like a giant bully has me pinned on my back and is punching me relentlessly in the
face (pausing occasionally to spit in it) and Rod is watching all this from among the
gathered crowd and hollering that I just need to stop fighting back. What I need is the good
people among the crowd to get this guy off of me before it's too late!
Trump's ongoing possession of power that he is terrifyingly unfit to wield and
responsibility he is tragically unable to comprehend is a relentless and unbearable
provocation and we all know who did it and who continues to support it. The left has almost
infinitely more cause to feel aggrieved and nobody should be surprised that they latch onto
whatever avenues of protest they stumble upon.
I say none of this to justify anybody's extreme actions, only to illustrate that the blame
game cuts both ways and it cuts deeper when deployed against the right. People could knock
down every last statue in America and it wouldn't do as much deep and lasting harm to our
nation as Trump has already done and nobody knows how much worse it will get or how far the
right will enable the unfolding catastrophe that they chose.
"Huh. Iconoclasts on the left, and on the right we've got the people who want to tear down
the entire political system and who are loudly applauding Trump because he "sticks it to the
conventional Republicans and the Democrats." "
Thing is, Mr. grumpy realist, the Confederate statues didn't lie us into the Iraq War,
bail out the Wall Street banksters, fail to stop millions of illegals from coming here, or
outsource American jobs to Indians and Chinese.
If the Confederate statues had done those things you might have a point. But they just sat
there as they always have, not doing too much of anything, really, mostly just looking grand
or sorrowful or heroic or dignified or such like.
Unlike the political establishment, which has been painting a giant DayGlo target on its
capacious and diseased hind quarters for a long time.
I oppose vandalism of statues. Full stop. If we are going to waste time on more culture war
nonsense it should be conducted legally. But since everyone loves arguing about this crap --
The Wikipedia article on Serra seems fair and balanced, to coin a phrase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jun%C3%ADpero_Serra
And it is tendentious in the extreme to say people oppose Serra because he erected
missions, unless you explain why the critics think that was a bad thing. They think it was
bad for a couple of reasons. First, they oppose the spread of Christianity by force. There
was coercion involved and massiv cruelty. Serra seems to have fallen somewhere in the middle,
endorsing some violence but opposing the more extreme versions of it.
Modern secular lefties also oppose the spread of Christianity because they see it as
inherently wrong or oppressive for Westerners to try to convert native people. In practice it
usually was coercive and monstrous in the way it was done and it is hard to separate the
actual practice of missionary activity back then from the religion which inspired the
coercion. As a Christian I think it is right to try to convert people, but if it is done via
coercion than how is it any different from the more coercive versions of Islam?
This was nearly 300 years ago. Do we really have to have another culture war about
religiously inspired conquest and violence that happened 300 years ago?
Don't know if it's the nature of the moment or the nature of this blog, but it's almost
always the whitey righty types that predict an imminent apocalypse, never those the occupy
the space between the center and, say, BadReligion. The Paranoid Style, i'd say, unless
they're all right.
"Sure, I'm paranoid but am I paranoid ENOUGH?"
Rod -- " I agree that I'm in a squishy place, being against taking down monuments in
principle, but also agreeing that it's very hard to defend them successfully as 'heritage not
hate,' which is the point of Ryan Booth's that I was agreeing with. I must agree, though,
that the iconoclastic post-Charlottesville reaction of the Left has hardened my opinion
against taking down the statues."
Please don't go down that road. This happens to be one of those issues where there really
is some reasonable middle ground that people of good will can occupy without necessarily
being in complete agreement. For instance, you can make a good case for taking down Lee and
leaving up Jefferson or you could leave Lee up but include plaques detailing his flaws or
explaining the historical circumstances in which the statues were erected. There are other
reasonable positions one could argue for on the merits.
But don't start down the path of saying that you want to side with one bunch of extremists
because there is another bunch of extremists over there that won't like you no matter what
you do. This is how we allow extremists dictate our politics. In the worst case scenario, it
is how we have civil wars.
I don't usually use the word extremist in this derogatory way because on some issues one
extreme is correct. But this isn't one of those issues. The extremists on both sides are
wrong and we shouldn't let ourselves be manipulated by them.
"He'll probably go after the lions at the entrance of the NYC Public library next.)"
Well, given that the NY Public Library lions symbolize the Lion of Judah, they will indeed
have to go. They are an obvious, obnoxious allusion to the Jewish role in the trans-Atlantic
slave trade and of course to Judah Benjamin, the Confederacy's slave-owning Jewish Secretary
of State.
By this formulation Rod, the tearing down of statues dedicated to the heroes of Communism in
Eastern Europe and Russia was iconoclasm as well. I sense that it is iconoclasm of which you
approve though
The Confedercy killed more Americans than any foreign enemy the Republic has ever faced,
and yet public statues and monuments to this vile treason, most of which were raised nearly
50 years after the war ended to commerate the (temporary) triumph of the Confederate ideology
of White Supremacy, are somehow different and more noble than statues of Dzhersinsky and
Lenin? Who committed crimes of the same vulgar type as the Confederate leaders (why is
Longstreet not marked by statue or Beauregard? It's because Longstreet fought to defend black
rights after the war, and Beauregard was creole). Now, like Communists, some good people
fought for the Confederacy for good reasons (home and family in the case of your Confederate
ancestor, bread and freedom in the Russian revolution. Read about some of the brutality from
the Whites in the Russian Civil War. It will make your skin crawl.) So let the common
soldiers be commenrated, but tear down the statues of the traitors who led them. Just as they
tore down the statues of Dzhrsinsky, Lenin, and Marx after 1991.
The difference between Nelson's Column and the statues of Lee et al, was that Nelson
fought to save Britain from foreign conquest. Lee and co. fought to defend white supremacy
and slavery. Just read what they wrote about it themselves. Anybody who can't see that is a
dope.
The taboo that was broken has less to do with not denouncing Nazis or political violence
(things that were denounced), it's not doing it in the precise way demanded by the media.
It's a denial that the media has the moral status that it claims to define the narrative and
to elicit specific responses that support the narrative.
They don't get as mad when Trump subverts the narrative with a lie as when he does so with
something that approaches the truth.
Tearing down statues that symbolize what you don't believe in is usually a crime of vandalism
punishable by law, so normally that takes care of that. But of course symbols make handy
targets during disputes and rivalries, even though, to maintain the peace, the law has to
hold.
Confederate statues are a separate matter, not because tearing them down unlawfully is OK
!
You can still be prosecuted for vandalism if you do that -- but because their very existence
threatens what we as a nation hold in common. Most were, in fact, put up as a symbol of
dissent from our national creed, specifically the part that holds "all men are created
equal." For most Americans, the Confederacy itself symbolizes that position of dissent, but
the vast majority of these statues aren't mere leftovers from that bygone historical era;most
were actually erected in the late 19th or early 20th century as symbols of the Jim Crow era
when the Ku Klux Klan was at its peak and its basic philosophy of re-asserting white
supremacy was riding high. Some others went up in the 1960s when they symbolized the South's
opposition to the black civil rights movement. It's certainly easy for me to see why state
legislatures and city councils are being asked to remove them now when white supremacists are
rallying in public yet again.
The Statues represent reconciliation. When one town can have a statue of a Union hero and
another town can have a statue of a Confederate hero while still acknowledging that both
towns are American, you have reconciliation.
That is what is being destroyed. The nation's wounds that took so long to bind are being
ripped open.
I wonder how many Belfasts and Beruits we can endure, because it's coming.
Nothing good will come from removing monuments, anymore than anything good came from removing
Mosques from Bosnia.
There is no line here. The Founders all owned slaves, the Constitution based on a division
of powers and federalism was written by evil slave-owning white men to pursue their economic
interests, and the Bill of Rights was written by Jefferson the slave owner. Everything is up
for grabs.
The Left is turning into the Westboro Baptist Church, but targeting monuments not funerals
(yet).
Re: No, the progressive assault on Confederate statues is an assault on history, memory, and
myth
History lives on in books, museums, and national monuments and parks of a historical sort.
We are not assaulting any of those. And indeed where statues have been removed by the legal
actions of civil magistrates the intent is to move them to sorts of places where history is
explicitly remembered. So if this is "an assault on history" it's an utterly incompetent
one.
As for myths, well, there are good myths and bad myths. No one, I hope, would suggest we
keep alive the wicked old calumnies (myths in their own day) of Jews poisoning wells or
sacrificing Christian children. The myth of white supremacy is of a similar sort, and it
needs to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart.
The Southern states meanwhile have a 400 year old history, reckoning from Jamestown (longer
of course if we take Native Americans into account). There's much in that to celebrate. Why
obsess about the least felicitous few years out of that history?
"why is Longstreet not marked by statue or Beauregard? "
You know, Hound of Ulster, when you get your talking points from CNN you ought to
independently check them. Here's a Longstreet memorial, Gainsville.(bad orientation)
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/368028600772640099
Historical iconoclasm is actually a wondrous thing, highly advanced, anticipating by
millennia the universe of problems associated with present-day, technologically mediated,
iconophilia, including the transcendent, generation-defining problem of Internet pornography
and related dynamic image-induced mesmerizations, where the possessed image ends up gradually
possessing the unguarded possessor and entrapping him/her in the "prison house" whose very
walls are the projections of unguarded sight.
The phantasmata channeled by the fathomless
'mirror', volatilized and dynamized by an incomprehensible and untrustworthy demiurge, are
anticipated by the hyper-real "demon-possessed" anthropomorphic statues of antiquity, not to
mention the actually existing automata of that age: combining the dual extraneous potential
(i.e. enchantments) of representation-enhancing technologies and the primitive, unreflective,
libidinal human urge. As Plato wrote: "This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear
Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the
fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be
the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at
your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or
false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and
is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of
all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible
world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the
power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his
eye fixed.
I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are
unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper
world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may
be trusted.
Yes, very natural.
And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil
state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and
before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in
courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and
is endeavouring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute
justice?
Anything but surprising, he replied.
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two
kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the
light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who
remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready
to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and
is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day
is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of
being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes
from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets
him who returns from above out of the light into the den."
"Huntington's book sounds helpful but the work that continues to be even more prescient is
Christopher Lasch's "The Revolt of the Elites," describing a ruling class that has severed
its ties to its own cultural order as well as to the less powerful and privileged members of
it. The result is incomprehension of reaction they provoke and chaos. In the short run, this
may increase their illusion of control and power but the long run spells doom and replacement
by more cohesive cultures."
That's exactly the book I was thinking of in this post. He also talks about how when the
"Managerial Elites" replaced the "Wasps" as the ruling class they replaced the sense of
responsibility and Noblesse Oblige the Wasps had for the country w/ disregard, selfishness
and greed by the managerial meritocracy. Gone is the manufacturing economy replaced by the
ephemeral finance and information economy.
"liberty, equality under the law, equality of opportunity (if not of result), individualism,
populism, limited government, and free-market economics. These ideas, Huntington said, came
out of Protestant England and its reception of the Enlightenment"
Bull. Neither England, nor Enlightment.
Voltaire and his "enlighted" ilk were sycophants of the absolute monarchies of the Prussian
militarist Frederic II,forerunner of the modern totalitarian state and imperialist Catherine
II, whom they idealized.
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth destroyed primarily by Prussia, resorting even to
counterfeiting of the Polish currency, was the font of the values Huntington finds
foundational, far ahead of England.
Statutes of Cienia enacted around the time of Magna Carta, and of essentially the same
nature, were actually implemented whereas MC for a very long time remained a dead letter.
Neminem Captivabimus preceded Habeas Corpus by 143 years. Citizens with full political rights
were 5-6 times more numerous in Poland than in England of France.
Religious freedom was unparalleled, people flocked to Poland from all over the continent
running from persecutions. It was known as the country without stakes. Free markets were on
the par with England. Government was by far more limited in Poland than in any other
country.
No objective historian can claim that English freedoms could come close to that.
The English have been veritable the masters of Imperial propaganda down to the current
cult of the Queen.
Historical record of English tyranny, persecution and exploitation is glaring.
It would serve Americans, especially conservatives, well, to be more discerning when it comes
to their ideological heritage as formed by Protestant England. The Puritans running from
English persecution were persecutors themselves.
Poland and Venice are worthy of conservative reflection searching for inspiration.
Unfortunately, they do not. They were mostly erected by "Redeemers" or later incarnations
of triumphalist white supremacists (the real thing, not some unfortunate soul who gets tagged
in a 21st century virtual replay), at a time when the northern and western elites didn't care
any more, and anyone of African descent was being brutally disfranchised.
Many schools were REnamed for confederate generals as part of "massive resistance" to the
final push against Jim Crow.
That is what those statues, by and large, represent. That is why a fair number of people
want them to come down.
God hates Confederates and Antebellum American Presidents.
God has not given me any personal revelation on the subject, but from all the Christian
education I've had, God is merciful to sinners and seeks to bring all into reconciliation
with Him. He does, however, hate slavery and efforts to make war to perpetuate it. He may not
have looked kindly on the annexation of Mexican territory either, but Santa Ana was no
saint.
So let the common soldiers be commenrated, but tear down the statues of the traitors
who led them.
That would be reasonable, but it may be a little late to do it right. We need more
attention to novels like Cold Mountain, and of course to the Jones County Scouts.
Well, given that the NY Public Library lions symbolize the Lion of Judah, they will
indeed have to go. They are an obvious, obnoxious allusion to the Jewish role in the
trans-Atlantic slave trade and of course to Judah Benjamin, the Confederacy's slave-owning
Jewish Secretary of State.
Explain that to all the black churches dedicated to the Lion of Judah, considered, rightly
or wrongly, to be a reference to Jesus Christ. (Separately, I note that Lion of Judah was one
of the titles of the kings of Ethiopia).
I am well aware that the Sacred Declaration says "Savage" in reference to Indians.
Just because it's in a key founding document doesn't make it less offensive.
Nor does it mean we have to rip it up.
We don't have to accept or reject everything in a document (or anything, for that matter)
to find value. A thing, or a person, can have overwhellming good, but also some ugly
stains.
I think it would be the height of folly to reject the Declaration because it wasn't
inerrant and also folly to dogmatically accept it all as unvarnished good merely because
Jefferson wrote it.
It's like when the Constitutiin was read in toto in Congress a few years back. Some
Republicans didn't want the (now defunct) parts about slaves read; others wanted it read,
warts and all to do otherwise they would consider "whitewashing".
And no, none of them suggested burning the Constitution, or saying we must have slavery
because the original Constitution provided for it.
The line is public opinion. Large numbers of people are on board with ditching the Rebs
and race baiters. Large numbers of people are not on board with dumping the Founders. The
recent failure of the ACA repeal-and-replace effort should be an object lesson of how public
opinion really can prevent unpopular public actions from occurring, even when pushed by
powerful and wealthy people– and in this case only a fringe gang of radicals would be
pushing for what you fear.
Re: The Founders all owned slaves
All of them? Every last signer of the Declaration* and Constitution? Every officer with
rank or colonel or better in the Continental Army?
Please document this!
"The Statues represent reconciliation. When one town can have a statue of a Union hero and
another town can have a statue of a Confederate hero while still acknowledging that both
towns are American, you have reconciliation."
Remarkable. It's as if reaching reconciliation requires pretending that neither town
contains folks who are not white. Yes we are, in a sense, finally trying to begin to deal with reconciling some old history.
News flash though, it ain't about blue and gray uniforms
Interesting interview with Andrew Young on NPR this morning ("Civil Rights Activist Argues to
Keep Confederate Monuments"): "A minority cannot be provoking a racist majority that is still
underemployed, undereducated, and dying faster than we are. The issue is life and death, not
some stupid monument."
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/23/545435024/civil-rights-activist-argues-to-keep-confederate-monuments
A bit of an aside, but since ya'll are more knowledgeable than me Do you know if there are
any statues in the South to white southerners who opposed slavery?
Slavery is something like original sin, as it pertains to the founding of this country. It is
a blot that stains all the good things that came out of the revolution. Clearly, the ideals
that the Founders promoted were not practiced very well in the beginning. And for too long,
their failure to live up to the ideals they espoused was white washed away (pun intended) by
the way the white majority looked at history. Granted, the Founders were handicapped by
growing up in a different world, one that was less enlightened on matters involving race and
sex than the one we live in today. Progress does not happen as one instantaneous cultural
step change, but rather as a more fitful series of stops and starts. Of course, that isn't
adequate as an excuse for those who were on the receiving end of injustices.
Obviously, some people think that one of the outcomes of the Civil war, the freeing of
slaves, which occurred at a rather high cost of lives and treasure, would have gone a long
way to atoning for that original sin. But the follow through was clearly lacking, with racial
resentments and overt discrimination lingering on until now. Despite our long history as a
Christian nation, not enough of the mostly Christian and white majority was able to grasp
that all men, not just white men, were presumably created in God's image.
So what shall we do about this?
Right now, those on the left seem to be indulging themselves emotionally by engaging in a
frenzied purification of history, via the attack on historical personages and statues. In
some ways, this strikes me as lazy, as it isn't clear that any of this will improve lives in
struggling black communities, or solve the gang violence problems in Chicago, and other urban
areas, or enable damaged young black men to have any kind of meaningful lives, regardless of
who is to blame for the damage that they have suffered. In the same way, I don't see that
white identity politics, the adoption by whites of the same aggrieved victim mentality, will
help them advance in any meaningful way. Trump's promises to return things to the way they
were are just tempting fantasies. There are no do overs in history. All sides need to check
themselves and then focus on moving forward in the best way possible. That, unfortunately,
seems to go against human nature. Vendetta is much more attractive in the short run.
Maybe we can make a decision based on artistic merit? I mean, a lot of these statues are
mass-produced pieces of sentimental kitch that make me remember the excesses of oratory
during the 1890s. Is it really all that terrible if we turn them into something else? Or
should we just say: "if it's a statue of some guy on a horse and has moss on it, we'll leave
it alone" and impose a statuary equivalent to the legal doctrine of laches?
Actually, I think getting to the point of being totally indifferent to the statues would
be the most appropriate of all. After all, they are nothing more than huge hunks of metal
that pigeons like to sit on.
Aaron C. I am 35 years old, and I believe the country will tear itself apart in my lifetime.
Trouble with separatist scenarios in the US is that they're basically unworkable, if you
think at the practical level. Most people have multiple identities, and they will start
resisting when purists like SJWs try to enforce their will. Besides, in the real-world
identities are fluid, not fixed. Neo-Marxists are focusing on race because it's one of the
most stable component of human identity. They already failed with class war, where workers
decided that they have other identities. And in the real world, most people in the US may
already be non-white by the old 1/16th rule, and their numbers are going up daily. As for the
Left and Right divide, people are moving from one side to the next, sometimes several times
in a lifetime. Should they be forced to move *physically* too, to reach an ideologically pure
state? And how to even think about dividing the country economically? Militarily? It would be
a complete disaster, worse than any Yugoslavia.
I think it is much, much more likely that we will remain a single country. But what is
really scary is deterioration of the public discourse, the endless 'f . you!!' as a sole
argument in the debates. The outbursts of physical violence. The pretense that there are
*good* SOBs because they are on *our* side – looking at you, liberal media!
We may end up as, I hate to say, spiders in the can, destroying each other instead of
improving our country. Think about it: where do we want to be in 30 or 50 years? There is a
tremendous *potential* for science and technology for improving our lives, eliminating hard
and tedious work, reducing human pain and suffering, cleaning the environment. But instead of
looking forward and thinking how to improve, we're focused on zero-sum game of endless
reopening of the old wounds.
John Adams is on record saying with pride "I have never owned a Negro or any other slave."
McCullough's biography records that a young enslaved woman was once given to the family as a
gift, but was promptly emancipated -- which is probably a better deal for her than refusing
the gift and leaving her enslaved.
If the sum total of all indicators within the context of group, racial identity and the
possible demise of an anglo/protestant cultural heritage is true, then violent conflict looms
on the horizon and possibly in the near foreseeable future. Yes, it will not be a fight for
racial(i.e. white)supremacy but an at-all-costs battle to avoid extinction.
In Tampa, the Confederate monument now being challenged was erected c. 1912. Sure enough,
someone checked the newspaper for that day and the dedication was by a white politician
vowing that the South would never submit to being ruled by an "inferior" race.
"... There seems to be an attempt by an elite cabal to destroy this country through division and vilification of the Founding Fathers. Shame!!! ..."
"... "The past is never dead. It's not even past." ..."
"... From this point of view ..."
"... All of the deaths and serious injuries were suffered by members of the leftist side and none by the white supremacists, even though they were much smaller in number. ..."
"... relative to this baseline ..."
"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ..."
He also raises the question of what can we do to make a positive difference in our lives?
And this may sound terribly mundane, but for those of you who have time and money for the fees:
get emergency training. IMHO, everyone should know how do to the Heimlich maneuver, but I only
know the idea of how to do it. Ditto with CPR, and that bothers me. If I had been at the scene
with all the horrible injuries, the only principles I know are "Don't move the injured since
they may have a spinal break and you could increase the damage to nerves" and "If they are
bleeding, put pressure on the wound". But is that OK if all you have is not clean cloth? I
assume yes if they are bleeding profusely, but still
I assume there must be what amounts to first responder training (as in what to do before the
medics get there). If readers can indicate what this type of training is usually called and
where to go to find it, please pipe up in comments.
Separately, I've kept out of the discussions of Charlottesville in comments. I'm perplexed
and disappointed on the fetishization of statues by both sides in this debate. I'm not enough
of an anthropologist to get to the bottom of it, but the desire of some Southerners to preserve
and elevate figures like Robert E. Lee isn't just about the Civil War. It has to do with the
fact that the South was late to industrialize and remained poor relative to the rest of the US
and is not part of the power structure at the Federal level (to my knowledge, there are no
tracks from Southern universities to important positions in the Acela corridor. That isn't to
say that people from the South don't get there, but it's not a well-greased path). And of
course, people from the rest of the country tend to forget that Southerners are regarded as
hicks and regularly treated as such in movies and on TV (remember My Cousin Vinny, for one of
many examples?). Having a Southern accent = minus 10 attributed IQ points outside the South,
with the possible exception being Texans. I had a Virginia client who used the "Southerns
aren't so sharp" prejudice brilliantly to their advantage in negotiations, but I am sure on
another level the perception still bothered them.
Mind you, I'm not defending the Southern position. If I were to believe family lore, I have
a Hungarian ancestor whose statue in Budapest was torn down by the Soviets. Do I care?
But my guess is that while for some Southerners, Civil War iconography is meant to
intimidate blacks, for many others, the storied Civil War generals are the only local boys held
up as having historical importance. LBJ and Jimmy Carter weren't seen as great presidents.
There must be important Southern scientists and inventors, but oddly I can't think of any,
which means they aren't generally depicted as such.
By contrast, it's easier to present the point of view of blacks and reformers: that losers
in war pretty much never get to have memorials, so that on its face, having so many images
touting loserdom is perverse, and not justified because it separately holds up aggressive
defenders of slavery as role models.
And I know I've probably touched on too many disparate threads in this short post, but the
other part about Charlottesville that has been mentioned, but cannot be said enough is that
this was a huge policing fail, and the passivity was no accident. As Lambert and others have
said, if you'd had black protestors show up similarly attired and armed, you can bet you'd have
seen mass head-breaking and arrests. The Charlottesville police knew this was coming and appear
not to have sought advice from police forces with lots of experience in crowd control
(Washington DC and New York City), nor did they get reinforcements (state troopers). It's one
thing if they had tried to cordon off or break up the two sides and lost control of the
situation. But there's no evidence they attempted to intervene.
In addition to watching the Lee Camp video, I strongly urge you to
read
the article from The Root
that goes with this photo (Lambert flagged it yesterday):
Perhaps most important, this fight over symbols is diverting energy from tackling the many
areas where African Americans have been promised equal protection under the law but don't get
it. Let's start with the War on Drugs, which Richard Nixon envisaged as a way to disenfranchise
blacks. Consider this comment from
Governing
(hat tip UserFriendly):
[Richmond's] Mayor Levar Stoney, who has rejected the idea of removing statues, spoke to
reporters Monday about the controversy after a groundbreaking ceremony for the American Civil
War Museum. He said he wanted the city to acknowledge "the complete truth" about its history
as the Confederate capital.
"At the end of the day, those statues are offensive to me, very offensive to me," said
Stoney, who is black. "But you know what I'm going to focus my time on? Destroying vestiges
of Jim Crow where they live in our city -- public housing, public education, you name it."
Here's a significant Southern figure who has statues to honor him, a self-made scientist
and inventor to whom today's kids and sandwich eaters owe so much: George Washington Carver.
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ca-Ch/Carver-George-Washington.html
He was even a person of color, and born in Kansas, a violent battleground "border state" in
the "time of Troubles."
Yes, as a Southerner, I was hoping someone would mention Carver early on. But the larger
point is valid. IIRC the first Southerner to win a Nobel Prize, Medicine/Physiology, was Earl
Sutherland at Vanderbilt in about 1971.
There have been a few since, I think. The reasons are historical, well covered by C. Vann
Woodward (Johns Hopkins and Yale) in his Origins of the New South. Regarding E.O. Wilson, who
is mentioned below, yes, he is a great scientist who knows more about ants than any other
human being. And being of a certain age and a biologist-in-preparation when Sociobiology was
published in 1975, I was well aware of him from that beginning.
That book was a great synthetic triumph, until the last pages. Then came On Human Nature
and the unfortunate collaboration with Lumsden.
Still, Yves' friend is correct about the anti-Southern "feelings" directed at Wilson. He
was not alone. Even inconsequential scientists like yours truly felt it. I spent nearly 5
years at the best medical school in the United States in the late 1990s, a famous place in
sight of Fort McHenry.
Because I was from the South, more than one New England Yankee assumed that I had a Klan
hood in my closet, mostly because of how we do things "down there," the latter being a direct
quote.
You get used to it, but having a president from the South like Clinton LLC doesn't help,
much. As far as the statues go, my compatriots don't believe me when I tell them most of
these monuments appeared starting in the late-19th century, during the flourishing of the
"Moonlight and Magnolias" glorification of the "Lost Cause" that accompanied the hardening of
Jim Crow.
Just a bunch of Bourbons jerking working class chains, but damn, it worked well. And
continues to work with money largely from elsewhere.
Probably in the 1980's I had the task of demonstrating some expensive electronic equipment
at a Bell Labs facility in New Jersey.
The local sales engineer advised our visiting California group to be wary of Bell Labs
people with southern accents as they were teased by the northern Bell-Labs people about their
accents and education and the Southerners had reacted to this when dealing with outside
visitors/vendors..
As I remember, the advice was to be aware that a Bell-Labs Southerner might start with
some basic questions and progressively ask more and more difficult questions simply to back
the visitor into a corner.
Strange advice to receive, considering that at this time, Bell-Labs was one of the top
industrial research/development facilities in the world.
I did not observe this behavior at all, but still remember the caution.
And I think southerners aren't obsessed with the Civil War the way they used to be. When I
was a kid the local radio station would sign off with a lovely choral version of Dixie rather
than the national anthem. If Gone With the Wind played downtown the line would be around the
block. Numerous houses in my town have the columned portico meant to evoke the exterior set
for Tara.
Now increasingly cosmopolitan cities are more likely to feature blocky post modern
architecture and people are more into their smartphones than what happened at
Chancellorsville.
Black and white children can be seen walking home together from school and my town has had
a black mayor and the state currently a black (albeit Republican) senator. These days it
could be the north that is clinging to the past.
As for scientists: Charles Townes, Nobel prize winner, inventor of the laser, fellow
Carolinian.
I grew up in Columbia (a largely mixed demographic area – though often very sharply
racially divided), and while it is true that much of the veneer has changed, it is the
seething beneath that doesn't seem to have changed much since I left. This seems especially
true once you get a few miles outside of those more cosmopolitan cities.
On kids playing together – it has been one of my strangest experiences to go from
elementary school where everyone was friends and played together, regardless of race. And
then, after 3 months of summer, moving to middle school and the racial hell that ensued. But,
maybe things have changed for the better since when I lived there.
I've seen a small data point supporting your theory of the Civil War being less important
to most Southerners than it once was. When I first started visiting Alabama, every book store
had a pretty significant section devoted to Civil War books. Even thought there aren't
anywhere near as many bookstores these days, the few I've visited don't have proportionately
as much space devoted to the Civil War, and some just have it as part of the History
section.
Thanks Rick, especially for the perfect concluding summation, but also from the first-hand
account and historical contextualization of this persistent sort of niche bigotry. From
another continent it was hard to guess how prevalent that phenomenon still might still be,
although harder to imagine that it could have disappeared altogether. It constantly disgusts
me when the same sort of thing is extended to Americans at large by anglo/European bigots
insufferably assured that their tiny colonist cultures are "superior".
As a long-term/tedious polemicist against sociobiology -- mostly as casual normative
framework today, but the academic origins do matter too (see: [
http://www.theharrier.net/essays/kriminalaffe-sultan-at-the-dole-office-written-with-matthew-hyland/
]; (I'm the other one, not JB/The Harrier)) -- I'm aghast at the thought that any critic of
E.O. Wilson would stoop to invoking his geographical/cultural background, especially when
discussing the racist applications of the body of theory. Really, if they can't do better
than that they're missing huge swathes of the obvious, mimicking the worst of their opponents
and ultimately doing latter-day neo-socio-bio presumptions an unwarranted favour.
Also, complete agreement with you, Yves, about the way excessive concern with statues and
symbols generally can skew everything. Not that those things are meaningless, but the whole
present-day world also bears witness to the past in the form of raging injustice -- much but
not all of it involving the malign invention of "race" -- everywhere. Nohow is this a
"bipartisan"/"everyone calm down"-type statement: I side unequivocally with the "grassroots"
BLM, the direct-action anti-fascists and especially the IWW members, and would be delighted
never to see one of those monuments (or its anglo/Euro equivalents) again, but if it had to
be one or the other, I'd rather the statues were left standing while Lee, Sir Arthur 'Bomber'
Harris, Christopher Columbus and friends were made to spin in their graves by the abolition
of racist "criminal justice", housing and immigration policy and racialized top-down class
warfare/imperial admin in general, if the alternative is just to take the statues down while
leaving the policies in place and the Generals smirking in hell.
What about an alternative method to these history rewrites. Every time A legislative body
decides to remove one of these ancient tributes–instead of removing the offensive
statue–the erection of a new and at least equal in size monument that points out the
failure of the earlier tribute.
That is, the new monument would be larger, more noticeable, and will be to point out the
error of the earlier structure. In this way history is preserved–and a much more
educational site is created – pointing out the reasons for the new interpretation of
the site. Thus a site without a physical monument, for example, would be treated in the
following manner. Jefferson Davis Boulevard would become Former Jefferson Davis Bvd, or
Ex-Jefferson Boulvard or such. What do you think?
And add effigies of J. Edgar Hoover (let us debate whether he should appear "dressed" or
not), and Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms, and Al Sharpton, etc. to improve the contextual
mapping
Ah that brigs back a memory. I lived in Raleigh, NC when Jessie was in the Senate, and my
children went to a local Episcopal School.
The head of the Schools was Jessie Helms' daughter, and I was asked, and an outside of my
opinion in from of his daughter. My response is "He is very interesting," was acceptable.
Advice I was given when moving to the south was "Never say anything bad about one
Southerner to another. They are all related."
The animus then, and possibly now, was strong, so much so that my view was "War of
Independence, forgotten. Civil war, not at tall."
I was also told, by another Southern lady, that the difference between English Table
Manners and the US', was devised because the ladies never wanted to entertain the English in
the homes again after the War of Independence.
I'd also point out there is a significant difference between Spanish and English table
manners. In some cases under the English rules you can eat with your fingers (chicken on the
bone or unpeeled fruit, for example)t. Under the Spanish none I know of, its knives and forks
for everything.
There seemed to be a consensus a few years ago after that kid shot up the black church
that confederate flags would not be sold and that any debate about it was over. Looks like
that didn't take.
Point being that one part of the nation can't make another part of the nation erect
certain statues or not carry certain colored pieces of cloth.
I've always been a bit of an iconoclast, but maybe we should get out of symbolic thinking
and communication through pieces of political artwork and try communicating directly instead.
Battling over art and architecture seems wrongheaded. The fundamental message here should be
"What are the ideas we are debating?" not "These people over here are animals, what should we
do about it?"
But as Yves said, this event really went down because of a failure of the local police. It
was amateur hour over there.
And shame on the media for making this event into some kind of referendum on America. How
many people died in Chicago over the weekend? Baltimore? Nationwide? How is that any
different or less political in nature?
The problem is that the statues and flags represent a part of American history, whether
good or bad. I find it reprehensible that history must be rewritten, and the lessons learned
discarded. What's next? Book burning, the destruction of Monticello or the Jefferson
Monument?
There seems to be an attempt by an elite cabal to destroy this country through
division and vilification of the Founding Fathers. Shame!!!
Hitler was the leader of, and policy director, of a genocidal government. Southern Civil
War generals were not. They were leaders of armies, of men not policy makers of slavery.
And the policy they were leading those men to fight for was the "peculiar institution."
Forget Hitler. Are there statues of, say, Rommel in Germany? Yet he, too, a leader of an
army.
It's doubly ironic that all this furor over removal of statues of R. E. Lee, which seem to
be the ones the media likes to focus on, likely because Lee is the only Southern general that
bulk of the under-educated population can recognize, never mentions what the man himself said
about commemorating the war:
"I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those
nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the
feelings engendered." -- Robert E. Lee
What is really funny is that he was teaching the intro biology course at Harvard when I
was there. I didn't take it but one of my good friends did.
She said that she was a hick from California (actually she'd gone to a very good school)
but the point was she didn't know that Stephen Jay Gould was the "hot" professor at the time,
and that Wilson's "Sociobiology" view was considered to be retrograde, as unduly
deterministic. So she got into Wilson's course when most people were pulling strings to make
sure they got Gould, not him.
I saw her recently and asked about the Wilson course. She volunteered that another reason
she thought he got a bad rap at Harvard was that he was Southern.
I'm deeply envious of anyone having the chance to attend classes from either Wilson or
Gould. Both have their detractors (to put it mildly), but the are/were both wonderful
writers, I think I've read pretty much everything both of them have written.
The 'Darwin Wars' between the determinists and the Gouldites was my introduction to just
how deep epistemological divisions can be in science, even between those who essentially
agree on 99% of the data. Wilson, despite his association with Sociobiology, seems to have
kept a wary distance from the Dawkins disciples, quite wisely IMO.
I have the impression she very much liked the Wilson class. Had I been at all clued in, I
would have taken that class, but I oddly wasn't into star professors.
We may actually be talking about different E.O. Wilsons then -- entirely my mistake, and
nothing to do with 'greatness' or otherwise, but surely the one who invented sociobiology, or
at least coined the term, isn't still alive? Quite possibly another mistake on my part there
though.
E.O. Wilson, entomologist, author of "Sociobiology", "Biophilia", and co-author of "The
Theory of Island Biogeography", was born in 1929 and is still alive.
Its just past the 50th Anniversary here in Ireland of one of the most spectacular examples
of removing old outdated symbols,
the blowing up
of Nelsons Column in Dublin.
Despite its origin as an overtly Unionist attempt to mark
the Battle of the Nile, it was popular with Dubliners because you could climb to the top for
a good view.
In Ireland numerous monuments to Imperialism were removed over the years – some by
public authorities, some by way of gelignite planted at night. But most people still accept
the remains as part of history – there are still numerous 'Victoria Roads' around
Ireland, plenty of old post boxes with crowns on them, as well as huge monuments to the the
likes of the Duke of Wellington (who was Irish, although as O'Connell put it, 'just because
you are born in a stable doesn't make you a horse'.) Hardly anyone notices that the beautiful
arch in Stephens Green is a detailed monument to the Boer Wars and all that entailed.
I think monuments that give active offence should be removed, but in most cases its better
to accept that time changes and alters the meaning of all public symbols. Eventually, some
sort of equilibrium comes about and people accept with a shrug.
Not all people, including quite a few Irish– but of course they nurse their
grievances better than they nurse their drink albeit with a lot of good historical basis, and
with current hope of getting their own back, or at least some revenge. For some reason(s),
some subset of every polity just won't let bygones be bygone
Faulkner
had
much to say about the past. Will the Charlottesville events spark some resurgence on interest
in his works? His quote
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
from Requiem
for a Nun seems to be at once forgotten or disavowed by many in this modern world.
When I went to South Africa, I was in a community of young ex-pats, from may parts of
Great Britain and its far flung parts.
One person was from Belfast, and one night after a few beers, and his round was next, he
looked at me and rattled off a series of "efforts" the English had tried in Ireland, most of
them bloody.
And accused in a strong Irish accent "You English!" Not wishing for a fight, especially
before his round I considered his litany on English misdeeds, and said "You're right!" He
looked utterly surprised, probably because he excreted a denial, and I wanted no fight, and
it was his round.
The I added, "and I personally did none of them." Which after a thought he considered
accurate, and bought his round.
We were friends for years, but time and distance have severed that bond.
The South captured and dominated the federal government for much of the antebellum period
thanks to special gimmicks like the 3/5ths rule. In many ways, Southern interests directed
federal power to advance their economy. The flood of free-thinking Germans and the election
of Lincoln shocked the South, leading to panic and, ultimately, a bitter resentment in
defeat. In this sense, the 1970's Southern strategy of harping on deficits while promoting
tax cuts was just part of a long counterattack against federal power. The entire Republican
policy edifice for a generation has been built around a segregationist backlash and you're
watching it all unravel – Obamacare, tax cuts, deficit-hawkery – even the war on
pot. Even Republican Secretaries of State have refused to cooperation with the voter
suppression commission. It's not a coincidence they can't get anything passed and impotent
rage erupts in the street.
I think you need to read up on the origins of the groups that worked to move the county to
the right. It was a very well funded, loosely coordinated corporate effort. The core group
came out of the John Birch Society, which is based in Belmont, Mass and had people like
William J. Buckley of Yale as prominent members. The Adolph Coors family out of Colorado were
also big players. Fred Koch, the father of the Koch Brothers, was a founding member of the
John Birch Society and a big early funder. The University of Chicago, and in particular
Milton Friedman, played a huge role in promoting neoliberal ideology.
As we flagged in a post yesterday, the reason the country moved to the right wasn't due
just to the Republicans. There were plenty of Democrats who were on board, starting in the
1970s.
And although I don't have data to support it, my perception is that Southerners have long
been underrepresented in high profile Administration positions, like Cabinet members and as
Supreme Court justices. I'd be curious as to whether any lawyers have a sense as to their
participation levels on the Federal bench.
Southern committee chairmen dominated Congress for decades last century. Of course, not
sure many people remember.
I do not think that Southern sense of victimhood is particularly special. More another
example of a more general phenomena, often seen in many times and places.
People are driven quite often by a sense of dignity or no dignity ( humiliation/rage).
That is the emotional force behind many different sorts of notions of glory.
I find it ironic that you are arguing the "identity" angle here, while I feel little
sympathy for it. During election discussions, I argued the emotional angles, and I felt that
you focused more on objective conditions. Today, I feel your approach was better.
Anyway, in the end it is about finding a way forward that is fair to everyone. As you
would probably agree, we have not seen much leadership from any group in that direction.
You're talking about the party funders – largely mining, fossil fuels, agribusiness
and banking/insurance/real estate (mostly interests dominant in the South). I'm talking about
the voters. They had real anger at the federal government over desegregation in the '70s and
the oligarchs channeled that into a deregulatory agenda which is now falling apart. Witness
Trump's pandering to regulate drug prices. He may be pushing deregulation but many popular
parts of his agenda were reregulatory in some aspect – like giving everybody great
health insurance – and he's reneging on them. In this sense, he's what Skowronek would
call a Jimmy Carter – a bridge figure in a disintegrating political order.
Second, the South maintained immense influence throughout the New Deal era and deep into
the '90s thanks to Democratic Party dominance in the region, seniority and the congressional
committee system. No other region could match the clout of the John Stennises or Earl Longs.
Of course, with the South flipping and the committee structure rearranged around fundraising
instead of seniority, all that changed.
But I look at the current Republicans in Congress and I recognize all the major leadership
positions as belonging to the segregationists, regardless of their geographic origin. They
nurse deep racial grievances. They speak Dixiecrat, sputtering about state sovereignty,
states rights and nullification (quite shrilly during the Obamacare debate). They block black
voting. They gerrymander. They race-bait (birtherism/Dred Scott-ism). They attack programs if
black people get it too (Obamacare). They like privatized police, prisons (slave labor) and
civil forfeiture. They love those gun rights (regulators/slave catchers). They all want to
pass laws legalizing private discrimination – which was a pet cause of the defeated
segregationists at the tale end of the '60s. This agenda's contradictions are going down in
flames.
I would also remind you that the Nuremberg laws were inspired by Southern
anti-miscegenation legislation. Nazis came to Southern law schools to study them (though they
weren't limited to the South). Fascism is the idea that private business should own and
operate the government for private profit. That's where the party funders and the street
racists come together.
Though the formal racist state institutions and ideology were never limited to the South,
they did reach their fullest, most overt expression here. You're talking about a group that
has supported the Articles of Confederation for going on two centuries after they fell apart.
It's what the Koch brothers hope to bring back by negating congressional commerce regulation
with a constitutional amendment.
Consider what props this up and you'll understand why their coalition is coming apart at
the seems. New energy sources are slowly eviscerating the petrodollar complex and the money
it pours into politics.
No, I've studied this in depth and you haven't. I have an entire chapter in ECONNED on
this, with extensive footnotes, from contemporaneous sources. All you have is your opinion
and on this it is incorrect.
The "free market" messaging was all about corporate and business interests. It had nothing
to do with narrowcasting on identity politics issues. That came later with the rise of Karl
Rove as a Republican party strategist.
And I'm sorry, Susan Collins just blocked Obamacare repeal and she's not a racist. I don't
like sweeping inaccurate generalizations. We care about accuracy of information and
argumentation. We make that explicit in our written site Policies. If you are not prepared to
comment in line with our Policies, your comments will not be approved.
As someone who used to be a group fitness instructor, I had to take both CPR (adult and
child) and First Aid training to retain my ability to teach. Both are generally available in
the US with the Red Cross (and others), and once you are certified, you can renew the
certificates every 1 or 2 years with a quick multiple choice test and demonstration of CPR
and AED techniques on the test dummy.
CPR standard practices have changed over the years, so it is important to keep up the
certifications if you want to be genuinely prepared to assist. The First Aid cert is mostly
common sense, but some of it seems counter-intuitive, until you know why it's done that way.
The most important thing to know is to make sure someone calls for EMTs/Ambulance if there's
any doubt about the severity of the injury/illness/unconsciousness of a victim. Don't
wait.
Also: I LOVE George Washington Carver. I did my first stand-up school presentation on his
amazing work with peanuts when I was in elementary school, and I've never forgotten what an
impressive person he was.
>The most important thing to know is to make sure someone calls for EMTs/Ambulance if
there's any doubt about the severity of the injury/illness/unconsciousness of a victim. Don't
wait.
Of course here in America you've probably kicked off a series of bills just starting at
$800 for said ambulance making the victim feel like a victim twice over.
As someone who teaches CPR/AED first aid, O2 administration, and lifeguarding for red
cross, yes call them as soon as there is anything serious. If the person is conscious they
can refuse care and not pay anything.
As basic first response; care for severe bleeding by applying constant pressure with gauze
(any cloth will do).
If someone is unconscious check for a pulse and breathing, if they have either they don't
need CPR. If they do need cpr two hands interlocking at the center of the chest push straight
down, hard, and fast (you might break ribs) to the beat of
Another One Bites the Dust
or
Stayin Alive
. Just keep going with that till EMS
comes.
That is basic community level training. 1. level up and I'd teach more about giving rescue
breaths but that should do in most cases.
I live in Canada, that horrible bastion of socialized medicine, and if you have to call
911 for an ambulance here, you will never, ever see a bill. No-one will. B/c there isn't
one.
Note to USA: socialized medicine, you can do this!
I view my limited First Aid Training as hopefully making me slightly less likely to be
totally useless in an emergency situation. I think I'm less likely to just freeze or flap my
arms in panic when confronted by a serious injury than I was before training.
The mainstream Republican have gotten the racist tag thrown at them so much that it
doesn't seem to carry much weight anymore. That this is giving truly virulent racist groups a
pass is a huge problem. Calling everyone a Nazi seems to be working in an unintended
fashion.
The Social Darwinian ideology is a very powerful one, and a natural one for the groups
vilified by identity politics to make. You are empowered because you were mean and took
things from other people, your empowered because you are the sociological group that acts and
thinks the right (Western) way. Your dominance is justified.
Of course given that same dominance, I can sympathize with folks who choose to push back
physically against the storm troopers. But as it stands today, both sides start dressing
themselves up in passive victimhood rather than as fallen warriors. Horst Wessel would be
turning in his grave.
It seems to me that the ideas of a meritocracy and racism, rather than the circumstances
they put in, to explain why some groups/individuals do great and others do not are very
similar. Yet, somehow the neoliberal democrats use the former for poor people especially
whites and the republicans use the latter for poor blacks. Although in the past few years
they have been blending the ideas together into a modern version of Social Darwinism.
That was a good piece, thank you. I think the author hit on the main issue which is that
people now make up their owns facts and often live in their own ideological worlds. It
started with talk radio and cable news but the Internet has made the situation much
worse.
How would the Civil Rights movement get ahead in today's climate? Would the murders of
Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner be declared false flag attacks orchestrated by George Soros
and the Deep State? How about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, would that also be a
false flag attack?
It is not just the Right that engages in this sort of thinking but some people on the Left
too. How can you successfully promote reform when you cannot even get people to agree on
basic facts or to engage in rational debate? Perhaps the most dangerous outcome of this state
of affairs will be that the political and business elites will decide that the population is
too feral for democratic, constitutional governance and decide to increase the assault on
civil liberties. Many Americans, frightened by more incidents like Charlottesville, will
agree to go along with such a project.
Plus Livius, there is an incredible lack of trust in this country. I don't trust many
public figures nor do I trust that certain public servants will do the right thing. In an
emergency I do think that strangers will help a person in need, but if it isn't considered an
emergency good luck (see opiid crisis, the reactions of many that I thought to be decent
human beings has been ghastly).
I agree. I think the Internet has altered news for the worse. Real factual news is hard
work and expensive to produce. Opinion on the other hand is cheap and plentiful. And the more
outrageous the opinion, the more clicks. So now opinion is the news.
Politics has gone the same route. I worry about societal problems like opioid addiction, a
rise in alcoholism, and affordable healthcare. Dealing with these issues would require hard
work and hard choices. It is a lot easier to shout and insult. So now insults have displaced
policy.
There is no rational debate possible with people who believe that one human being
enslaving another is a right and just thing. There is also no rational debate possible with
people who believe in any form of racial superiority.
Tribalism is one thing, belief in racial superiority leads to dehumanization of others and
that ends in genocide, slavery, and host of other vile behaviors that decent people have
moved beyond. My support for free speech ends at dehumanizing others.
"There is no rational debate possible with people who believe that one human being
enslaving another is a right and just thing. "
Here's the 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So there's no rational debate with anyone who swears alllegiance to the US Constitution;
and, it follows, no possibility of rational debate between such adherents.
Boy, you are really really reaching to claim that the point of the 13th Amendment you
quoted was to permit slavery. Think what one may about the punitive nature of our criminal
justice system (a completely different topic), this language was explicitly aimed at
permitting that system to continue. Not chattel slavery.
Well most of them go to work in highly authoritarian cultures called corporations so they
actually tolerate a great deal of authoritarianism for that paycheck.
But regardless their materialistic lives are merely their lives, or at any rate the number
of people that can actually share in much materialism is ever shrinking (yea I know they have
smart phones or some such horror but by and large). While rampant materialism may have been
at least a temptation to many baby boomers at one time, wages just haven't kept up. But with
no carrot there are always sticks, if not one's physical life or anything, everything else
one needs (needs not wants).
Thanks for the pointer to my article! Note that it is intended at as first cut look at
what happened, putting together the news stories of the first 24 hours to forms a coherent
picture of the event.
It got 10,000+ hits in the first day, which is a lot for us – without any mention in
a major website (the usual way a post goes viral). I assume that results from people who want
to know what happened, and are dissatisfied with the major media's coverage -- which has been,
imo, high school journalism level.
Two aspects are covered. First, the amazing -- even delusional -- statements by civilian and
police officials about the policing of the event. Let's hope we get some accountability for
the incompetent policing (e.g., not taking standard simple measures).
Second, how each side lies. "OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils." That
such nonsense is taken seriously by the tribes of Left and Right is very Weimar. Large
numbers on both sides came armed and eager to fight, and they did fight.
The post linked to by Yves in The Root is typical. These are lies. Doesn't that bother
you?
Reform of America is impossible so long as we prefer lies to truth.
Good request! How is The Root article an example of "how each side lies. "OUR side were
innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils.'" The article is exactly about that theme: good vs.
evil, innocent vs. aggressors. Let's rewind the opening vignette:
"At first it was peaceful protest," Long said softly as he spoke. "Until someone pointed
a gun at my head. Then the same person pointed it at my foot and shot the ground." Long
said the only weapon he had was a can of spray paint that a white supremacist threw at him
earlier, so he took a lighter to the spray paint and turned it into a flame thrower. And a
photographer snapped the photo.
But inside every photograph is an untold story. If you look closely at Long's picture,
there's an elderly white man standing in between Long and his friend. The unknown man was
part of the counterprotests, too, but was afraid, and Long and his friends were trying to
protect him. Even though, Long says, those who were paid to protect the residents of
Charlottesville were doing just the opposite. "The cops were protecting the Nazis, instead
of the people who live in the city," Long said. "The cops basically just stood in their
line and looked at the chaos. The cops were not protecting the people of Charlottesville.
They were protecting the outsiders."
This makes two assertions. First, that the alt-Right were the aggressors, the Left the
victims. Videos and eyewitness accounts show otherwise. They show two sides, elements on both
of which show up armed to fight, and do fight. See
this in
yesterday's LAT
.
Second, it says that the police preferentially sided with the alt-Right. Not only is there
no evidence of that, the alt-right believe the police deliberately flushed them out of their
safe space in the park into the left's mob. See
Rob Sterling's detailed account
.
That does appear to be roughly what happened. The police cancelled the permit and forced
the alt-right protesters out of the park. That decision led the the widespread fighting
because the police had also not set up the standard transit routes for each group to their
designated protest area -- along streets both patrolled and blocked off from vehicular
traffic.
Now we can only guess at why the police did this. Panic, or incompetence, or a confused
chain of command with so many officials present? Only after intensive analysis of the
witnesses testimony and the videos (esp the Guard's video from the rooftop) can we say
more.
E. of the F. M. w. s., I feel like you can make a straightforward case that the Root
article presents a picture of how one side was "innocent" and was attacked by bad "others."
That isn't the same as saying that the first person testimony it provides is "lies." You can
argue that an overall narrative is misleading and partial, and that a particular first person
account plays into that misleading or partial narrative. But moving from this to calling the
account
itself
a lie is
also
an oversimplified narrative, of the sort that
you often zero in on for criticism. So I would suggest – given in particular that you
set as your objective to try to avoid slipping into mass-produced narratives that are
imperfectly grounded in evidence but easily propagated – that you choose your
characterizations with a little more precision.
It's extremely common for eyewitness testimony to reflect a narrative that one side was
the good guys and the others attacked them without provocation. This is true – on both
sides – even when subsequent evidence shows substantial asymmetry in how tensions
flared. It doesn't make those individual accounts baseless, or consciously lying (although of
course out and out lying does sometimes occur in eyewitness accounts). It
does
mean
that it can be quite difficult, in particular cases, to evaluate and synthesize eyewitness
testimony into a big picture account that is fair and accurate.
(A) "That isn't the same as saying that the first person testimony it provides is
"lies."
That's a valid point of wordsmithing. It would be a powerful rebuttal if
(1) I could point to no material factual error. But there is little or no evidence for the
Root's claim about police aiding the Right.
(2) I just said it was "a lie" and did not explain in what sense I meant that -- leaving
ambiguity in my description. But my sentence was explicit in its description:
Second, how each side lies. "OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils."
That such nonsense is taken seriously by
(B) "It's extremely common for eyewitness testimony to reflect a narrative "
It's common for people to throw down hot butts and start forest fires. But it's a bad
thing. DItto for writing a one-sided article that throws kerosene on a burning conflict.
(C) "It doesn't make those individual accounts baseless, or consciously lying"
Here we have different perspectives. I understand what you are saying, and have no basis
to say you are wrong. But I see the situation differently.
* I believe the Founders were right about factionalism as one of the great dangers to the
Republic.
* I believe these Weimerica-like street battles between extremists, cheered by masses on Left
and Right, make us weak. They make rule by the 1% stronger.
* I believe our love for propaganda makes us weak.
(D) " It does mean that it can be quite difficult, in particular cases, to evaluate and
synthesize eyewitness testimony into a big picture account that is fair and accurate."
That is exactly the basis of my dislike for the Root article. It does not even try for
accuracy, just tribal cheering. It is just propaganda.
On (1), I think my explanation on this point still holds. The Root itself (i.e. the
article when it is not quoting Long) does not say the police was aiding the "Unite the Right"
people – only Long does. It's true that Long's statement, if propagated without
context, would spread the idea that the police was literally intervening on behalf of the
white nationalists. I argued in one of my responses to your comments that this is clearly
not
what Long meant. Long actually states clearly that the police did not get
involved. However, Long believed the police
should
have intervened against the white
nationalists, and in fact should not have even allowed them to march.
From this point of
view
, he says that the police "were protecting the Nazis."
This is the sort of way of talking that is very easy to imagine in a participant or a
bystander. For example, imagine if someone were mugged in broad daylight right in front of
the police. Since in this case, we all expect the police to intervene on behalf of the
victims, we might say the police were "obviously protecting the muggers." That doesn't mean
the police were actually helping to beat anyone up, and it's an imprecise form of speech. But
it's an understandable one.
(2) I'm willing to grant that you didn't say in what sense it was a lie and have since
clarified the matter. By a strict standard of the sort we mentioned above, what you said was
potentially misleading (i.e. it was easy to interpret it in another way). The same might be
said of Long's statement about the police protecting the Nazis. In neither case is it
impossible to understand, just a reason to try to be more careful.
(B) True, it would be better if eyewitnesses could strive to be very precise in how they
report what they see. In practice, eyewitnesses come from all walks of life and involve all
sorts of people. We are better off banking on their accounts being partial for the
foreseeable future. I think the onus for completeness and fairness is considerably greater on
journalists, analysts, and others whose putative role is to provide reliable summaries.
(C) I don't disagree with any of this, except that for "factionalism" I would say
"tribalism" – but maybe we mostly mean the same thing.
(D) I think it's fair to criticize news outlets that only provide eyewitness testimony
that fits with one particular frame. It doesn't mean that an outlet should never publish an
article centered around one person's account – but if it does, it should presumably
balance it elsewhere with other information giving a more complete picture.
(E) [not from your reply, but I was curious] As Yves says, the news has mentioned several
cases of serious injuries suffered by counterprotesters (not to mention the deaths), and if
there were serious injuries suffered by the "Unite the Right" side, I at least haven't run
into any reliable accounts of such. Do you know of any?
It passed fact checking by the New Yorker, which reported basically the same information.
And you would have had to have sources who saw that incident, which seems awfully unlikely
given how few there were in that photo (as in it seems to have taken place away from the main
crowds).
The other part is I disagree with the equivalence. The antifa types (and this occurred
with the Black Bloc in Occupy) weren't "our side" in that most of the people who came who
were against the white supremacist types aren't pro violence. By contrast, it appears that
the smaller group of "Unite the Right" types were heavily armed and they consciously and
deliberately used symbols of violence against black people and minorities from the very
outset.
So it would be possible for people in the anti-bigotry group to have marched and not seen
what the anitfa types were up to, while I don't think you can credibly say anyone on the
white supremacist side didn't see all of the intimidating weaponry and violent
encounters.
"It passed fact checking by the New Yorker" is indeed tempting, isn't it?!
However in addition to Fabius Maximus I've come across additional reports with first-person
accounts describing how both sides came prepared to do battle. At this point I'm of the
opinion that there was not one "bad side" and other "poor victim" side. I have come across
lots of info linking the Neo-Nazi side having connections to the Ukranian "revolutionaries"
(funded by CIA among others, thank you very much) and of left-side groups having links to
Soros-funded groups. It looks like the whole situation was a confrontation that was set up.
I'm not suggesting all participants were part of this, but nonetheless there is enough
evidence strewn around that at the minimum one should think twice before accepting
any
major media spin on the event.
Jason Goodman and Crowdsource the Truth on YouTube had lots of videos documenting the
neo-Nazi links to Ukrainian groups ("Blood and Soil"), flags in evidence, starting the night
before the "big event". IIRC Lee Stranahan had info documenting the links to Soros-controlled
organizations.
1. That violent antifa types were representative of most of the marchers on the left side.
You are implying that both sides were raring for a fight. The white supremacists were. Only a
minority of the marchers on the left were, and I further question how many would have
approved of their tactics. I know from Occupy that pretty much everyone were not at all happy
about Black Bloc tactics and regarded them as anarchist interlopers trying to take advantage
of Occupy without having the consent of Occupy (Occupy was big on super-democratic
processes). Black Lives Matter has consistently rejected violent tactics. I know Lee Camp
would reject the antifa types as being part of "our side" or representing his values.
More generally, left-wing protests, particularly anti-globalization protests, have
agitators show up who had nothing to do with the organizers of the protest. They are plants
to make the protestors look bad. Here, I am sure the antifa types were genuinely motivated.
But the bigger point is peaceful leftist marchers often have a violent minority show up that
does not represent the approach of the majority. Hence it is not correct at all to say that
they are representative of that side.
2. #1 above means it is possible for eyewitnesses on the left side not to have seen antifa
provocations and to be truthful in saying and believing that that the fights were instigated
by both sides.
3. The police THEMSELVES said the reason they didn't intervene was that the right wing
protestors were heavily armed! Who are you kidding here?
4. You are ignoring the message that the white supremacists were sending. They made heavy
and deliberate use of symbols of violence against blacks and minorities. The only thing that
was missing was KKK robes. They were visibly carrying guns and bludgeons. Bludgeons are
illegal in NYC because they are more effective in close combat than a gun. They were not
signaling an intent to have a peaceful rally. They were signaling an intent to have a fight
and the antifa types were all too happy to pick one.
And please explain the black schoolteacher who was nearly beaten to death? Pray tell how
does that fit your theory?
All of the deaths and serious injuries were suffered by members of the leftist side
and none by the white supremacists, even though they were much smaller in number.
That's
because the antifa types weren't using anything that would do more than bruise someone or
make them filthy. All I have read is that they threw cans, bottles with urine in them, and I
saw one account saying feces. So the implements used by each side were not remotely
equivalent, contrary to what you imply.
I'm not sure you understood my contention. I didn't say all left-wing side people were out
for a fight, but there is evidence that some were and yes these may have been infiltrators as
you suggest. Numerous protests are infiltrated by troublemakers.
The fact that one side may indeed have felt more pain than another doesn't affect the
point I'm making. What I'm suggesting is to pay attention to the entire "conflict" set up.
It's predictable. There's a degree of scripting. It serves many functions–to make
people insecure, feel convinced that others are out to get them (on either side), to feel
that conflict is inevitable, to want the police/military to take a more active role.
It's not that any of these points necessarily lack merit on their own (e.g., in some
situations law enforcement should play a constructive role), but rather that this is one tiny
event within a larger picture of social engineering that has been taking place over an
extended period of time (decades). Foment conflict artificially (e.g. CIA-funded
insurrections such as Ukraine and many countries in South/Central America and currently
Venezuela; create or increase a feeling of insecurity; get the people to give up rights in
order to have "security" and "protection"; increase military/law enforcement budgets and
sales to interested parties.
Focusing only on a single situation (xxx group was hurt "more" in yyy situation/event) can
lead one to overlook the larger societal pattern, by not recognizing that there was
manipulation occurring that affects both sides.
This is the first time I have had the software do this. I was replying to the editor of
Fabius Maximus' comment and it wound up misplaced. It might be that it didn't go through the
first time and what I did on the retry wound up relocating it.
As to the bigger issue, you are ignoring my contention that the two "sides" were equally
cohesive. If you go to a soccer game, and hooligans who favor your team beat up on fans of
the other side, are you responsible for their actions merely by virtue of having gone to the
game to cheer on your team? That seems to be the basis of your and the editor of FM's
comment. In fact, Black Lives Matter, which is opposed to violence, was represented there and
I am highly confident other marchers opposed to the white supremacists were unarmed and has
not interest in perpetrating or participating in violence.
By contrast, the organizers of Unite the Right called on the participants to come armed
and not only did they come "armed," they brought implements that are designed to maim and
kill. If their aims were defensive, to preserve their right to make a public statement,
pepper spray would have sufficed. How can you depict that as equivalent?
I didn't say anything at all about blaming one side or another. To the contrary, I
suggested it was more important to look at the overall pattern of such conflicts and the
overall societal impact (division! fear! giving up rights! agreeing to surveillance!
increased law enforcement/military power and spending!).
First, the assertion about the police favoring the Alt-Right appears baseless. Both sides
report -- supported by videos -- that the police watched everybody fighting. Where are the
accounts of the police intervening on just one side? The New Yorker fact checkers missed
that.
Second, let's rewind to see what I said -- The Root
article an example of "how
each side lies. 'OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils.'" The Root's article
clearly paints that kind of incorrect picture due to its misrepresentations and omissions.
See my reply to Vatch above for details.
The Root article is at all times reporting the perspective of a single person, the
23-year-old Corey Long. Even when the article is not directly quoting Long, it is plainly
summarizing his testimony.
In my opinion, you overstated your case by terming the Root article "lies." As you know,
it's very common for eyewitness testimony to diverge dramatically. In the midst of big,
chaotic situations, each particular person sees only a part of what is going on. They can be
entirely sincere and the picture that they paint might still be a partial one.
Similarly, if you read what Long actually said, he agrees that the police "basically stood
in their line and looked at the chaos." Long felt that the police should have intervened
actively against "the Nazis," and
relative to this baseline
, interprets the police
of having favored the white nationalists. He makes this quite clear when he says that a
rapper was earlier not allowed to march and so why were white supremacists allowed to?
I don't see any evidence for Long lying in the article. When the article, near the end,
says "we are in a Trump presidency, this is the world we live in,"
this
is
editorializing – maybe something Long said at one point, maybe something the article
put in his mouth. But it still isn't distorted testimony about the events on the ground.
It might muddy the waters less if you stick to criticizing MSM accounts that are
straightforwardly presenting themselves as unbiased general accounts of what happened.
You have shifted the grounds of your argument. You made a sweeping attack against The
Roots article: "These are lies."
Despite Outis having patiently picked apart your argument, you in fact have not engaged
with him but are broken recording. Your "let's rewind" is effectively an admission that you
are not about to acknowledge what Outis described, that The Root article is a first person
account, and you have not provided one iota of evidence to suggest that Long misrepresented
what he saw. You are therefore unable to support your original claim and are thus trying to
shout Outis down.
This is a violation of our site's written Policies. We don't make exceptions for anyone.
You either need to engage with him in a good faith manner or stand down.
OK. I should not have said "lies" and just said the remaining text. Consider this an
apology.
I did not claim that the root misreported what he saw, but that the article misrepresented
what happened at the article. If anyone believed that is what I said, then I apologize for
that too.
It's been an interesting discussion. I'm don't believe anyone has engaged with what I said -- but everybody has their own perspective on these things.
Thank you for that. I was of two minds about posting the Lee Camp video because this
horrible affair has gotten people very upset, we only have pieces of what happened, and many
people are drawing inferences that go beyond the information. I think we all agree strongly
with one of your big points, that this was a massive failure on the part of the police.
The history of the neo-liberal revolution is starting to come clear.
James Buchanan first became motivated by the US Government insisting that segregation
between white and black children should end. He saw private schools as a way of maintaining
this segregation outside the control of Government.
He started in Virginia, near Charlottesville, where racism festered not far below the
surface and they still resented the Northern Government telling them what to do; removing the
freedom of the wealthy to do what they liked and taxing them to look after others.
The Government shouldn't have the power to end school segregation in Virginia.
The beginnings of neo-liberalism / economic liberalism.
It is ironic the new liberals should now be so aghast at the goings on in a region where
their own beliefs first started to take shape.
"Democracy in Chains" Nancy Maclean
How a right wing ideology was developed in the US to roll back the "New Deal" and give
economic freedom back to the wealthy to do pretty much as they pleased.
Our Brian C and Sluggeaux, a former state prosecutor, disagree. He disabled the airbag. An
airbag deploying 1. could have injured him and 2. would have made it impossible to drive the
car, as in exit. This is a strong tell that he planned to use the car as a weapon and was
primed to find an excuse.
Both the way he drove into the crowd (hands steady on the wheel and well positioned when
he started( and his impressive exit weren't consistent with road rage.
Perhaps his psychiatrist could answer your very specific question?
If you think this is evidence of a planned attack, you could be right.
But mentally unstable people are perfectly capable of a greater or lesser degree of
'planning' a murder – even if it means only a walk to the woodshed to pick up an
axe.
Arguably, only the 'crime passionel' is free from any prior decision – making.
So I still maintain my original point – that the question of culpability is complex
when the perpetrator is known to be mentally unstable, and, in this case, professionally
diagnosed.
As is the issue of motivation.
That means you cannot characterise his crime as a 'terror attack', as that assumes he was
fully compos mentis, using the car in the same way as, for example, the takfiri attack in
Cannes earlier this year.
Since this seems to be conjecture, what if the driver of the attack was not fully compos
mentis and he was used and manipulated by a group of disaffected radicals?
Why do white men seem to get the pass (with Dylan Roof, also) that they are mentally
unstable and therefore not guilty of acts of terror? Maybe if the jihadists had access to
psychological screening we would find that they are unstable, possibly due to decades of war
and economic privation.
You seem to be quibbling over irrelevancies here. How many members of many terrorist
groups might be diagnosed by the (questionable) standards of the brain babblers? We are all
"insane" according to one section or other. So maybe nobody is to "blame' for anything?
To claim he was not motivated by politics seems insane in itself, given his history of
interest in far right politics and racist ideologies.
There is a specific legal definition of insanity in murder cases, which is not
understanding the difference between right and wrong. The fact that he disabled the airbag to
facilitate a speedy exit and attempted to make one says he knew full well.
There is more here than merely a guy who was "disturbed".
Driving in reverse – totally straight for extended period under duress is quite a
feat. This guy was not an amateur. He was a Pro! Ask any of the posters here, if they can do
that – no one I have asked said they could.
The Cops management of the event was deliberate. This was a permitted event so the
authorities knew what the response would be, there should be no doubt about it. Yet they put
the two groups together on a narrow street.
The typical establishment mime is to say the cops made a mistake and the guy was crazy.
Always giving the benefit of the doubt to the committed narrative. Makes no sense.
New narrative play book to substitute for the dying Russia, Russia, Russia?
It is relevant whether he had occasion in the past to back up at speed. If so, he would
quickly learn how sensitive steering with the now rear wheels is. The trick is to brace one
arm on the door (or door-leg-arm) and make the finest of steering adjustments using the
braced fingers; start relative slow, establish direction, and then speed up. Young bodies
with coordination talent can easily do this.
so its is easy is your promote – at high speed on a narrow street with people
chasing you – any young guy can do that – nerves of steel for any amateur who is
emotionally diagnosed with ??? Baloney
it gets worse:
"the discovery of a craigslist ad posted last Monday, almost a full week before the
Charlottesville protests, is raising new questions over whether paid protesters were sourced
by a Los Angeles based "public relations firm specializing in innovative events" to serve as
agitators in counterprotests.
The ad was posted by a company called "Crowds on Demand" and offered $25 per hour to
"actors and photographers" to participate in events in the "Charlotte, NC area." While the ad
didn't explicitly define a role to be filled by its crowd of "actors and photographers" it
did ask applicants to comment on whether they were "ok with participating in peaceful
protests." Here is the text from the ad:
Actors and Photographers Wanted in Charlotte
Crowds on Demand, a Los Angeles-based Public Relations firm specializing in innovative
events, is looking for enthusiastic actors and photographers in the Charlotte, NC area to
participate in our events. Our events include everything from rallies to protests to
corporate PR stunts to celebrity scenes. The biggest qualification is enthusiasm, a "can-do"
spirit. Pay will vary by event but typically is $25+ per hour plus reimbursements for
gas/parking/Uber/public transit."
aside:
"New narrative play book to substitute for the dying Russia, Russia, Russia?"
This morning's NYTimes throws a curveball. This morning they report that a here-to-for
unknown "witness" to the "hacking" has been found. Someone from Ukraine. (Ignores technical
issues about the data download time-stamps and document meta-data).
" a fearful man who the Ukrainian police said turned himself in early this year, and has now
become a witness for the F.B.I."
Considering the amount of armament the nazi militia brought plus Charlottesville's
knowledge of caches of more weapons hidden – it's a miracle 3 souls were lost & not
dozens.
There was over 1,000 law enforcement members there.
I fear, as I'm sure others do as well, the odds of of dozens dead happening Somewhere USA
are high thanks to the ignorant facilitator in chief.
I for one am thankful police didn't get into the fray sooner. Police always make things
worse. Although I'm curious about reports saying they were waiting on orders to do so which
never happened. Waiting on orders from whom? Who decided to hold back our police state, which
so rarely happens?
And never ever underestimate the possibility of agents provocateurs being all or part of
this.
Isn't it funny how protests with armed citizens cause police to stay out of it.
According to an article in The Guardian, the armed militia members present (from NY and
PA) intended to help keep the protesters separated, asked the police for permission to
attend, and vociferously deny being Nazis in any way. Seems they are just garden variety
survivalists preparing for the day society collapses. That they seemed better armed than the
authorities is a different matter.
"The men in charge of the 32 militia members who came to Charlottesville from six states
to form a unit with the mission of "defending free speech" were Christian Yingling, the
commanding officer of the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia
"We spoke to the Charlottesville police department beforehand and offered to come down
there and help with security," Yingling told the Guardian. "They said: 'We cannot invite
you in an official capacity, but you are welcome to attend,' and they gave us an escort
into the event," he added.
Yingling said he had been asked to bring a team to Charlottesville by a local militia,
the Virginia Minutemen Militia, to reinforce their numbers, and to be in charge on the
day.
But Yingling said the original request for a militia force to attend the event had come
from the organizers of the white nationalist rally, who wanted them to act as security.
The militiamen had said: "No, we will not come and defend just you," Yingling recalled.
"It's important for us to say we were there in a neutral stance."
If a major earthquake (or any disaster) hits, do you
have enough supplies for a minimum of 72 hours up to an entire month for all family
members, including pets?
know how to turn off the gas?
know how to safely turn off the power?
know how to apply first aid?
have enough water for all of your family and your pets?
have provisions for living outside your home for a length of time if the structure is
compromised?
It is important to know, if a major disaster occurs, the LAFD, paramedics, police WILL NOT
COME! They will be deployed FIRST to major incidents such as collapsed buildings. That is why
you constantly hear You MUST be prepared to take care of yourself. In the CERT course they
say "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People." When you are trained, you are far
more equipped to deal with your circumstances without needing aid from outside sources.
CERT members are trained in basic disaster response skills such as fire safety, light
search and rescue, team organization and disaster medical operations. You will learn how to
prepare for emergencies, what supplies you should NOW have in your house, how much food, how
much water but most importantly, how to protect your family in an emergency!
How could you call the guys in "Deliverance" hicks? Especially the banjo player and the
dude pumping gas in overalls. The white collar guy with the glasses was no match for the
banjo player on the porch. He was befuddled and he fumbled like an amateur. I guess they
can't put up a statue of William Faulkner since not too many people have read his books.
Maybe a statue of Janis Joplin who was from Texas and maybe Buddy Holly. I think Buddy Holly
actually has a statue someplace. And Mississpi Muddy Waters too. And the guitar player to end
all guitar players, the famous Robert Johnson from Mississippi. I'm not sure if he has a
statue. He might! I'm not sure. But these could be southerners you could make statues of. How
about Ted Turner?? We'd have to think about that one. As long as he's alive he's his own
statue. That's the way a man should be.
No real southern hick would go to one of these race rallies -- it takes waaay to much
effort, they have to work the Wal-Mart shift, they're too overweight, and it gets in the way
of fishing. All those white guys are northerners, probably from the mid-west even.
That pic says it all. Jousting as a form of self-expressionary theater. Look at the laid
back lazy gestures by both actors. What truly amazes me is this -- if it hadn't been for a
mentally ill psycho behind the wheel of a car and a helicopter accident almost nobody would
have been seriously hurt. That really is incredible, given all the guns and presumably ammo.
I'm not sure if the armed individuals there just carried guns and no ammo but I doubt it. I
find that really really amazing -- and that photo captures the underlying energetic structure
of the whole phenomenon quite aptly.
This is a form of theater of the kind suggested by the great wacko himself -- Antonin
Artaud. Who was a French guy. I suspect it will stay that way (I could be wrong, but I don't
think so.) To grasp and grapple with the phenomenon at hand requires a conceptual vocabulary
that I have yet to see in the media coverage and "I was there" narratives.
All those guns cost money. Trips to the protest cost money.
Just like the false meme that Trump was elected by the working class. Nope. It was the
gated community suburban megachurch religious nuts who elected him. Affluent small town and
suburban nabobs
High-quality guns and good ammo cost serious money. This, in a nutshell, is why Yours
Truly had to give up the shooting sports. I could no longer afford the cost of
participation.
Leaving aside all other issues I always thought: Confederate memorials/statues commemorate
actual treason and people who tried to dismember the country. Solely for the purpose of
keeping other human beings as slaves. Thus zero sympathy from me to the "Heritage not Hate"
crowd.
I am, however, unsympathetic to "applies 21st century standards of PC virtue-signalling to
centuries-old figures" types, as they will inevitably be the authoritarian leftists that are
as distasteful to me as the Confederafluffers.
Pretty well impossible to deal with the imbeciles who immediately jump to "George
Washington owned slaves so 100% of everything about him must be rubbished." Unproductive on
every level and outright destructive on most of them.
Historically, those officers were taught that it was constitutional to secede from the
Union. Constitutional law classes at West Point taught constitutional secession so when many
of the southern states seceded those officers thought that these States were being denied
what was their constitutional right. They lost the war so they were wrong. Most of these
men's primary reason for fighting was for honor. Sadly, they were defending slavery as an
institution.
Not the US Constitution but from the Declaration "
But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security
."
I think the Declaration of Independence seems more like a justification for slave revolts
than for the secessions of 1861. The slaves experienced absolute despotism.
Careful, Vatch.
Justifying one interpretation and denying the other smacks of bias.
My problem is it's just so damned difficult to find my own response to being a
hypothetical Southern farmer in 1860, without slaves, but facing a Northern pressure that
puts my family and living at risk. I'm a let's say..Virginian. Neighbors (State) over
strangers (Nation)? Practical over principle? What principle?
I guess my point is the Declaration of Independence isn't so much about economic models
(although THAT is there) as it is about the ideals of freedom from political domination.
And in that interpretation, both slave revolts and the War for Succession are totally
valid.
Well, the Northern states violated the Constitution when they (rightfully so) didn't
return fugitive slaves back to the South.
Article 4, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be
discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
whom such Service or Labour may be due.
We have the fugitive slave law passed by congress, the dread scott decision passed by the
Supreme Court and a slew of other federal policies that (irony) the Northern states
nullified.
I wonder when we Americanized the word Labor?
So if the North was in violation of the Constitution, at what point do you have the right
to succeed? I don't know to be honest.
I think this is being far too kind. Most officers were from the landowning class, and the
rationale for the secession was very clearly to preserve slavery. Saint Lee was not a kind
master, he did little to stop the lynching and capturing or Northern freemen when his army
invaded the north, nor did he actively oppose the rise of the neo-confederate terror groups
during the postwar era.
I'd like to see a link or something that states (or even implies) that instructors at a
facility for training officers for the US Military would ever say that it was "constitutional
to secede" .sounds a bit treasonous to me ..
Re. statues: My first reaction is that it is easy to predict the mindset of someone quick
to defend Confederate symbolism. On the other hand it seems wrongfooted to spend energy
trying to expunge all of it from our public spaces. I nevertheless cannot help but find the
en masse demonstration in favor of the statue to be super predominantly white supremacist in
nature. I do not come to this uninformed. As a middle American born white male, I have been
privy in my life to the kinds of things white people say to other white people, who they
either assume are like them, or simply don't care. As a one-term military enlistee, I found a
similar saturation of racial bigotry in those ranks. It had already been abundantly clear to
me from my upbringing that those who tend toward the police force likewise harbor racial
animosity and wilful ignorance of the history that would inform the reasons behind some of
the superficial observations made by those who don't bother to get to know black or brown
people if they can avoid it.
In short, the military and police forces have a white supremacy problem, so
institutionalized, it would explain how it is that even minority officers engage in brutal
tactics against "their own". I hasten to add to your bit about Nixon's war on drugs the fact
that someone in the Reagan/Bush realm also knowingly created the crack epidemic in South
Central Los Angeles, something we now know is fact, thanks to the late Gary Webb. The culture
that grew out of that era is paradigm shifting.
So whenever we are tempted to say that law enforcement failed in such situations, we
should quickly reassess and remind ourselves of the proverbial "feature not a flaw". The
authoritarian impulse in America has its own dynamic, but even here in Berlin, where there
are plenty of ultra-right demonstrations, none of which exist without a counter demo that
includes an antifa presence, the police don't fail as demonstrably, but it's pretty clear
where their sympathies lie. The first such demo I attended was where I first heard the taunt
out of the ranks of the right: "Sie schützen uns! Sie schützen uns!" (They [the
police] 're protecting us! They're protecting us!") And they were in no way implying this
meant they needed protection from the counter demonstrators; it was a taunt that clearly
meant that the cops were on their side
One more thing: Trump has shown an ability to selectively and tactically tell truths
otherwise unspoken in the political sphere. His comment on Washington and Jefferson memorials
is totally legit. But it's couched in the rest of his rhetoric, which is utterly
bullsh**.
I fear that I may have to make issue with Yves's characterization of statues as fetishism.
Do statues contain an element of ancestor-worship? Maybe likely. Are most of them poorly
designed and thought out? Definitely. In any case in our culture, it is usually the leaders
that get the statues, not the engineers and scientists who actually got it all done. But
remember that they are actually symbols and people live by symbols and incorporate them into
their lives. The pert Manhatten woman who totes a Gucci handbag and the San Fransisco hipster
who takes pride in his artisanal cheese may look dissimilar but they are both using symbology
to establish their identities. To threaten people's symbols is to threaten their identity and
people will resist that to the hilt. That is why the resistance to the removal of those
statues.
I think that we are going to have to go back to the old stick-and-stones attitude. That is,
if you come to me and say that you see a statue in another state that causes bad feelings in
you and makes you feel angry or that you find it wrong that the candidate that you voted for
did not win, I would say build a bridge and get over it. But if you come to me and say that
people are trying to restrict your voting rights, the courts charge you constantly so that
that can fill their coffers with your fines, your churches are burnt and so on then brother,
that is something that is actually worth fighting against. This is real damage versus
emotional damage and I think may be the only workable way to go.
One last thing that came to mind. There were all sorts of rat-bag groups in Charlottesville
and I am wondering just where the hell they came from. But then a disturbing thought occurred
to me. Could it be that the identity politics that has been used for the past couple of
decades in America for political gain has led to the unintentional formation of these
sub-groupings? The politicians may have played it too clever by half in their angling for
power and this may be the result. Movements like this from the left and the right do not come
about spontaneously but must have a lineage somewhere. The only one that I recognize that has
a lineage is the KKK but they just look ridiculous.
What makes you think the sub-groupings are unintentional? It's a classic divide and
conquer strategy. Without it, after all, the great unwashed might have noticed that tea party
and occupy sympathizer had more in common with each other than with the establishment, and
started talking to each other instead of heaping ridicule on the other.
I know we're not big on smartphones around here, and it should be treated as a supplement
rather than a replacement for training, but there is a Resucitate! app that gives a guide to
assisting someone in a CPR, AED, or choking situation.
Josh Marshall, a historian by training, has a nice piece about this over at TPM. In brief,
the elevation of the generals from the South after the War of Northern Aggression was one of
the pacts that formed the post-reconstruction South. It whitewashed, hrm, their personal
treason and allowed the South to rewrite its history, exonerating its leadership. It gave the
planter class icons around which to form a revised culture, one that reconstituted slavery in
all but name. Jim Crow lasted a hundred years; the culture that built it survives its
demise.
Jim Crow kept a reconstituted planter class and its courtiers in power, It built on
earlier culture and characterized former slaves as an extravagant threat, sexually,
economically, politically. A variation on the British empire's divide and conquer. African
Americans became the focus of poor whites angst rather than the southern elite. That, too,
survives Jim Crow. It's part of the white supremacy that informs Trump.
The Charlottesville driver/killer, for example, is a minimum wage 20 year-old outcast,
rejected by the US Army, and apparently with untreated mental health problems. (Not that he
– or anyone similarly situated – would have had access to health care.) He's a
textbook example of one personality type for whom white supremacy and the victimhood and
promises of neonazism hold the most attraction.
Without a doubt the southern aristocracy fought the war over slavery but what doesn't get
mentioned as often is that the north, by and large, fought the war over union, not slavery.
As for "treason," this was not a term that got bandied about so much back when people were
closer to a Revolutionary War that was also called treason. Gore Vidal for one said that the
south had a right to secede and perhaps the US would have been better off if they had done
so. The premise of Vidal's book Lincoln was that Lincoln suffered under the great moral
weight of almost single handedly keeping the Union together at the cost of 500,000 lives.
Of course few southerners now (certainly speaking for myself!) think the south would have
been better off if they had won. An enduring south is the be the premise of an upcoming HBO
series by the Game of Thrones creators–a very bad idea, especially in light of recent
events.
He sounds a lot like Jared Lee Loughner, who was the killer of six people at
then-Representative Gabrielle Giffords' Congress on Your Corner event. The guy needed help,
didn't get it, and the rest, they say, is history.
Interesting graph that. Only comment is that that second blimp in the 1960s was only
marked down as the era of the civil rights movement. What should be noted is that it was also
the centennial of the civil war so you would expect more memorials to be dedicated then.
By propagating this word you are playing into the hands of the security establishment who
want to turn the tools of war against the American people. Terrorism is a tactic used by
smaller, less powerful groups to effect a response in what is generally a war.
By falling into the trap of misusing this word people are setting trap for themselves when
law enforcement is given blanket authority to violate civil liberties.
I agree. And it's good you post that and it bears repeating, perhaps ad naseum. I doubt
most people clamoring for equal inclusion in the terminology have given it any
consideration.
Terror is a violent political tactic conducted in full awareness and as part of the
terrorists arsenal to reach specific goals.
State-sponsored terror is the real scourge of our times. Where's the outrage? Or is the
killing of countless Brown people only 'racist' on US soil?
As Fields only known political affiliation was his registration as a Republican, we would
have the to logically designate that party a terrorist organisation, if he is categorised as
a terrorist.
While many would agree with that (Iraq) it is hardly practical, given the Democratic
Party's equal enthusiasm for state – sponsored terror (just look at who is supplying
arms to the numerous takfiris in Syria,or the destruction of Libya.)
So branding Fields a terrorist instead of a mentally disturbed killer opens up a real can
of worms.
Are we to also allege 'religious motivation' for the 'God/Satan – told – me
– to – kill' contingent too?
if you'd had black protestors show up similarly attired and armed, you can bet you'd
have seen mass head-breaking and arrests
If the question of fascism is at all relevant here, it's not in the mouthing of phrases
and the medieval accoutrements of the neo-fascists. It's in the inaction of the police.
Mcauliffe's recourse to saying the cops were outgunned to explain why the police didn't stop
the neo-fascists, his hesitation to say this was a profound screwup, is a replay of the
history of fascism in Germany and Italy. Tolerance and support from the cops were essential
in its success. Demonstrators should be going after Mcauliffe, not Robert E Lee. The next
move on the part of the neos, if they're smart, will be to see how much state support they
can get if they more tightly focus on the left. Support/tolerance on the part of the state
should be attacked in whatever form it takes, from Trump on down.
Agree. The inaction of the police, the "both sider-ism" of Trump and the Trumpertantrums
which normalizes white supremacist extremism on all of the right, and in its use by
libertarians and neoliberals to advance the cause of the rich because that's the way to
oppose the liberals, the left, and socialist antifa.
I can't pull a link right now but recommend the Vice documentary on Charlottesville. Bit
chilling.
And honestly, it's not just the excluded who are being radicalized, as the MRA phenomenon
shows, the openly superior attitudes of silicon valley tech bros, etc.
Yves, the point you make about the perceived lack of greased tracks from Southern
universities to the Acela corridor's hall's of power got me thinking about C. Wright Mills
and where else the power elite create leverage points
NOTE: This is a reprint of a journal article with the following citation:
Domhoff, G. William. 2006. "Mills's The Power Elite 50 Years Later." Contemporary Sociology
35:547-550.
Mills's career (and that of Sloane Coffin at Yale) certainly engendered a response of
"Never again" among the Ivy League and its patrons. The likes of Alfred McCoy at Wisconsin
and G. William Domhoff at UCSC were confined to the state ivies. Later nonconformist critics
of the establishment were lucky to be hired at mid-rank state schools. It was essential to
deprive them of formal inclusion among the nation's intellectual elite. Stanford, under its
longtime patron, arch-conservative Herbert Hoover was especially vigilant in excluding
nonconformists. UC San Diego spent a long time in purgatory for hiring Herbert Marcuse.
Among many other achievements, Mills made a mockery of the McCarthy era demand for
conformity and bland acceptance of the status quo.
It saddens me that the shrill media echo chamber (including that ridiculous Jacobin
article) has me -- a lifelong 'liberal' -- reading TAC.
I reject identity politics. I am an American citizen. But I have no political home. I had
hopes for the DSA, but now I see they were a proud part and parcel of the thuggery in
Charlottesville.
Yes, I have a very tight tinfoil hat but I smell the fire and brimstone of Soros,
provocations and color revolutions. "Heightening the differences" is I believe what this
violent street theater was intended to do.
Yes, they do have really good foreign policy analysis. Reality-based. But you have to wade
through quite a bit of Christian-values-under-attack and Culture War yaya to get there.
IMHO.
I only have Daniel bookmarked, and my browser takes me right to his exposes of the Peace
Prize President's support of the horrors in Yemen, the bipartisan war crime disaster which is
Syria, and the insanities of Trump's ignorant babbles. :)
The video of Fields attack broadcast on corporate media was mainly the one filmed by one
Brennan Gilmore.
The only description I found in an MSM report said he was a Charlotte resident, involved
in start – ups, and had been present with friends at the scene.
He had tweeted extensively, characterising the incident as a :terrorist attack ' by' Nazis
'.
He also claims that Nazis are running the White House.
Definitely not a' neutral' observer.
Now turns out he is a former State Dept employee, whose work smacks not a little of CIA
regime – changing.
This is definitely looking more and more like a psyops.
"This is definitely looking more and more like a psyops.
But what's the goal?"
I think the goals are clear. (Just look at the effects.)
What's less clear to me is what people/groups are orchestrating this. The
aftermath–creating division and opinion regarding even the facts of what
happened–is part of the goal. Look at this website and the data being generated by
commenters. Who defends themself? Who attacks? Who retreats? What is the nature of the
language used?
Quinn Michaels has analyzed that stirring things up in this way provides opportunities for
Smart AI to create more data regarding how individuals and groups respond emotionally, thus
further enabling future manipulation of society with even greater precision. Michaels'
extensive analysis of advanced bot networks is chilling. But even so he sees beneficial
opportunities. It's pretty intriguing, these games and deliberate disruption. His YouTube
discussions (many of which include extensive screenshots to document what he has observed)
are interesting stuff.
Thanks for the info – I can well believe that is a motive for some.
But I am focusing more on the political aims of what is looking more and more like an
orchestrated event.
Trump's condemnation of both 'sides' was greeted with predictable outrage from much of the
MSM.
Yet having watched an hour long video filmed by a non – partisan, who positioned
himself between the :warring parties, it is clear he is correct : the police were ordered to
stand down while both sides – one of which did not have a permit for a rally –
went at it hammer and tongs.
That casualties were greater for one 'side'(though I take such reports with a large dose
of salt given media disdain for facts, including' WMD: NYT) does not reduce culpability.
Interesting that Richard Spencer (the humanities graduate from an upper middle class
background who supposedly represents the grievances of much of the Deplorable class –
really?) was in Hungary months ago. Meeting with the 'far right' there. He sure gets
around.
With no visible means of support, I can only assume he's being bankrolled by some very shy
folk .
Hungary also happens to be run by Soros nemesis, Victor Orban.
A little digging might turn some 'unexpected' connections.
'Unexpected 'to those who are unfamiliar with events in the Ukraine that is.
Wilderness First Responder (WFR) training is great you get everything you would in the
above-mentioned Red Cross courses but with a wilderness overlay, the upshot being there is a
focus on helping injured people for a longer period of time than just waiting for an
ambulance. So longer term patient stabilization, splint making, assessment, etc. Strikes me
as useful in a situation where professional medical help is not going to be immediately
available for whatever reason. The Wilderness Medical Institute (WMI) runs courses all across
the country but there are other outfits that teach the course as well.
I have a unique perspective of sorts on this as I used to be "Robert E. Lee" on the Radio.
Other than being kidded about the name, I never, ever saw any push back or any negativity
from anyone. And my show was top-rated. Of course this was back in the 70's and things
change. But seems to me some of these people protesting over confederate statues are missing
the point and should read a book on the Civil war, which was mostly about oppression from the
Northern states and really not that much about slavery.
There are plenty of books that completely invalidate "the Civil war, which was mostly
about oppression from the Northern states and really not that much about slavery." Not that
any post here is going to change your mind.
What about the theory that the economic interests of the North in opposition to those of
the South motivated the Civil War? The North wanted to compel the South to sell its cotton to
Northern Mills at a lower price than the South could sell its cotton to English Mills. I
thought I read about that in a Post here at NakedCapitalism -- ? I have trouble believing the
Civil War was about slavery. If slavery were the driver then why did Lincoln wait until 1863
to make his emancipation proclamation? After the Civil War why did the North do so little to
help the slaves they emancipated and protect their freedom? It took 100 years and
considerable political and social pressure to compel the North to enforce even the most basic
civil rights in the South.
Every single version of the secession articles issued by the Southern states says they
were doing so to preserve their "peculiar institution." It's not about "belief." It's about
demonstrable facts. That the North didn't really give a [family blog] about the actual
slaves, and that anti-black racism was as bad north of the Mason-Dixon is irrelevant to this
discussion.
Likewise, the reason why none of the freed slaves got their "40 acres and a mule" is
available in any number of reliable historical sources, and just as has always been the case
is the result of a combination of rich people and politics.
Read some diaries by Northerners who fought in that war. Whether they liked it or not,
they knew the war was about ending slavery. An awful lot of them volunteered based on that
understanding (except the mobs in NYC that attacked an orphanage for black children). In his
memoirs Grant, writing much later in a time when the myth of "it was only about union" by
then had a firm hold, was clear about the role abolitionism played. Those in the South at the
time didn't pretend otherwise either.
Many of those fighting in the Civil War were motivated by their feelings about slavery.
However I am extremely skeptical that either a strong desire to abolish slavery or a
commitment to maintain the union motivated the Elite of the North to war with the South.
Their concern for the human condition didn't extend very far in time or space. Emancipated
slaves were left to suffer under Jim Crow. Northern Mills and factories operated in
conditions not greatly different than outright slavery.
Disclaimer: I am totally not a historian. Evidence *wholly* anecdotal, *wholly* oral and
simply a family story. My father had two great-uncles who died in Andersonville Prison, I
have seen the letters and the little carved Bibles send back to their family in Ohio/
Pennsylvania but not otherwise verified anything. The story in the family is that they went
for the substitute money, $100 (a whole lot of money back then). The draft was only for
landowners, ie voters, but they could and very often did pay to have non-landowners, such as
my greatuncles, take their duty for them. Irony: the family was awarded land, in
Michigan.
Yves, CERT or Community Emergency Response Training is what you might want to check out
for basic emergency training/preparedness. CERT operates on both a national and local level.
Out here in earthquake country the local chapter is pretty active.
Yves, here in NYC, I took a good basic first aid course at the American Red Cross (it
included CPR, dealing with burns, broken bones, seizures, etc.); someone upthread mentioned
the American Heart Association and their offerings look intriguing too. And NYC does indeed
have an active CERT chapter; which fields teams of trained volunteer first-responders for all
sorts of disasters. (I had looked into all this stuff just post-9/11; picked up a good manual
on disaster prep from the ARC and still carry their first-aid kit and a pair of construction
gloves in my backpack, just in case.)
I'm not sure what to make of the events in Charlottesville. They hold a dark foreboding I
can't decipher.
Lee Camp's portrayal of how fleetingly brief is our moment of life and consciousness and
his admonition to use that moment is what most moved me in his brief video.
While Red Cross and other organization offer courses, you might try to find a good edition
of the Boy Scout's First Aid Merit Badge booklet. It has probably been updated over the
years, but was a good read and taught me enough to help several injured people since earning
my Eagle rank. Not sure I could revive the dead, but I've kept a heart attack victim alive
until help arrived, as well as many bleeding people.
The South has long dominated key sectors of the US power structure, if not the ones where
Yves has spent her time/ drawn her acquaintances.
Just look at those who have had prominent roles in Congressional leadership and committee
chairmanships over the last century. What about Mitch McConnell? Jeff Sessions (before he
became AG)? Russell Long? Jamie Whitten? Herman Talmadge? George Smathers? Lindsay Graham?
John McCain (Mississippian by birth)? Strom Thurmond? Theodore Bilbo? Just to name a few.
Southerners are also over-represented in the military.
http://www.ozy.com/acumen/why-the-us-military-is-so-southern/72100
NB, as Yves has mentioned, the retired general and flag officers often end up running defense
contractors when they leave active duty– so Southern influence is also strong
there.
The South continues to dominate our political life and our military industrial complex.
Guilt tripping non Southerners about anti Southern prejudice continues to enforce such
dominance. While that prejudice certainly exists, it's no reason to give the white South a
pass, or the affirmative action program Trump wants to grant by re-orienting DoJ's Civil
Rights Division.
McCain was born in Panama, there was a birther issue with his candidacy. I see nothing in
his bio about MS, though he moved a great deal as a military brat.
The fact that southern pols attain such positions does not necessarily reflect dominance.
And while Yves's' characterization elides some issues, it has the virtue of pointing up the
obvious: there is prejudice toward white southerners and, like most prejudice, tends to
prevent us from seeing the region clearly.
Furthermore, McCain makes no bones about his Southern heritage. He has also, among other
things, defended the Confederate flag and spoken highly of his treasonous ancestors who
fought for the Confederacy (as noted in Salon link above).
Regarding your disputation of Southern dominance on Capitol Hill -- I worked at CBO and got
to see it first hand back in the 70s. With all due respect, your statement about the
prevalence of southern pols in high positions on the Hill not "necessarily" reflecting
dominance, is clueless. It may be a little different now but given the continued power of
Southern Republicans on the Hill I tend to doubt that.
Of course there's prejudice towards just about everyone who isn't in one's own group.
Unfortunately, that is the way humans are. The real issue is, has that group been victimized?
Not all that much in the case of white Southerners, who run a great deal of the country.
I would also say: the prejudice against Southerners actually works in many ways to their
advantage. Both in terms of outsiders underestimating them, and in terms of outsiders' being
clueless about how powerful the South really is.
Simply saying that Southerners dominate the America power structure doesn't make it the
case. Put that case together and I am interested. Calling me "clueless" looks to me like a
sign that you are either operating out of your own prejudice rather than solid fact or just
disputatious. I would gladly accept that Southerners are a disproportionate part of the power
structure; that they dominate? Pony up.
Out here in Seattle we seem to be more and more segregated. The city is basically cut in
half, with the north side of downtown/ship canal being primarily white and the south side of
downtown being the last vestige of minority home ownership in the city. Gentrification is
alive and well in the Pacific Northwest. We call it the "San Francisco-zation" of Seattle.
Everyone is being priced out and the City of Seattle Government seems perfectly ok with it.
Perhaps the era of the City-State is here?
Yes, policing fail. But there were some reasons for that. This "From a member of UVA
staff," which appeared on a trusted friend's FB page, which has a ring of authenticity:
'A few specifics that I learned from a very somber staff meeting with our Dean of
Libraries just now. Some of these details may have been available in news reports but they
were new to me. (1) Apparently on Friday night there was a 'very low level' request for
permission for a group of 20 people to read a speech at the Rotunda. This overture to the
University was then bait-and-switched to the march with torches that circled Central Grounds.
(2) During the white nationalists' intimidating march around Grounds, many UVA police
officers were actually located downtown, where they had been seconded to support
Charlottesville City police. (3) On Saturday, there were "several deliberate attempts to
spread police thin" through tactics such as fake bomb scares in parts of town away from the
main action. (4) By UVA policy, students and employees are prohibited from carrying firearms
on Grounds, but by state law, because this is a public property, people with no University
affiliation are allowed open carry without a permit and concealed carry with a permit. UVA
can make policy enforceable on its own students and employees but not on the general public
.
"I am sharing all of this because I think there were several specific, calculated tactics by
the white nationalists to leverage our laws and policies against us and to maximize the
terrorizing effect of their activities in Charlottesville over the weekend. I believe the
white nationalists are not done with us here in Charlottesville and I believe they will
target other universities, university towns, and communities with progressive political
reputations for similar attacks. I hope that forewarned is forearmed and that by
disseminating information about the white nationalists' tactics we can be better prepared in
the future.' (thanks to Gregory N Blevins)"
Nature. Skilled Labor. Community Bank credit creation. Shorting nature into a battery with
debt expertise always ends the same way, a black hole of symptoms chasing their own tail,
until all the financial and operational leverage is stranded.
An elevator eliminates the arbitrary clock in the compiler, allowing an increasing
diversity of events to time themselves.
"... This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. ..."
The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a
policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice, the putative
benefits of diversity or any other standard justification. It is this peace- keeping function that
explains why the entire establishment, from mega corporations to the military, endorses
constitutionally
iffy racial discrimination and why questioning diversity's benefits is the most grievous of all
PC sins. Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring
Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for
social peace.
This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic
or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the
ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise
just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either
at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots
and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America's potentially explosive race relations,
academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral
damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.
Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with
violent Indian tribes
well into the 19 th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims
or today's civil war in Burma
with the Karen People. Then there's Turkey's enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the
threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the
ETA ), and the
Irish Republican Army
. In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according
to the
Global Terrorism Database . At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500
years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling
of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.
The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem
has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating
a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for
example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity
by encouraging religious acceptance of one's lowly state.
Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for
its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled
despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.
To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost
been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today's
relative tranquility. A sampling
of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles,
CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.
The damage from these riots! "uprisings" or "rebellions" according to some!was immense. For example,
the Detroit riot of 1967
lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and
both the 82 nd and 101 st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death
toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation
remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out
black anger.
To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution
to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian
Henny Youngman when asked
"How's your wife?" He responded with, "Compared to what?" This logic reflects a hard truth: when
confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect
solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current
conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist
would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and
food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business
list–the Danegeld .
In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students,
professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the
top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots.
While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white
crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized
related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to
have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating
about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street
corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street
socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale,
organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago
or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.
Co-optation is a staple in the political management repertoire. The Soviet Union adsorbed what
they called the "leading edge" into the Party (anyone exceptionally accomplished, from chess grandmasters
or world-class athletes) to widen the divide the dominant elite, i.e., the Party, and hoi polloi.
Election systems can be organized to guarantee a modicum of power to a handful of potential disruptors
and with this position comes ample material benefits (think Maxine Waters). Monarchies have similarly
managed potential strife by bestowing honors and titles on commoners. It is no accident that many
radicals are routinely accused of "selling out" by their former colleagues in arms. In most instances
the accusation is true, and this is by design.
To appreciate the advantages of the racial preferences in higher education consider Henny's "compared
to what"? part of his quip. Certainly what successfully worked for quelling potential Native American
violence, e.g., forced assimilation in "Indian Schools" or confinement in pathology-breeding reservations,
is now totally beyond the pale though, to be sure, some inner-cities dominated by public housing
are increasingly coming to resemble pathology-inducing Indian reservations. Even less feasible is
some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.
I haven't done the math but I would guess that the entire educational racial spoils system is
far more cost effective than creating a
garrison state or a DDR-like police state where thousands of black trouble-makers were quickly
incarcerated. Perhaps affirmative action in general should be viewed as akin to a nuisance tax, probably
less than 5% of our GDP.
To be sure, affirmative action at elite universities is only one of today's nostrums to quell
potential large scale race-related violence. Other tactics include guaranteeing blacks elected offices,
even if this requires turning a blind eye toward election fraud, and quickly surrendering to blacks
who demand
awards and honors on the basis of skin color. Perhaps a generous welfare system could be added
to this keep-the-peace list. Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than
dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence.
This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those
smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. Now, given all
the billions that have been saved, maybe a totally free ride at lesser schools would be a small price
to pay for their dissatisfaction (and they would also be academic stars at such schools). Of course
this "Asian only" compensatory scholarship might be illegal under the color blind requirements of
1964 Civil Right Act, but fear not, devious admission officers will figure out a way around the law.
1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return
to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when
they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like
Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged
gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white
West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats
in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by
blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good
weather, and attractive women.
@Carlton Meyer At first, I was surprised that they listened to him.
After a while, I realized that many negros are stupid enough to think that Hispanics and Asians
would like to be in some anti-white alliance with blacks as a senior partner. In reality, they
have an even lower opinion of blacks than whites do. US blacks have zero knowledge of the world
outside America, so this reality just doesn't register with them.
John Derbyshire has made similar arguments–racial preferences are the price for social peace.
But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer
black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs"
for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.
There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain
in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant
retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites
can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they
are able.
Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional
domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
Could care less about your smart Asians The smart Asians are enthusiastivally voting Whitey
into a racial minority on Nov 3 2020 They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and
Breeding Space
Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.
Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.
They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.
Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.
Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.
Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.
Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.
If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform
to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.
But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal
PC tards.
Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate,
and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell
Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.
Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then,
you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who
ran from dirty browns shi ** ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches
about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must
mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After
all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?
PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of
slave ancestry. That's it.
Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent
the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the
lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but ' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination
but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest.
Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are
quite distinct.
In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways
except appearance and diet.
Plus, since SE Asia has always had influence from both, there is a smooth continuum in the
US across all of these groups by the time the 2nd generation rolls around.
They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space
Three things wrong with this sentence.
1) I don't think you know that Native Americans (i.e. Siberians) were here first.
2) I will bet anything that all 128 of your GGGGG-GPs are not English settlers who were here in
1776. You are probably some 2nd gen Polack or something who still worries that WASPs look down
on you.
3) There is very high variance among whites, and white trashionalists are SOOOO far below the
quality threshold of any moderately successful white that they can't claim to speak for all whites.
White Trashionalists represent the waste matter that nature wants to purge (which is the process
that enables exceptional whites to emerge on the other end of the scale). That is why white women
are absolutely doing what nature wants, which is to cut off the White Trashionalists from reproduction.
If you care about the white race, you should be glad that white women want nothing to do with
you and allow you to complete you wastebasket role.
Obama was one of the beneficiaries of AA along with his wife and their kids. Did that prevent
Baltimore and Chicago and etc from blowing up?
In a way, AA and Civil Rights made black communities more volatile. When blacks were more stringently
segregated, even smart and sensible blacks lived among blacks and played some kind of 'role model'.
They ran businesses and kept in close contact with black folks.
It's like white communities in small towns used to be much better when the George Baileys stayed
in them or returned to them and ran things.
But as more and more George Bailies left for the big cities, small towns had fewer top notch
role models and leaders and enterprisers. Also, the filth of pop culture and youth degeneracy
via TV corrupted the dummies. And then, when globalism took away the industries, there were just
people on opioids. At least old timers grew up with family and church. The new generation grew
up on Idiocracy.
Anyway, AA will just taken more black talent from black community and mix them with whites,
Asians, and etc. Will some of these blacks use their power and privilege to incite black mobs
to violence? Some do go radical. But most will just get their goodies and forget the underclass
except in some symbolic way. It's like Obama didn't do crap as 'community organizer'. He just
stuck close to rich Jews in Hyde Park, and as president, he was serving globo-wars, Wall Street,
and homos.
When he finally threw a bone at the blacks in his second term, it lit cities on fire.
Did the black underclass change for the better because they saw Obama as president? No. If
anything, it just made them bolder as flashmobs. The way blacks saw it, a bunch of fa ** ogty
wussy white people voted for a black guy created by a black man sexually conquering a white woman.
They felt contempt for cucky whites, especially as rap culture and sports feature blacks as master
race lording over whites. To most underclass blacks, the only culture they know is sports and
rap and junk they see on TV. And they are told blacks are magical, sacred, badass, and cool. And
whites are either 'evil' if they have any pride or cucky-wucky wussy if they are PC.
The Murrayian Coming-Apart of whites took place already with blacks before. And more AA that
takes in smarter blacks will NOT make things better for black underclass. And MORE blacks in elite
colleges will just lead to MORE anger issues, esp as they cannot keep up with other students.
Even so, I can understand the logic of trying to win over black cream of crop. Maybe if they
are treated nice and feel 'included', they won't become rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton and act
more like Obama. Obama's race-baiting with Ferguson was bad but could have been worse with someone
like Sharpton.
The Power can try to control a people in two ways. Crush everyone OR give carrots to comprador
elites so that sticks can be used on masses. Clinton did this. He brought over black elites, and
they worked with him to lock up record number of Negroes to make cities safer. As Clinton was
surrounded by Negroes and was called 'first black president' by Toni Morrison, many blacks didn't
realize that he was really working to lock up lots of black thugs and restore order.
Smart overlords play divide-and-conquer by offering carrots to collaborator elites and using
sticks on masses.
British Imperialists did that. Gandhi would likely have collaborated with Brits if not for the
fact that he was called a 'wog' in South Africa and kicked off a train. Suddenly, he found himself
as ONE with the poor and powerless 'wogs' in the station. He was made equal with his own kind.
Consider Jews in the 30s and even during WWII. Many Western European Jews became rich and privileged
and felt special and put on airs. Many felt closer to gentile elites and felt contempt and disdain
for many 'dirty' and 'low' Eastern European Jews. If Hitler had been cleverer and offered carrots
to rich Jews, there's a good chance that many of them would have collaborated and worked with
the Power to suppress or control lower Jews, esp. of Eastern European background.
But Hitler didn't class-discriminate among Jews. He went after ALL of them. Richest Jew, poorest
Jew, it didn't matter. So, even many rich Jews were left destitute if not dead after WWII. And
this wakened them up. They once had so much, but they found themselves with NOTHING. And as they
made their way to Palestine with poor Eastern European Jewish survivors, they felt a strong sense
of ethnic identity. Oppression and Tragedy were the great equalizer. Having lost everything, they
found what it really means to be Jewish. WWII and Holocaust had a great traumatic equalizing effect
on Jews, something they never forgot since the war, which is why very rich Jews try to do much
for even poor Jews in Israel and which is why secular Jews feel a bond with funny-dressed Jewish
of religious sects.
For this reason, it would be great for white identity if the New Power were to attack ALL whites
and dispossess all of them. Suppose globalism went after not only Deplorables but Clintons, Bushes,
Kaineses, Kerrys, Kennedys, and etc. Suppose all of them were dispossessed and humiliated and
called 'honkers'. Then, like Gandhi at the train station, they would regain their white identity
and identify with white hoi polloi who've lost so much to globalism. They would become leaders
of white folks.
But as long as carrots are offered to the white elites, they go with Glob and dump on whites.
They join with the GLOB to use sticks on white folks like in Charlottesville where sticks were
literally used against patriots who were also demeaned as 'neo-nazis' when most of them weren't.
So, I'm wishing Ivy Leagues will have total NO WHITEY POLICY. It is when the whites elites
feel rejected and humiliated by the Glob that they will return to the masses.
Consider current Vietnam. Because Glob offers them bribes and goodies, these Viet-cuck elites
are selling their nation to the Glob and even allowing homo 'pride' parades.
White Genocide that attacks ALL whites will have a unifying effect on white elites and white
masses. It is when gentiles targeted ALL Jews that all Jews, rich and poor, felt as one.
But the Glob is sneaky. Instead of going for White Genocide that targets top, middle, and bottom,
it goes for White Democide while forgoing white aristocide. So, white elites or neo-aristocrats
are rewarded with lots of goodies IF they go along like the Romneys, Clintons, Kaines, Bidens,
and all those quisling weasels.
" Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable
for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely
stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs. "
I read an article, making a learned impression, that on average USA blacks have a lower IQ.
I do suppose that IQ has a cultural component, nevertheless, those in western cultures with a
lower IQ can be expected to have less economic success.
A black woman who did seem to understand all this was quoted in the article as that 'blacks should
be compensated for this lower IQ'.
One can discuss this morally endless, but even if the principle was accepted, how is it executed,
and where is the end ?
For example, people with less than average length are also less successful, are we going to compensate
them too ?
"economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions
and countless government uplift programs"
It only stalled when the Great Society and the uplift programs started. According to The Bell
Curve there was basically an instant collapse when LBJ started to wreaking his havoc. Go back
to pre-1964 norms and no late-60s riots.
We have sacrificed smart white students for three generations to keep the hebraic component
around 30% at our highest-ranked colleges and universities, and no one (except the jewish Ron
Unz himself) made so much as a peep. And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far
more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting
it.
@War for Blair Mountain "They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding
Space "
Your statement would be perfectly correct if it read, "White people of European origin don't
belong on Native American Living and Breeding Space "
Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain
that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely
than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent.
Honestly, what is the world coming to when you spend centuries and millions of bullets, bottles
of whisky and plague-ridden blankets getting rid of tens of millions of people so you can steal
their land – and then more people like you come along and want to settle peaceably alongside you?
That's downright un-American.
Maybe you'd be more comfortable if the Asian immigrants behaved more like the European settlers
– with fire, sword, malnutrition and pestilence.
@Diversity Heretic The Kipling quote is stirring and thought-provoking (like most Kipling
quotes). But it is not entirely correct.
Consider the kings of France in the 10th century, who were confronted by the apparently insoluble
problem of periodic attacks by bands of vicious, warlike, and apparently irresistible Vikings.
One king had the bright idea of buying the Northmen off by granting them a very large piece of
land in the West of France – right where the invading ships used to start up the Seine towards
Paris.
The Northmen settled there, became known as Normans, and held Normandy for the rest of the
Middle Ages – in the process absolutely preventing any further attacks eastward towards Paris.
The dukes of Normandy held it as a fief from the king, and thus did homage to him as his feudal
subordinates.
They did conquer England, Sicily, and a few other places subsequently – but the key fact is
that they left the tiny, feeble kingdom of France alone.
Ratioal cost benefit arguments could be applied much more widely to the benefit of America
and other First World countries. If otherwise illegal drugs were legalised, whether to be prescribed
by doctors or not, it would save enormous amounts of money on law enforcement and, subject to
what I proffer next, incarceration.
What is the downside? The advocates of Prohibition weren't wrong about the connection of alcohol
and lower productivity. That was then. If, say, 10 per cent of the population were now disqualified
from the workforce what would it matter. The potential STEM wizards amongst them (not many) would
mostly be nurtured so that it was only the underclass which life in a daze. And a law which made
it an offence, effectively one for which the penalty was to be locked up or otherwise deprived
of freedom to be a nuisance, to render oneself unfit to perform the expected duties of citizenship
would have collateral benefits in locking up the right underclass males.
@Bro Methylene "Orientals," east Asians, or just Asians in American parlance are indeed quite
different from south Asians, called "Asians" in the UK,. These are quite different groups.
But the groups of east and south Asians include widely differing peoples. A Korean doesn't
have much in common with a Malay, nor a Pathan with a Tamil. Probably not much more than either
has in common with the other group or with white Americans.
That they "all look alike" to use does not really mean the do, it just means we aren't used
to them.
Was recently watching an interesting Chinese movie and had enormous difficulty keeping the
characters straight, because they did indeed all look alike to me. I wonder if Chinese people
in China have similar trouble watching old American movies.
@Carlton Meyer yeah and hispanics are natural conservatives. dont be a cuck once that slant
is here long enough he will tumble to the game and get on the anti white bandwagon. and sure asians
will eventually out jew the jews just what we need another overlord, only this one a huge percentage
or world pop. .
You know weisberg youre not fooling anyone here peddle that cuck crap elsewhere affirmative
action leads to nothing but more affirmative action at this point everyone but white males gets
it, and you my jew friend know this so selling it to sucker cucks as the cost of doing business
is just more jew shenanigans. There is a much better solution to the problem peoples deport them
back where they belong israel africa asia central america.
This is all about nothing now. The only thing White people have to learn anymore is controlled
breathing, good position, taking up trigger slack, letting the round go at exactly the right moment
– one round, one hit.
When your child tosses a tantrum and tears up his bedroom, and you tell him his mean-spirited,
selfish cousins caused it and then you reward him with a trip to Disneyland and extra allowance:
then you guarantee more and worse tantrums.
That is what America and America's Liberals, the Elites, have done with blacks and violence.
A very interesting post. Really a unique perspective – who cares if it's not fair, if it is
necessary to keep the peace?
I do however disagree with one of your points. " whose economic advancement over the last half-century
has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs."
I think you have missed the main event. Over the last half-century the elites of this nation
have waged ruthless economic warfare AGAINST poor blacks in this country, to an extent that far
dwarfs the benefits of affirmative action (for a typically small number of already privileged
blacks).
Up through the 1960′s, blacks were starting to do not so bad. Yes they were in a lot of menial
jobs, but many of these were unionized and the pay was pretty good. I mean, if nobody else wants
to sweep your floors, and the only guy willing to do it i s black, well, he can ask for a decent
deal.
Then our elites fired black workers en masse, replacing them with Mexican immigrants and outsourcing
to low-wage countries. Blacks have had their legs cut off with a chainsaw, and the benefits of
affirmative action (which nowadays mostly go to Mexicans etc.!) little more than a bandaid.
And before we are too hard on blacks, let me note that whites are also being swept up in the
poverty of neoliberal globalization, and they too are starting to show social pathology.
Because in terms of keeping the social peace, there is one fundamental truth more important
than all others: there must be some measure of broadly shared prosperity. Without it, even ethnically
homogeneous and smart and hard working people like the Japanese or Chinese will tear themselves
apart.
Note that there is not a word in this article about what this does to the white working class
and how it can be given something in return for allowing Elites to bribe blacks with trillions
and trillions of dollars in goodies. Nor is there is there any indication that this process eventually
will explode, with too many blacks demanding so much it cannot be paid.
Was this written tongue in cheek?
Affirmative action will never end. The bribes will never end. The US made a mistake in the 1960s.
We should have contained the riots then let the people in those areas sleep in the burned out
rubble. Instead through poverty programs we rewarded bad black behavior.
By filling the Ivy League with blacks we create a new class of Cornell West's for white people
to listen to. We enhance the "ethos" of these people.
Eventually, certainly in no more than 40 years, we will run out of sacrifices. What then when
whites constitute only 40% of the American population? Look at South Africa today.
We have black college graduates with IQs in the 80s! They want to be listened to. After all, they're
college graduates.
I do not believe you have found "a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence".
You mix in this "top 10%" and they get greater acceptance by whites who are turned left in college.
"The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core,
a policy to protect the racial peace "
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of
billions and countless government uplift programs.
The reality of this is become a huge stumbling block. In fact this group has actually been
mostly regressing into violence and stupidity, going their own separate way as exemplified by
their anti-social music which celebrates values repugnant to the majority. Look at the absurd
level of shootings in cities like Chicago. That's not changing anytime soon. They're by far overrepresented
in Special Ed, juvenile delinquency, prisons and all other indicators of dysfunction. Their talented
tenth isn't very impressive as compared to whites or Asians. Their entire middle class is mostly
an artificial creation of affirmative action. The point is that they can only be promoted so far
based on their capability. The cost of the subsidy gets greater every year and at some point it'll
become too heavy a burden and then it'll be crunch time. After the insanity of the Cultural Revolution
the Chinese had to come to their senses. It's time to curtail our own version of it.
It really is terrible and unfair that an Asian needs to score so much higher than you white
oppressors to get into the Ivy league
A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher
on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference
some have called "the Asian tax."
I think this is brilliant satire.
It is actually an argument that is logically sound. Doesn't mean that it's good or sensible or
even workable over the long run.
It's just logically sound. It holds together if one accepts the not-crazy parts its made out of.
I don't believe it's meant to be taken literally, because both the beneficiaries and those who
get screwed will grow in their resentment and the system would melt down.
New fields with the word "studies' in them would get added and everyone would know – deep down
– why that is so, and Asians would continue to dominate the hard sciences, math and engineering.
Still, as satire, it's so close to the bone that it works beautifully.
@Tom Welsh "Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall
to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more
closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent."
Agree. The country should be returned to pre-1700 conditions and given over to anyone who wants
it.
@Anonymouse I guess one man's riot is another man's peaceful night. There was a bit of rioting
in Brooklyn that night, businesses burned and looted, and a handful of businesses were looted
in Harlem. There was a very heavy police presence with Mayor Lindsey that night and blacks were
still very segregated in 1968, so I'd guess it was more that show of force that prevented the
kind of riots we'd seen earlier and in other cities at that time. Still, there was looting and
burning, so New York's blacks don't get off the hook. As a personal note. my older brother and
his friends were attacked by a roving band of blacks that night in Queens, but managed to chase
them out of our neighborhood.
The costs of BRA may be lower than the costs of 1960s urban riots, though an accurate accounting
would be difficult as many costs are not easily tabulated.
Consider, for instance, the costs of excluding higher performing whites and Asians from elite
universities. Does this result in permanently lower salaries from them as a result of greater
difficulty in joining an elite career track?
What costs do affirmative action impose upon corporations, especially those with offices in
metropolitan areas with a lot of blacks? FedEx is famously centralized in Memphis. What's the
cost to me as a shipper in having to deal with sluggish black customer service personnel?
The blacks are 15% of the population, so I doubt "garrison state" costs would be terribly high.
I am certain that segregation was cheaper than BRA is. The costs of segregation were overlooking
some black talent (negligible) and duplication of certain facilities (I suspect this cost is lower
than the cost of white flight).
How did America ever manage to survive when there hardly any Chinese Hindus..Sihks .Koreans
in OUR America?
Answer:Very well thank you!!!! ..America 1969=90 percent Native Born White American .places
two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon 10 more after this Who the F would be opposed
to this?
Answer:Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" Hindu "Americans" .Sihk "Americans" .Pakistani
"Americans"
There would still be racial peace if affirmative action was abolished. They'll bitch for a
while, but they'll get used it and the dust will settle.
Side note: Affirmation action also disproportionately helps white women into college, and they're
the largest group fueling radical leftist identity politics/feminism on campus. In other words,
affirmative action is a large contributor to SJWism, the media-academia complex, and the resulting
current political climate.
@jilles dykstra The statement "blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ" is no different
than the descendents of the so-called jewish "holocaust ™" being compensated in perpetuity by
the German government. Now, there are calls by the jewish "holocaust ™" lobby to extend the financial
compensation to children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these so-called "holocaust
™ survivors, stating the fake concept of "holocaust ™" transference" just another "holocaust ™"
scam
Same thing.
More Monsanto, DuPont cancers and degraded foods.
New diseases from medical, biological, genetic research
More spying and censorship and stealing by Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, high IQ thieves.
All jobs overseas, domestic unemployment, endless wars, by the best and brightest.
Toxic pollution, mental pollution that dwarfs the back yard pollution of tires and old refrigs
by "low IQ deplorables (white and black and brown".
Degraded, degrading entertainment and fake news to match fake histories by Phds.
Tech devices that are "wonderful" but life is actually better more meaningful without.
[Blacks] "whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite
tens of billions and countless government uplift programs." No, Professor, it is Trillions
spend over the last 50 years and millions before that. Countless Whites and other non-Negroid
people have had to step aside in education, military, government, private industry, to let the
lesser person advance and leap frog the accepted virtue-merit path to advancement. AND IT STILL
IS NOT ENOUGN FOR BLECKS.
The obvious solution is to separate into uni-racial/ethnic states. For Whites, this would include
a separate autocephalous, independent state of Caucasians, Asians, and Hindu. This is the Proto-IndoEuropean
Family, related by genes and languages.
1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return
to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when
they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like
Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged
gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white
West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil...with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats
in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by
blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good
weather, and attractive women. Could agree 1 and 2.
2-3 millions Top caliber White males moving to Asia?
haha, Top caliber White males (American) will stay in America, screw the rest WN, devour all
the resources available, not only in America, but from the rest of the world.
This is a real White so-called Top caliber White males enjoying in Philippines.
I'm guessing the author would be screaming at the top of his lungs if it was Jewish students
being told to go to some state university–instead of Harvard–since we have to make room for blacks.
BTW, your comment "..Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes" needs clarification.
Maybe the tribes got violent because of the 400 treaties Uncle Sam made with the various tribes,
he honored NONE
@jim jones A great part of that is because, well, let's say that the place where those actresses
have got their work done is the same.
Whites have much greater natural variations in hair and eye color, but skin color among East
Asian individuals is more naturally variable (especially when the effect of tanning is considered),
and their facial features and somatotypes are also more diverse in my opinion. For example, East
Asian populations contain some individuals who have what the Japanese call futae mabuta
"double eyelids" and some individuals who have what they call hitoe mabuta "single eyelids,"
whereas White populations contain only individuals who have "double eyelids." Whether such increased
physical variability is positive or negative probably depends on one's viewpoint; in the case
of that eyelid polymorphism, the variant that is found in Asians but not in Whites is generally
considered neutral or even positive when it occurs in male individuals, but negative when it occurs
in female individuals, so plastic surgeons must be overflowing with gratitude for the single eyelid
gene.
@Thorfinnsson The separate school facilities meant a major saving in the costs of school police
and security guards, resource teachers, counselors buses and bus drivers, and layers and layers
of administrators trying to administer the mess.
Separate schools were a lot cheaper in that the black teachers kept the lid on the violence
with physical punishment and the White teachers and students had a civilized environment.
The old sunshine laws kept blacks out of White neighborhoods after dark which greatly reduced
black on White crime. In the north, informal neighborhood watches kept black on White crime to
a minimum until block by block the blacks conquered the cities.
George Wallace said segregation now, segregation forever. I say sterilization now, problem
solved in 80 years.
Asians??? I went to college with the White WASP American young men who were recruited and went
to work in Mountain View and Cupertino and the rest of Santa Clara county and invented Silicon
Valley.
Not one was Asian or even Jewish. And they invented it and their sons couldn't even get into
Stanford because their sons are White American men.
I think the worst thing about affirmative action is that government jobs are about the only
well paid secure jobs that still stick to the 40 hour work week. Government is the largest employer
in the country. And those jobs are "no Whites need apply".
BTW I read the Protocols years before the Internet. I had to make an appointment to go into
a locked section of a research library. I had to show ID. It was brought to me and I had to sit
where I could be seen to read it. I had to sign an agreement that I would not copy anything from
the protocols.
And there it was, the fourth protocol.
"We shall see to it brothers, that we shall see to it that they appoint only the incompetent and
unfit to their government positions. And thus we shall conquer them from within"
@Thomm Only 4) is remotely possible. And Brazilian women are not that attractive, they are
nice looking on postcards, but quite dumpy and weird-looking in person. But that is a matter of
personal taste.
The reason 1,2,3 are nonsensical is that geography and resources matter. Asia simply doesn't
have them, it is not anywhere as attractive to live in as North America or Europe and never will
be. It goes beyond geographic resources, everything from architecture, infrastructure, culture
is simply worse in Asia and it would take hundreds of years to change that.
So why the constant 'go to Asia' or 'Asia is the future'? It might be a temporary escape for
many desperate, self-hating, white Westerners, a place to safely worship as they give up on it
all. Or it could be the endless family links with the Asian women. But that misreads that most
of the Asian families are way to clear-headed to exchange what the are trying to escape for the
nihilistic dreams of their white partners. They are the least likely to go to Asia, they know
it instinctively, they know what they have been trying to escape.
It is possible that the West is on its last legs, and many places are probably gone for good.
But Asia is not going to step up and replace it. It is actually much worse that that – we are
heading for a dramatic downturn and a loss of comfort and civilization. Thank you Baby Boomers
– you are the true end-of-liners of history.
Bright and talented white kids from non-elite families stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis
of Cram-Schooled Study-Asians with no seeming limit to their tolerance for tedium and 90 IQ entitled
blacks is 2017 in a nutshell.
Said in all seriousness: I genuinely feel sorry for blacks but not because of slavery & Jim
Crow. Those were great evils but every group has gone through that. No, I feel sorry for them
because their average IQ of 85–yes, it is–combined with their crass thug culture, which emphasizes
& rewards all the wrong things, is going to keep them mired in dysfunction for decades to come.
Men like Thomas Sowell & Walter Williams have all the information that blacks need to turn themselves
around but they won't listen, I guess because the message is take responsibility for yourselves
and your families and refuse to accept charity in all its different forms to include AA.
some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.
Why not pay people to leave? A law change would convert the money supply from bank money to
sovereign money.
AMI's HR2990 would convert the money supply overnight, and nobody would be the wiser.
At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that
don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of
their choice. This public money can be formed as debt free, and could also be directed such that
it can only buy American goods. In other words, it can be forced to channel, to then stimulate
the American economy.
In this way, the future works, to then get rid of disruptive future elements.
It always boils down to the money system. There is plenty of economic surplus to then fund
the removal of indigestible elements.
People automatically assume that the money supply must be private bank credit, as that is the
way it always has been. NO IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.
@helena If Whites leave America and go back to their origin, no one, I repeat, NO ONE would
complain about that. They'd be singing "God Riddance" song all along.
No one wants to migrate to Ukraine, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Hungary, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Austria, a white country.
Everyone wants to migrate to the place where there's an over-bloated sense of job availability.
In this case, America offers an ample amount of opportunity.
Let's wait and see how universities in CA populated with merit-based Asian Americans overrule
all universities in the US anytime soon.
Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the
world.
Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that well over 95% of the blacks getting AAed into universities
are then being trained/indoctrinated into being future disruptive activists? Activists with credentials,
more money and connections. Entirely counterproductive and much of it on the taxpayers' dime.
If there is a solution, AA isn't it.
@Rdm Can I count you in on the Calexit movement–followed by the purge of whites? Freed from
the burden of those miserable European-origin Americans, the Asian-Negro-Mestizo marvel will be
a shining light to the rest of the world!
I waited to make this comment until the serious thinkers had been here. Did anyone notice the
dame in the picture is giving us the finger? I did a little experiment to see if my hand could
assume that position inadvertently and it couldn't. It aptly illustrates the article, either way.
Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in
the world.
No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?
If you took the land mass of CA and imposed it on the U.S. East Coast between Boston and South
Carolina, I don't think it'd be a problem to surpass California in any Top 50 University competition.
Here's a simpler and more effective solution-KILL ALL NIGGERS NOW. See, not so difficult, was
it? Consider it a Phoenix Program for the American Problem. Actually, here's another idea-KILL
ALL LIBERALS NOW. That way, good conservative people of different races, sexes, etc., can be saved
from the otherwise necessary carnage. Remember, gun control is being able to hit your target.
The affirmative action game may well serve the interests of the cognitive elite whites, but
it has been a disaster for the rest of white America. I have a better solution.
Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro
hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.
Send all Asians and other foreigners who not already citizens back to their homelands. End
all immigration except very special cases like the whites being slaughtered in South Africa or
the spouse of a white American male citizen.
@Rdm I am not referring to guys like in the picture.
I am referring to the very topmost career stars, moving to Asia for the expat life. Some of
that is happening, and it could accelerate. Only 2-3 million are needed.
@Kyle McKenna " And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination
than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it. "
And that's the function of the fraudulent, impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers'.
"The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity
to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of global society
requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old established order, secondly,
design and imposition of the new order. The first stage requires elimination of all frontier
borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical barriers and social definitions, only
then can the destroyed old system elements be replaced by the imposed system elements of our
new order.
The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social formations
created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women must be uprooted
from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type
shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms must only be viewed as
a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is; nothing is good so everything
must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must be gone."
from: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress
@Rdm Almost all white people would rather migrate to Austria, Hungary, and the Ukraine than
the following citadels of civilization:
Angola
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Djibouti
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Niger
Nigeria
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable
& dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money
CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax
revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders,
bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action
monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies
to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies
for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the
iceberg
- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples
Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.
It's particularly unfortunate that Asians, who can hardly be blamed for the plight of America's
Blacks, are the ones from whom the "affirmative action" #groidgeld is extracted.
@Diversity Heretic My impression and overall experience from interacting with White Americans
is good in general. I have a very distinct view on both White Americans and Europeans. I'd come
back later.
I don't recommend purging of Whites in America. Neither do I prohibit immigration of all people.
But I do wish "legal" immigration from all parts of the world to this land. But I also understand
why people are fed up with White America.
There is a clear distinction between Europeans and White Americans. White Americans born and
bred here are usually an admixture of many European origins. They usually hide their Eastern European
origin and fervently claim German, French, English whenever possible -- basically those countries
that used to be colonial masters in the past.
White Americans are generally daring, optimistic and very open-minded. Usually when you bump
into any White Americans born and bred here, you can sense their genuine hospitality.
Europeans, usually fresh White immigrants in this land, tend to carry over their old mentality
with a bit of self-righteous attitude to patronize and condescend Americans on the ground that
this is a young country.
My former boss was Swiss origin, born in England, and migrated to America. If there's an opportunity
cost, he'd regale his English origin. If there's a Swiss opportunity, he'd talk about his ancestry.
He'd bash loud, crazy Americans while extoling his European majesty. He became a naturalized American
last year for tax purposes so that his American wife can inherit if he kicks the bucket.
Bottom line is, every immigrant to the US, in my honest opinion, is very innocent and genuinely
hard working. They have a clear idea of how they like to achieve their dreams here and would like
to work hard. It seems after staying here for a while, they all change their true selves to fit
into the existing societal structure, i.e., Chris Hemsworth, an Australian purposely trained to
speak American English in Red Dawn, can yell "This is our home" while 4th generation Asian Americans
will be forced to speak broken English. This is how dreams are shaped in America.
Coming back to purge of Whites, I only wish those self-righteous obese, bald, bottom of the
barrel, living on the alms Whites, proclaiming their White skin, will go back to their origin
and do something about a coming flood of Muslim in their ancestral country if they're so worried
about their heritage.
@Thomm No, he just wants the street-defecating hangers-on like you to go back and show how
awesome you claim you are in your own country by making a success of it rather than milking all
of the entitlements and affirmative action and other programs of literal racial advantage given
to you by virtue of setting foot in someone else's country.
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable
& dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money
CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax
revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders,
bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action
monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies
to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies
for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the
iceberg
- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples
Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.
Calexit? Please, pretty please. So you're talking about Calexit in AA action?
Let us play along.
If CA is existing solely due to Fed Alms, I can agree it's the tip of the iceberg. But we're
talking about Universities, their performance and how AA is affecting well qualified students.
Following on your arguments,
UC Berkeley receives $373 Millions (Federal Sponsorship) in 2016.
Harvard University, on the other hand, receives $656 millions (Federal sponsorship) in 2012.
I'm talking about how Universities climb up in World ranking, based upon their innovations,
productivity, research output, etc etc etc. Which to me, is reflective of what kind of students
are admitted into the programs. That's my point.
If you want to talk about Calexit, you'd better go and refresh your reading comprehension ability.
The thing that is forgotten is that white Americans DO NOT need the Africans in any way whatsoever.
There is NOTHING in Detroit that we want – we abandoned it deliberately and have no interest in
ever returning.
On the other hand, what do the Africans need from us?
Food. We own and operate all food production.
Medicine. Ditto.
Clean water. Look at Flint.
Sanitation services. Look at anywhere in Africa.
Order.
To put a stop to African behavior from Africans is an idiot's dream. They will never stop being
what they are. They simply cannot. So if we cannot expel them, we must control them. When they
act up, we cut off their food, medicine, water, and sewer services. Build fences around Detroit
and Flint. Siege. After a month or two of the Ethiopian Diet, the Africans in Detroit will be
much more compliant.
@Thomm You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites. Thomm=the
girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck
The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a
White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" .Hindu "Americans"
Sihk "Americans" and Iranian "Americans"?
Answer:0 . Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers go read Denis
Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the
passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act
As some have pointed out, the trouble with appeasement is, it never ends. Those who are used
to the handouts will always want more. There's the saying parents tend to strengthen the strong
and weaken the weak, that's what paternalistic policies like affirmative action and welfare do
to a society. It creates a cycle of dependency.
Those who think multiculturalism coupled with identity politics is a good idea need to take
a good look at Malaysia, arguably the most multicultural country outside the US. The country is
in Southeast Asia, with roughly 30m people, roughly 60% ethnic Malay(100% muslim), 23% Chinese(mostly
buddhist or christian), brought in by the British in the 1800s to work the rubber plantations
and tin mines, and 7% Indian(mostly Hindu), brought in by the British to work the plantations
and civil service.
In 1957 the Brits left and left the power in the hands of the ethnic Malays. The Chinese soon
became the most successful and prosperous group and dominated commerce and the professional ranks.
In 1969 a major race riot broke out, the largely rural and poor Malays decided to "take back what's
theirs", burnt, looted and slaughtered many ethnic Chinese. After the riot the government decided
the only way to prevent more riots is to raise the standard of living for the Malays. And they
began a massive wealth transfer program through affirmative action that heavily favors ethnic
Malays. First, all civil service jobs were given to only ethnic Malays, including the police and
military. Then AA was instituted in all local universities where Malays with Cs and Ds in math
and science were given preference over Chinese with all A's to all the engineering, medicine and
law majors. Today no one in their right mind, not even the rich Malays, want to be treated by
a Malay doctor. I know people who were maimed by one of these affirmative actioned Malay "neurosurgeons"
who botched a simple routine procedure, and there was no recourse, no one is allowed to sue.
Thanks to their pandering to the Malay majority and outright voting fraud, the ruling party
UMNO has never lost an election and is today the longest serving ruling party in modern history.
Any dissent was stifled through the sedition act where dissidents are thrown in jail, roughed
up, tossed down 14th story buildings before they even go to trial. All media is strictly controlled
and censored by the government, who also controls the military, and 100% of the country's oil
production, with a large portion of the profit of Petronas going to the coffers of the corrupt
Malay government elites, whatever's left is given to hoi polloi Malays in the form of fluff job
positions created in civil service, poorly run quasi-government Malay owned companies like Petronas,
full scholarships to study abroad for only ethnic Malays, tax free importation of luxury cars
for ethnic Malays, and when the government decided to "privatize" any government function like
the postal service or telcom, they gave it in the form of a monopoly to a Malay owned company.
All government contracts e.g. for infrastructure are only given to Malay owned companies, even
as they have zero expertise for the job. The clever Chinese quickly figured out they could just
use a Malay partner in name only to get all government contracts.
As opposed to the US where affirmative action favors the minority, in Malaysia AA favors the
majority. You know it can't last. The minority can only prop up the majority for so long. Growth
today is largely propped up by oil income, and the oil reserve is dwindling. Even Mahathir the
former prime minister who started the most blatant racial discrimination policy against the Chinese
started chastising the Malays of late, saying they've become too lazy and dependent on government
largess.
Yet despite the heavy discrimination, the Chinese continued to thrive thanks to their industriousness
and ingenuity, while many rural Malays not connected with the governing elite remain poor -- classic
case of strengthening the strong and weakening the weak. According to Forbes, of the top 10 richest
men in Malaysia today, 9 are ethnic Chinese, only 1 is an ethnic Malay who was given everything
he had. Green with envy, the ethnic Malays demanded more to keep the government in power. So a
new law was made – all Chinese owned businesses have to give 30% ownership to an ethnic Malay,
just like that.
Needless to say all this racial discrimination resulted in a massive brain drain for the country.
many middle class Indians joined the Chinese and emigrated en masse to Australia, NZ, US, Canada,
Europe, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Japan. The ones left are often destitute and poor, heavily discriminated
against due to their darker skin, and became criminals. Al Jazeera recently reported that the
7% ethnic Indians in Malaysia commit 70% of the crime.
To see how much this has cost Malaysia -- Singapore split off from Malaysia 2 years after their
joint independence from Britain and was left in destitute as they have no natural resources. But
Lee Kuan Yew with the help of many Malaysian Chinese who emigrated to Singapore turned it into
one of the richest countries in the world in one generation with a nominal per capita GDP of $53k,
while Malaysia is firmly stuck at $9.4k, despite being endowed with natural resources from oil
to tin and beautiful beaches. The combination of heavy emigration among the Chinese and high birthrate
among the muslim Malays encouraged by racialist Mahathir, the Chinese went from 40% of the population
in 1957 to 23% today. The Indians went from 11% to 7%.
I fear that I'm seeing the same kind of problem in the US. It's supremely stupid for the whites
to want to give up their majority status through open borders. Most Asians like me who immigrated
here decades ago did it to get away from the corrupt, dishonest, dog-eat-dog, misogynistic culture
of Asia. But when so many are now here, it defeats the purpose. The larger the immigrant group,
the longer it takes to assimilate them. Multiculturalism is a failed concept, especially when
coupled with identity politics. Affirmative Action does not work, it only creates a toxic cycle
of dependency. The US is playing with fire. We need a 20 year moratorium on immigration and assimilate
all those already here. Otherwise, I fear the US will turn into another basketcase like Malaysia.
@Tom Welsh There were only about one million Indians living in what is the United States in
1500. There are now 3 million living in much better conditions than in 1500.
I would be willing to accept non White immigration if the non White immigrants and our government
would end affirmative action for non Whites.
Asians are discriminated against in college admissions. But in the job market they have affirmative
action aristocratic status over Whites.
@Diversity Heretic John Derbyshire has made similar arguments--racial preferences are the
price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian
children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial
lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.
There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain
in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant
retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites
can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they
are able.
Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional
domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect
the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice,
The Black are protesting relentlessly and loudly verbally and thru assertive actions about
the racial discrimination they have been facing. I have never seen those academically unqualified
blacks admitted to the elite schools have stood up using themselves as shiny examples to refute
the discrimination allegations the Black made against the White.
While the policy to protect the racial peace by admitting academically unqualified blacks to
elite schools failed miserably, the restricting the smart and qualified Asians to elite schools
is blatantly racial injustice practice exercised in broad day light with a straight face lie.
The strategy is to cause resentment between the minorities so that the White can admitting their
academically unqualified ones to elite schools without arousing scrutiny.
Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind
Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are
responsible for Nazism. I mean
Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party.
Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns
with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials.
LOL.
Things change.
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.
Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic
Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.
Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.
Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.
Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was
the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction
was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.
Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.
Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He
favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some
degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past,
they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative'
or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism,
therefore, it was essentially leftist.
@Joe Wong All the Whites and Asians who are admitted to the top 25 schools are superbly qualified.
There are so many applicants every White and Asian is superbly qualified.
The entire point of affirmative action is that Asians and Whites are discriminated against
in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Harvard proudly proclaims that is now majority non White.
Don't worry, the Jews decided long ago that you Asian drones would have medicine and tech,
Hispanics construction, food, trucking,and cleaning and Hispanics and blacks would share government
work and public education.
Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the
Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.
@Wally So you are a tough guy, and never give in anything to anyone in your life? It seems
the Jews have similar view as yours, the Jews insist that if they give in an inch to those Holocaust
deniers, they will keep demanding more & more, at the beginning the Holocaust deniers will demand
for the evidence, then they will demand the Jews are at fault, then they will demand the Nazi
to be resurrected, then they will demand they can carry out Holocaust against anyone they don't
like, Pretty soon they will demand they to be treated like the pigs in the Orwellian's Animal
Farm.
@Priss Factor Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.
Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.
They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.
Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.
Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.
Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.
Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.
If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform
to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.
But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal
PC tards.
Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate,
and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell
Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bs_BbIBCoY
Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then,
you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who
ran from dirty browns shi**ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches
about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must
mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After
all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?
PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of
slave ancestry. That's it.
Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent
the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the
lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but...' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination
but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest. Asia is a big continent and Asians of
different ethnicity have very different voting patterns due to their culture and history. Japanese-Americans
tend to be the most liberal ethnic group of all Asian groups because of their experience with
internment during WWII. Somehow they conveniently forgot that it was a Democrat president who
put them in internment, and are now putting the blames squarely on the right for what happened.
These Japanese-Americans are drinking the kool-aid big time, but in the 90s I remember a Japanese
prime minister got in big trouble for saying America's biggest problem is we have too many blacks
and hispanics dragging us down.
Filipinos, Hmongs and other Southeast Asians tend to be poor and rely on government largess
to a certain extent, and also benefit from affirmative action at least in the state of CA, they
also tend to be liberal.
In this election cycle Indian-Americans have become the most vocal anti-Trumpers. From Indian
politicians from WA state like Kshama Sawant, Pramila Jayapal to Indian entertainers like Aziz
Ansari, Hasan Minaj, Kumail Nanjani, to Silicon Valley techies like Calexit mastermind VC Shervin
Pishevar, Google CEO Sundra Pichai, all are socialist libtards. In my local election, several
Indians are running for city council. All are first generation, all Democrats and champions of
liberal policies. It's as if they have amnesia(or just lower IQ), not remembering that socialism
was why they had to leave the shithole India to begin with. A Korean American is running as a
Republican.
There are Chinese idiots like Ted Lieu and other asians who've gone to elite schools therefore
drinking the kool-aid and insisted AA is good for Asian Americans, but most Koreans, Vietnamese
and Chinese tend to be more conservative and lean Republican. During the Trump campaign Breitbart
printed a story about a group of Chinese Americans voicing their support for Trump despite his
anti-China rhetoric because they had no intention of seeing the US turned into another socialist
shithole like China.
Per the NYT a major reason Asians vote Republican is because of AA. Asians revere education,
esp. the Chinese and Koreans, and they see holistic admission is largely bullshit set up by Jews
to protect their legacy status while throwing a few bones to under qualified blacks and hispanics.
Unfortunately it didn't seem to dampen their desire to immigrate here. Given that there are 4
billion Asians and thanks to open borders, if it weren't for AA all our top 100 schools will be
100% Asian in no time. I suggest we first curtail Asian immigration, limit their number to no
more than 10,000 a year, then we can discuss dismantling AA.
California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between
percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Delaware would be
the least dependent state in the US.
California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between
percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Maine would be among
the least dependent states in the US.
@Astuteobservor II The Indian tribe in tech is known to favor Indians in hiring. I've read
from other Indian posters elsewhere that Indian managers like to hire Indian underlings because
they are easier to bully.
Indian outsourcing firms like Infosys, TCS, Wipro are like 90% Indian, mostly imported directly
from India, with token whites as admin or account manager.
@Carlton Meyer That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls. Probably son of some corrupt Chinese
government official used to being treated like an emperor back home, ain't taking no shit from
black folks.
I suppose this is what happens when universities clamor to accept foreign students because
they are full pay. His tuition dollar is directly subsidizing these affirmative action hacks,
who are now preventing him from studying. He has fully paid for his right to tell them to STFU.
@Beckow Romans did not think Europe was a nice place to live, full of bloodthirsty barbarians,
uneducated, smelly, dirty, foul mouth and rogue manner, even nowadays a lot of them cannot use
full set of tableware to finish their meal, a single fork will do, it is a litte more civilized
than those use fingers only.
After a millennium of dark age of superstition, religious cult suppression, utter poverty medieval
serf Europe, it followed by centuries of racial cleanses, complete destruction of war, stealing
and hypocrisy on industrial scale, this time not only restricted to Europe the plague flooded
the whole planet.
Even nowadays the same plague from Europe and its offshoots in the North America is threatening
to exterminate the human beings with a big bang for their blinding racial obligatory. The rest
of the world only can hope this plague would stay put in North America and Europe, so the rest
world can live in peace and prosperity.
Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.
Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.
1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians
The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a
White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans"...Korean "Americans"....Hindu "Americans"...Sihk
"Americans"...and Iranian "Americans"?
Answer:0.... Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers...go read Denis Kearney's
Rebel Rousing speeches...google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage
of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act... It is MUCH better to be a libertarian than to
be a Nationalist-Leftist. You have effectively admitted that you want intra-white socialism since
you can't hack it yourself.
Socialists = untalented losers.
Plus, I guarantee that your ancestors were not in America since 1776. You are just some 2nd-gen
Polack or something.
@Priss Factor Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism,
but what a clown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY
Dineshisms are always funny as hell.
Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind
Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are
responsible for Nazism. I mean...
Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party.
Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns
with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials.
LOL.
Things change.
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.
Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic
Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.
Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.
Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.
Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was
the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction
was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.
Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.
Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He
favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some
degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past,
they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative'
or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism,
therefore, it was essentially leftist. "Stalin brought back high culture and classical music.
He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones."
Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist
aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.
@Joe Franklin Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups
of diversity.
Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.
1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians That is completely false. You just memorized that from some
bogus site.
Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due
to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.
Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.
H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.
Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success
was not due to AA.
@Thomm Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able
to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against
ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.
There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal
enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad!
Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control
the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.
I don't think this is correct
Since California already has (very roughly) the future demographics you're considering, I think
it serves as a good test-case.
The Hispanic and Asian populations have been growing rapidly, and they tend to hold an increasing
share of the political power, together with the large white population, though until very recently
most of the top offices were still held by (elderly) whites. Whites would have much more political
power, except that roughly half of them are still Republicans, and the Republican Party has almost
none.
In most of the urban areas, there's relatively little black crime these days since so many
of the blacks have been driven away or sent off to prison. I'd also say that major black riots
in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they
don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead while being backed
up by the politicians, and many of the blacks probably recognize this. Admittedly, CA always had
a relatively small black population, but that didn't prevent enormous black crime and black riots
in the past due to the different demographics.
Meanwhile, Jewish-activists still possess enormous influence over CA politics, but they exert
that influence through money and media, just like they do everywhere else in the country.
@F the media that is actually true about indians. I have first hand account of a 100+ tech
dept getting taken over by indians in just 3 years :/ but that is not a "quota" that is just indians
abusing their power once in position of power.
@VinteuilPriss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't
favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.
Right.. Ballet, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and classic literature. That's some pop crap.
Soviet Culture was about commie Lena Dunhams.
Now, most of Soviet culture was what might be called kitsch or middlebrow stuff, but it was
not 'pop crap' as known in the West.
@Saxon Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able
to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against
ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.
There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal
enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad! Whatever helps you
sleep at night..
Yesterday I was called a Jew. Today, it is Indian. In reality, I am a white American guy.
You white trashionalists can't get your stories straight, can you? Well, WNs are known for
having negro IQs.
Asians don't get affirmative action. They outscore whites in the SAT.
@Thomm That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.
Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due
to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.
Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.
H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.
Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success
was not due to AA. You have reading comprehension problems to have confused Federal 8A government
contacts with Section 8 housing.
8A contracts are federal contracts granted to "socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s)."
The business must be majority-owned (51 percent or more) and controlled/managed by socially
and economically disadvantaged individual(s).
The individual(s) controlling and managing the firm on a full-time basis must meet the SBA
requirement for disadvantage, by proving both social disadvantage and economic disadvantage.
Definition of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals
Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice
or cultural bias because of their identities as members of groups without regard to their individual
qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following individuals are presumed to be socially
disadvantaged:
• Black Americans;
• Hispanic Americans (persons with origins from Latin America, South America, Portugal and
Spain);
• Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians);
• Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea,
Samoa, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands [Republic of Palau], Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, Laos, Cambodia [Kampuchea], Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Singapore, Brunei, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Macao, Hong
Kong, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru);
• Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal);
• And members of other groups designated from time to time by the SBA.
@Joe Wong Romans lived in Europe, get an atlas, Rome is in Europe. I will skip over your silly
summaries of European history, we all can do it to any civilization all day. Pointless. Try China.
Oh, I forgot, nobody knows much Chinese up and downs because it was mostly inconsequential.
If you call others 'racist' all the time, they might just not take your seriously. Or simply
say, fine, if liking one's culture is now 'racism', if it is a white culture, then count me in.
The rest of the world is tripping over itself to move – literally to physically move – to Europe
and North America. Why do you think that is?
I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local
police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot
the black rioters dead
Oh, would you stop being a make-believe pundit, Ron? That is some commentary you copped from
an OJ-era LA Times expose. You've had one conversation with a police officer in your life, and
that was over an illegal left term outside the Loma Linda Starbucksand culminated in disturbing
the peace when exited your Bentley yelling "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!" at the top of your lungs
for 4 minutes.
Whenever you've had a nudity-mandatory, eyes-wide-shut, type globalist-soiree at your palatial
mansion, the only people you invited were politicians, lawyers, Ivy-league economists, Silicon
Valley tech nerds and hookers.
@Joe Franklin We've been over this. 8a is not given to anyone with over $250,000 in assets,
as your own link indicates. This means most Asians can't use it anyway (not that they need to).
The whole program should be done away with, of course.
What is funny is that you can't accept that Asians have higher SAT scores than whites, which
pretty much proves that they can (and do) outperform without AA. You WN idiots can't come to terms
with that.
But Section 8a should be removed just so that WN wiggers don't have anything to hide behind,
since Asians don't need it to excel.
@Thomm These untalented Socialists you refer to would include the vast majority of America
1969 90 percent Native Born White America .a White Nation that placed two Alpha Native Born White
American Males on the Moon .ten more after that. Seems that Socialism worked just fine.
If you prefer an Asian Majority you can always pack your bags and pick the Asian Nation of
your choice.
@Ron Unz hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will
not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave
if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made
for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.
So with future aa population of 14%, that's 60 million blacks in america in 2060 timeframe,
although that will have an increasing amount of immigration from africa, which tends to be more
educated (at least 1st and 2nd generation).
Asians will be about 8%, so that's a poweful community of 40 million. I see tech and wall street
with increasing amount of asian representations.
What i would be interested in seeing if there will any maverick asian billionaires that could
disrupt the narrative.
This article may tend to take your mind off the real racial injustice at Harvard. In an article
"Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans" in the NY Times, August 3, 2017 ANEMONA
HARTOCOLLIS and STEPHANIE SAUL wrote ""The Harvard lawsuit likens attitudes toward Asian-Americans
to attitudes toward Jews at Harvard, beginning around 1920, when Jews were a high-achieving minority.
In 1918, Jews reached 20 percent of the Harvard freshman class, and the university soon proposed
a quota to lower the number of Jewish students."" In my humble opinion this is a misleading statement
which implies that the admission of Jews remained below 20% in the years after 1918. In fact Hillel
reports that in recent years the admission of jews to Harvard has been around 25% of the class.
This means that almost half of the class are white and half of this white group are Jews. That
seems like an amazing over-representation of Jews who are only 2% of our population. So, at least
as many Jews as Asians are admitted to Harvard. No wonder the Asians are upset. I note that this
article does not point out this Jewish bias in admissions at Harvard and neither did the Asians.
Is this another manifestation of political correctness? Or is it an egregious example of racism?
This problem is the real elephant in the room. This is the Jewish racism that dare not speak its
name. Until lately.
@Truth Truth, you is so wise and true. You's right. Them Russian dummies didn't have no vibrant
black folks to make fun music that could make them wiggle their butts all their night long. So,
they grew stale and bored and drank too much vodka, caught fish with penis, and wrestled with
bears and didn't have the all the cool stuff like the US has.
All the world needs to be colonized by superior Negroes cuz folks will just die of boredom.
At least if you get killed by Negroes, it's exciting-like.
hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not
have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave
if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be
made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.
Well, my California analogy was self-admittedly very rough and approximate given the considerable
differences in demographics. But I strongly suspect that such considerations provide a hidden
key to some contentious national policies of the last couple of decades, and I've actually written
extensively on the subject:
@Anon I imagine it was far different before the defense wind-downs of the mid 90s. Along with
the many cut-backs a lot of defense was moved out of California by the contractors as punishment
for California's liberal Congressmen. Companies that merged with California based operation usually
consolidated outside California such as when Raytheon swallowed up Hughes Aircraft Companies defense
operations and moved R&D to Massachusetts.
@Liberty Mike I know several white people who would rather live in Botswana than the Ukraine.
They have the advantage of having visited . The rest of your list seems pretty sound with the
possible exception of Swaziland.
P.S. If you deleted Austria and Hungary and replaced them by Albania and Kosovo you might make
your point even stronger.
@Thomm You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society.
Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional
civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you
would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins
would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of
the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given
explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say,
some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably
only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
@Thomm I seem to remember you telling everybody that Asians DON'T get affirmative action JUST
GOOGLE IT without ever offering proof. Of course it never occurred to you that there could never
be any documented proof of something like that. There isn't even official documented proof that
white males don't get affirmative action. When people claimed and linked to articles indicating
Asians are considered disadvantaged by the government, you claimed those people didn't know what
they were talking about JUST GOOGLE IT.
I think you made it quite obvious who the idiot is.
It's time to force our "Golden Dozen" (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Amherst and Williams) to admit
100% black until the average black income($43k) equals that of average white income($71k).
@Thomm The worst hate crimes I have personally witnessed were perpetrated by black men. I
have also seen more casual racism against Asians from blacks than from whites. This might be different
in other parts of the country or world.
Outside of the U.S., East Asians are the least likely to want to engage in some kind of anti-white
alliance since all of the West's most embarrassing military defeats have come from East Asians.
We have always relied on guns and not white guilt for racial equality.
@Ronnie In case you haven't noticed, Jews run this country. They dominate the media, academia,
Wall Street, Hollywood, Capitol Hill via the DNC and lobbying firms, Silicon Valley. Per the NYT
80% of Jews are self-proclaimed liberals. They are obsessed with dismantling the WASP World Order
that in their mind has oppressed them for the last 2000 years. The Ivy League is the pipeline
to these 6 sectors that collectively control the country, whoever controls Harvard controls the
country. Jews not only make up majority of the elite college faculty (esp. in the social sciences)
but are disproportionately benefiting from legacy admission and development cases(admission of
the dim witted sons and daughters of the rich and famous like Malia Obama, Jared Kushner, all
of Al Gore's kids).
Asians are the next up. Practically all Asians who've gone to the Ivy League or Stanford have
voiced their support for affirmative action, many are left wing nuts like the Jews. CA house representative
Ted Liu is one such kool-aid drinking Asian libtard, along with the HI judge Derrick Watson and
Baltimore judge Theodore Chuang, both of whom blocked Trump's temp. suspension of Muslim refugees,
both went to Harvard Law. As an Asian I would be more than happy if the Ivy League simply make
themselves off limits to all Asians and turn their schools 100% black. We don't need more Asians
to get indoctrinated in their dumb liberal ideology and go down in history as the group next to
the Jews and the blacks who destroyed America.
@Saxon You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society.
Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional
civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you
would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins
would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of
the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given
explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say,
some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably
only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
No they don't, as this very article explains. Could you BE more of a retard?
Plus, the fact that Asians get higher SAT scores than whites proves that they don't need it.
There is a left-wing conspiracy to hide Asian success.
Now, regarding an underachieving WN faggot like you :
Remember that white variance is very high. Excellent whites (like me) exist only because genetic
waste master has to be removed from the other end of the process. You and other WNs represent
that genetic waste matter, and that is why white women are doing a heroic duty of cutting you
off (at least the minority of WNs that are straight. Most are gay, as Jack Donovan has explained).
Nature wants the waste matter you comprise of to be expelled.
If you cared about the white race, you would be extremely glad that white women are cutting
you off, as that is necessary to get rid of the pollution that you represent.
Heh heh heh heh . it is so much fun to put a WN faggot in its place.
@MarkinLA No, I talked about 8a even two weeks ago. Good god, you WN really do have negro
IQs.
8a benefits Asians the least, and THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ANYWAY. There should
be no AA, ever.
8a harms Asians as it taints their otherwise pristine claim to having succeeded without AA.
They don't need 8a, most don't qualify for it as they exceed the $250,000 cutoff, and it lets
WN faggots claim that 'all of Asian success is due to AA', which is demonstrably false.
Read this slowly, 10 times, so that even a wigger like you can get it.
Don't let these WN faggots get away with claiming all of Asian success is merely due to affirmative
action. In reality, Asians don't get affirmative action (other than wrongly being included in
the Section 8a code form the 1980s, which ultimately was used by barely 2% of the Asian community).
Remember that among us whites, variance is extremely high. The prettiest woman alongside pretty
of ugly fat feminists (who the WN losers still worship). The smartest men, and then these loserish
WNs with low IQs and no social skills. White variance is very high.
That is why WNs are so frustrated. They can't get other whites to give them the time of day,
and white women are super-committed to shutting out WN loser males from respectable society.
Don't let them claim that Asian success is solely due to affirmative action. Remember, respectable
whites hate these WN faggots.
@Thomm You're not white, though. You're a rentseeker hanging onto someone else's country and
the fact that you write barely literate garbage posts with no substance to them tells all about
your intellect and your "high achievement." You're not high quality. You're mediocre at best and
probably not even that since your writing is so bad.
Do you even do statistics, though? Whites make up about 70% of the national merit scholars
in the US yet aren't in the Ivies at that rate. Harvard for example is maybe only 25% white. Asians
are over-represented compared to their merit and jews way over-represented over any merit. Now
how does that happen without nepotism? The whole system of any racial favoritism should be scrapped
but of course that wouldn't benefit people like you, Thomm.
Whites aren't more innovative and ambitious than Chinese people. You only have to look at the
chinless Unite the Right idiots in Charlottesville to dispel any idea that whites are the superior
race. The
This Thomm character is obviously of East Asian origin. His tedious, repetitive blather about
Asians, white women, and "white nationalist faggots" is a telltale sign. One of his type characteristically
sounds like he would be so much less distressed if those white males were not white nationalist
faggots.
@Tom Welsh An interesting historical argument My reply Land isn't money Arguably the Normans
came back in the form of the Plantagenets to contest the French throne in the 100 Years War. But
by that time France wasn't nearly so feeble
Giving Negroes land in the form of a North American homeland appeals to me (provided whites
get one too) although I know the geography is agonizing Blacks tend not to like this suggestion–they
realize how depedent they are on whites That wasn't true of the Normans–quite self-reliant fellows!
@Thomm I'm not sure what it was that I said that made you think I think all Asian success
is due to AA. In fact I think the opposite is true, that Asians succeed in spite of AA, which
is set up solely to hinder Asians from joining the club, and as far as I'm concern, it's a club
of sell-out globalist libtards that I wouldn't want more Asians to join.
I've worked in tech long enough to know that in tech, no one gives a fudge where you went to
school. I am surrounded by deca-millionaires who went to state schools, many aren't even flagship,
some didn't even study STEM. Some didn't even go to college or graduate. The only people I know
who still care about the Ivy League are 1st generation often FOB China/India trash, and a small
number of Jewish kids looking to benefit from legacy admission, most are gay and/or serious libtards.
You can tell that Jewish achievement has fallen off a cliff as Ron Unz asserted by looking
at a certain popular college website. The longest running thread that's been up there for nearly
a decade with over a thousand pages and over 18,000 posts is called "Colleges for the Jewish "B"
student". The site is crawling with uber liberal Jewish mothers and monitored by a gang of Ivy
graduated SJWs who strictly enforce their "safe space", posters who post anything at all that
might offend anyone (affirmative action is always a sensitive topic) are either thrown in "jail"
i.e. ban from posting for a month, or kicked off altogether. The SJW forum monitors even directly
edit user comments as they see fit, first amendment rights be damned. This is the future of all
online forums if the left have their way, the kind of censorship that Piers Morgan advocates.
Asians are over-represented compared to their merit
False. The main article here alone proves otherwise, plus dozens of other research articles.
You just can't stand that Asian success is due to merit. But you have bigger problems, since
as a WN, you can't even compete with blacks.
What bugs you the most is that successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time
of day. Most tune you idiots out, but I like to remind you that you are waste matter that is being
expunged through the natural evolutionary process.
Yes, more so if they are leftists (including Nationalist-Leftists like WNs are). But the fact
that WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan points out) also explains why they tend to
look grotesque, and it supports the scientific rationale that they are wastebaskets designed to
expedite the removal of genetic waste matter.
White variance in talent/looks/intelligence is high. WN loser males and fat, ugly feminists
represent the bottom. In the old days, these two would be married to each other since even the
lowest tiers were paired up. Today, thankfully, both are being weeded out.
@Pachyderm Pachyderma Not just that, but some of these 'white nationalists' are just recent
immigrants from Poland and Ukraine. They are desperate to take credit for Western Civilization
that they did nothing to create. Deep down, they know that during the Cold War, they were not
considered 'white' in America.
400 years? i.e. when most of what is now the lower-48 was controlled by a Spanish-speaking
government? Yeah Many of these WNs have been here only 30-70 years. That is one category (the
domestic WN wiggers are the other)
@Thomm It's too late, everybody knows what I wrote is true and that you are some pathetic
millennial libertarian pajama boy. The sad fact is that you can't even man up and admit that you
wrote that BS about "Asians don't get affirmative action just google it". See that would have
at least have been a sign of maturity, admitting you were wrong.
There is no point reading anything, even once, from a pathetic pajama boy like you.
@MarkinLA I openly said that I am proud to be libertarian. Remember, talented people can hack
in on their own, so they are libertarians.
Untalented losers (like you) want socialism so that you can mooch off of others.
Plus, Asians don't get affirmative action outside of one obscure place (Section 8a) which they
often don't qualify for ($250K asset cutoff), don't need, and was never used by more than 2% of
the Asian-American community. The fact that Asian SAT scores are higher than whites explains
why Asians outperform without AA.
Plus, this very article says that Asians are being held back. A WN faggot like you cannot grasp
that even though you are commenting in the comments of this article. Could you be any dumber?
I realize you are not smart enough to grasp these basic concepts, but that is why we all know
that white trashionalists have negro IQs.
Now begone; you are getting in the way of your betters.
Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence,
whites occupy both extremities of human quality.
Hence, the hierarchy of economic productivity is :
Talented whites (including Jews)
Asians (East and South)
Hispanics
Blacks
Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).
That is why :
1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites.
2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
4) WNs are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves
with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes
sense based on the hierarchy above.
5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine
the worst of all worlds.
6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything
to do with white trashionalists.
7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals
to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets.
8) The 80s movie 'Twins' was in effect a way to make these wastebaskets feel good, as eventually,
the Arnold Schwarzenegger character bonded with the Danny DeVito character. But these two twins
effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified
by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. In reality, these two would
never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.
This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.
Elite colleges are a prime example of left wing hypocrisy. The same people who are constantly
calling for an equal society are at the same time perpetuating the most unequal society by clamoring
to send their kids to a few elite schools that will ensure their entry to or retain their ranks
among the elites. Equality for everyone else, elitism for me and my kids. David Brook's nausea
inducing self-hating pablum "How we are ruining America" is a prime example of this hypocrisy.
Another good example of left wing hypocrisy is on "school integration". The same people who
condemn "bad schools" for the urban poor and call for more integration are always the first to
move into the whitest possible neighborhoods as soon as they have kids. They aren't willing to
sacrifice their own kids, they just want other people to sacrifice their children by sending them
to bad schools.
If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
When I first saw the title of this article, I, being an Asian, was a tad insulted. It smelled
like Dr. Weissberg was attempting to create (or at least escalate) racial strife between Asians
and blacks. I then read through the article and evaluated the bad and the good.
First the bad: Dr. Weissberg's assertion that Asians are being hurt by the Affirmative Action
promotion of blacks is a bit exaggerated. This is because most Asians go into rigorous difficult
programs such as engineering, science, and medicine. Most black affirmative action babies go into
soft programs such as Black Studies (and whatever else the humanities have degenerated into).
Now the good: I think this is the most true portion of the essay.
Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton
where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven
divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's
left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion
by decapitating its potential leadership.
I have once wrote that whites stopped sneering at MLK when Malcolm X and the Black Panthers
began taking center stage. They sure became more accommodating of "moderate" blacks. With all
of the terrorist attacks going on and with blacks converting to Islam, I don't think we're going
to get rid of affirmative action any time soon.
@Vinteuil Stalin alternated between favoritism and intimidation. The truth is he did have
an eye and ear for culture unlike Mao who was a total philistine.
If Stalin really hated artists, he would have killed all of them.
He appreciated them but kept a close eye.
He loved the first IVAN THE TERRIBLE by Eisenstein, but he sensed that the second one was a
criticism of him, and Eisenstein came under great stress.
OK, well, Stalin loved the movies, and may have had an eye for effective cinema. But when it
came to music he was, precisely, a total philistine. On this point, I again recommend Shostakovich's
disputed *Testimony,* a work unique in its combination of hilarity and horror, both of which come
to a head in his account of the competition to write a new national anthem to replace the internationale
– pp. 256-64. A must read.
@DB Cooper For the same reason North Korea is poorer than South Korea, despite being the same
people.
For the same reason the GDR was so much poorer than the FRG, despite the same people.
You probably never even thought about that.
A bad political system takes decades to recover from. Remember that the British also strip-mined
India for 200 years..
Come on, these are novice questions
If you think the success of Asian-Americans in general (and Indian-Americans in particular)
does not jive with your beliefs, then the burden of explaining what that is, is on you.
Indians happen to be the highest-income group in the US. Also very high are Filipinos and Taiwanese.
Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public
universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative. No black violence ensued. There is little
reason to think the black response would be different if the 8 Ivy League universities ended their
policies of racial preferences. Blacks would adjust their expectations. Fear of black rioting
and the desire to jumpstart the creation of a large and peaceful black middle class may have been
important motives for the initial development of racial preference policies in the late 1960s;
they are not major reasons for their retention and continued support from white administrators
today. Other reasons and motives are operative (including what I call R-word dread).
PS: Cornel West has moved from Princeton to Harvard Divinity School.
"Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread
1960s style urban violence."
Except back in the '60′s; the White, Euro-derived people were unwilling to fight back. They
felt guilty and half-blamed themselves. Not. Any. More! The costs -- social, mental, emotional,
physical; pick your metric! -- have now exceeded the patience of WAY more Americans than the media
is letting on.
Did you not see 20- and 30-THOUSAND, mostly White Euro-derived, Americans rallying to candidate -- and now President -- Trump's side? (No, the media carefully clipped the videos to hide those
numbers, but there they (we!) were! We're done! We're fed up! "FEEDING" these destructive vermin
to keep them from destroying our houses and families (and nation and country!) is no longer acceptable!
You "don't let Gremlins eat after midnight"? Well, we did -- and now we're in a war against them.
You think this capitulating in education is preventing 'widespread 1960s-style urban violence?
Have you not watched the news? We pretty much already are: ask NYC how many "sliced with a knife"
attacks they have there! In JUST Jan. and Feb., there were well more than 500! (Seriously vicious
attacks with knives and razor blades -- media mentioned it once for a few days, and then shut up.)
Look at the fair in Indianapolis; count up rape statistics; investigate the "knock-out game" ("polar
bear hunting" -- guess who's the polar bear?!). (Oh yeah, and: Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago; look
at ANY black-filled ruin of a city ) If (when!) we finally have to (CHOOSE to) deal with this
low-grade war -- WHO is better armed, better prepared, SMARTER, and fed up?
"This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those
smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs."
Wait, wait -- these are White schools, built by White Americans FOR White Americans! "Oh, the
poor Asians are not getting their 'fair share' cause the blacks are getting way more than their
'fair share'?! The Asians' 'fair share' is GO HOME!! The Asians don't have a 'fair share' in White
AMERICAN universities; we LET them come here and study -- and that is a KINDNESS: they don't have
a 'fair share' of OUR country! How about: stop giving preferences to every damned race and nationality
other than the one that BUILT this country and these universities!
@War for Blair Mountain Call them what they are: "paperwork Americans"! Having the paperwork
does NOT make them Americans, and nothing ever will!
Imagine a virgin land with no inhabitants: if you took all the Chinese "Americans" or all the
Pakistani "Americans" or Black "Americans" or Mexican "Americans" (funny, why did you leave those
last two out?! Way more of them than the others ) and moved them there, would they -- COULD they
ever -- create another America? No, they would create another China, or another Pakistan -- or their
own version of the hellholes their forebears (or they themselves) came from. ONLY White, ONLY
Euro-derived Americans could recreate an America.
And this goes, also, to answer the grumbling "Native" Americans who were also NOT native, yes?
Siberia, Bering land bridge, ever heard of those? Do you not even know your own pre-history?!
What "America" was here when it was a sparse population of warring tribes of variously related
Indian groups? What did your forebears make of this continent?
Nothing. There would be no "America" where everyone wants to come and benefit by taking; because
ONLY the White settlers (not immigrants: SETTLERS!) were able to create America! And as all you
non-Americans (AND paperwork "Americans") continue to swamp and change America for your own benefit -- you will be losing the very thing you came here to take (unfair!) advantage of!
At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks
that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country
of their choice.
Chip 'em and ship 'em! Microchip where they CAN'T 'dig it out' to prevent them from ever ever
ever returning! And ship 'em out! I'd pay a LOT to have this done!
Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro
hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.
They (we!) tried that years ago. The BLACK COPS SUED because they were working in the shittiest
places with the shittiest, most violent people -- and "the White cops had it easy."
NOT EVEN the blacks want to be with the blacks -- hence them chasing down every last White person,
to inflict their Dis-Verse-City on us!
The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them.
Alas, typical "paperwork American" lack of understanding! I wrote this to a (White) American
who wants to keep importing everyone ("save the children!") -- and, she insisted, they "could"
assimilate. However, here's what 'assimilate" means:
Suppose you and your family decided to move to, say, Cambodia. You go there intending to "get
your part of the Cambodian dream," you go there to become Cambodian citizens, to assimilate and
join them, not to invade and change them. You want to adopt their ways, to *assimilate.* Yes?
This is how you describe legal immigrants to OUR country (The United States.)
How long would it take for you and your children to be (or even just feel) "assimilated"? How
long would it take for you to see your descendants as "assimilated" -- AS Cambodians? Years? Decades?
Generations? Would you be trying to fit in -- and "become" Cambodians; or would you be trying to
not forget your heritage? ("Heritage"?! Like, Cinco de Mayo, which they don't even celebrate IN
Mexico? Or Kwanza -- a CIA-invented completely fake holiday!)
More important: since it's their country -- how long until THEY see you as "Cambodians" and
not foreigners. I know a man and family who have lived in Italy for over 20 years. To the Italians
in the village where they live, they are still "stranieri": strangers. After this long, to the
local Italians, they're not just "the Americans who moved here" -- they're " our Americans" -- but they are still seen as 100% not Italian, not local: not "assimilated"!
Would you and your children and grandchildren learn to speak, read, and write Cambodian -- and
stop trying to use English for anything much in your new homeland? Would you join their clubs -- would you join their NATIONAL RELIGION!? Does "becoming Cambodian" -- does "assimilating" -- not
actually include (trying to) become Cambodian (and, thus, ceasing to be American)? (If
that were even possible; and it's not.) "Assimilation" is a stupid hope, not a possible reality.
That is where my friend balked. She said: she and her family are very Christian, and no way
at all ever would they drop Christianity and pick up Cambodian Buddhism. So -- how can they EVER
"assimilate" when they (quite rightly) REFUSE to assimilate?!
Please stop buying into the lies the destroyers of OUR nation keep selling. There is no such
thing as "assimilation"; only economic parasitism, jihadi invasion, and benefiting from the systems
set up by OUR forebears for THEIR posterity!
In my origin state of Tamil Nadu, the effective anti-brahmin quota is 100% ( de-jure is just
69% )
Sundar Pichai or Indira Nooyi or Vish Anand ( former Chess champ ) or Ramanujam ( late math
whiz ), cant get a Tamil Nadu State Gov , Math school teacher job
Also, the US gets a biased selection of Indians in terms of caste, class and education
Of Tamil Speakers in USA, about 50% are Tamil Brahmins, vs just 2% in India
The bottom 40% in terms of IQ, such as Muslims, Untouchables and Forest Tribals, are no more
than 10% in the US Indian diaspora
For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower
For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower
This is interesting, as it puts paid to the obsession that WN idiots have with 'whiteness'.
Pakistan is obviously much more Caucasoid than India and certainly Sri Lanka.
Afghanistan is whiter still. Many in Afghanistan would pass for bona-fide white in the US.
Yet Sri Lanka is richer than India, which is richer than Pakistan, which is richer than Afghanistan.
Either Islam is a negative factor that nullifies everything else including genetics, or something
else is going on.
What there is no doubt of is that Asia has been the largest economic region of the world by
far except for the brief 200-year deviation (1820-2020), as per that map I posted.
@Thomm Weissberg asks, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left
behind in the Hood?"
Why focus on the LEFT buttock? His point would be as relevant were he to ask, "Why would a
black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's RIGHT behind in the Hood?" Either way, I smell
kinkyness deep within Weissberg's question.
"Divide and Rule" said the Romans. Incorporate the potential leaders of those you intend to
rule into your hereditary upper class, and the vast majority will stay inert at the least. And
many will actively support you. See this post by a black woman:
Black Americans: The Organized Left's Expendable Shock Troops .
People like Cornel West are not only NOT rabble-rousing in the 'hood, they're telling blacks
to support the people who actively keep them poor. "Affirmative Action" is designed to sabotage
its alleged goals. Almost all who 'benefit' from it end up among people whose performance is clearly
superior to their own, thus fostering feelings of inferiority, subtly communicating that it doesn't
matter what the 'beneficiary' of AA does, they'll always fail. This is no accident.
Without AA, there might still be separation, (consider "ultra-orthodox" Jews), but the separate
groups would have to be treated with some respect. Really, viewed amorally, it's a marvelous system
for oppressing whites and minorities.
@Thomm Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I have data from California National Merit list, IQ-140 bar
Among Indian Punjabis ;
Jat Sikh peasants = 3 winners ( 75% of Punjabis in USA )
Khatri merchants = 18 winners ( 25% of Punjabis in USA )
Both are extremely caucasoid, both appear heavily among Indian bollywood stars ; genetically
very similar, just the evolutionary effect of caste selection for merchant niche vs peasant niche
@Russ NieliRacial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including
the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative.
But the admissions people immediately started using other dodges like "holistic" admissions
policies where they try and figure out if your are a minority from other inferences such as your
essay where you indicate "how you have overcome". They also wanted to get rid of the SAT or institute
a top X% at each school policy.
@rec1man I don't know . a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels
and gas stations. Patels and such..
They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.
Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to
correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people
in India today are not 'Brahmins'..
Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined
Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..
Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism
@Thomm I don't know.... a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels
and gas stations. Patels and such..
They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.
Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to
correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people
in India today are not 'Brahmins'..
Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined
Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..
Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism... Afghanistan was 33% Hindu,
66% buddhist before islam, but in actual practise lots of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism,
and many families had mixed Indic religions
Pakistan was 22% non-muslim in 1947, these 22% were higher caste Hindus and Sikhs – all got
driven out in 1947 ; Pakistan is low IQ islamic sludge residue of Punjabi society
I am Tamil speaking, 80% of Tamil brahmins ( 2% ) can be visually distinguished from the 98%
Tamil Dravidians ;
Thomm you take up too much oxygen in the room insisting on the importance your opinions, the
whole conversation is much more interesting when i skip past your stupid WN focused city boy sheltered
viewpoint. Big words and that retarded hehehe thing you do would get you wrastled to the ground
and your face rubbed in the dirt
@Thomm Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians
out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power,
would it not? Moreover how are white males who want to escape SJW idiocy going to like a country
that still actively enforces all sorts of thought control policies of its own? You wannabe libertardian
analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.
Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out
of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power,
would it not?
It would be, but WN retards don't think that far.
You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber
every time.
This is what WNs want, not want I want. It is easy to predict WN opinions.
Plus, being a libertarian is much more desirable than being a WN socialist. Talented people
thrive in a libertarian society. WN losers just want to mooch off of successful whites.
"Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton
where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner."
Really? All that does is give the man a bigger sanctioned soap box. In the ghetto he might
affect a couple of hundred people. Siting in academia he gets a lever than can affect tens of
thousands. Not a good trade.
Truth is often stranger than fictions. The real reason for discriminating against Asian Ams
is not to help make the other minority happy. It is to benefit the whites. The Ivy League schools
are using the diversity to give the white applicants an advantage of 140 pst in SAT points. Please
see below:
In Table 3.5 on p 92 of Princeton Prof. Espenshade's famous book, "No Longer Separate, Not
Yet Equal", the following shocking fact was revealed:
Table 3.5 (emphasis added)
Race Admission Preferences at Public & Private Institutions
Measured in ACT & SAT Points, Fall 1997
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Public Institutions Private Institutions
ACT-Point Equivalents SAT-Point Equivalents
Item (out of 36) (out of 1600)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Race
(White) -- –
Black 3.8 310
Hispanics 0.3 130
Asian -3.4 -140
Why are 140 SAT pts. taken away from AsAm applicants? To give the white applicants an advantage
of 140 SAT pts. over the historically disadvantaged AsAms by using the nobility of diversity as
a cover? This is the reverse of affirmative action. This is a gross abuse of affirmation action.
This is outrageous discrimination. If
the purpose is to give the blacks an advantages, why not add more SAT points to blacks and hispanics?
@Avalanche That's an interesting point you brought up, whether anyone can ever really be "assimilated".
Even after hundreds of years, blacks and Jews in this country remain very distinct groups. I think
for blacks the reason is skin color and culture, while for Jews it is the religion. Both groups
have had low out marriage rate until maybe the last couple of decades.
Assimilation is most successful when there's a high intermarriage rate, but intermarriage rate
and immigration rate tend to go in opposite directions. The higher the immigration rate, the lower
the intermarriage rate.
Hispanics and Asians have been in this country since the 1800s yet you rarely ever meet a hispanic
or Asian person who's been here for more than 3 or 4 generations. Why is that? I think it's because
many of these earlier groups, due to their small number at the time relative to the population,
had intermarried, blended in and disappeared. I would say these earlier immigrants have fully
assimilated. The ones who are unassimilated are the new arrivals, those who arrived in large numbers
since 2000.
But for some peculiar reason blacks who are mixed with whites often continue to identify as
blacks. We see this in Obama, Halle Barry, Vanessa Williams and many other black/white mixes.
Black identity is so strong even Indian-black mixed race people call themselves black, like Kamala
Harris.
My theory is that most white-hispanic and white-asian marriages are white males with hispanic/asian
females. In most cases the white males who married hispanic/asian women are conservatives who
prefer women in cultures that are perceived to be more traditional compared to white females who
are often selfish and want a divorce at the first sign of personal unhappiness. Many of them then
raise their children in full white traditions including as Christians and encourage them to identify
themselves as whites.
OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these
women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women
for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as
black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.
Education used to be the biggest tool for assimilation, but these days thanks to libtards running
amok, our schools are where racial identity is amplified rather than de-emphasized. Now all minority
groups are encouraged to take pride in their own cultural identity and eschew mainstream (white)
culture. Lured by affirmative action, more and more mixed race hispanic kids are beginning to
identify themselves as latino. Thankfully mixed race Asian kids are running in the opposite direction
and now mostly identify themselves as white so they are not disadvantaged by AA.
I think assimilation can occur when you have low immigration rate coupled with high intermarriage
rate and a smart education system that discourages racial and individual identity and focuses
on a single national identity. The biggest reason assimilation is failing now is a combination
of high immigration rate, and a failed education system that promotes identity politics and victimhood
narrative. The internet and easy air travels back to the homeland also make it much harder to
assimilate newcomers. For these reasons I'm in favor of a moratorium on immigration for the next
20 years. All those not yet citizens should be encouraged to return to their home countries. No
more green cards, work visas or even student visas should be issued.
@S. B. Woo That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid.
Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed
blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively.
Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like
you are parroting them without thinking things through.
OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances
these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children.
Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their
children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves
as black.
@Incontrovertible That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid.
Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed
blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively.
Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like
you are parroting them without thinking things through.
So much for "smart Asians". But they still needed a lower score for admittance than Asians
This "war against statues" look like borrowed directly from Ukrainian Maydan, which was a
100% authentic color revolution. Conflict escalation is a major tool in staging a color
revolution.
War with statues is pretty harmless for oligarchy, but does sharply divide the people into
two camps. It much easier to remove statues, than raise wages.
The key mechanism here is that it allow escalation, necessary for color revolution to succeed
-- as some as violence occurred it doe not matter who was right and who was wrong, of if both
parties engaged in violence were wrong.
The hysteria unfolding regarding events in Charlottesville reminds me of the anti-Russia
madness that has made front page news ever since Hillary Clinton discovered that she had lost
the presidential election to Vladimir Putin. The media train is again rushing headlong into a
terra incognita with its only goal being to bring down President Donald Trump by
riding a wave of anti-right wing extremist revulsion. The establishment press is essentially
enforcing its own code of ethics, insisting that just because what the mainstream
characterizes as morally repugnant "Nazi-scum" and white nationalists exist they are
ultimately fully responsible for any violence that is required to defeat them and disrupt
their activities. For the ubiquitous talking heads like Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow to
believe otherwise is to posit moral equivalency between the good guys and bad guys, something
that cannot be tolerated.
As far as I can determine, almost no one knows much about the specific agendas of the
various parties that were involved in last week's fracas in Charlottesville. My own viewpoint
extends only as far as a strong belief that the deconstruction of this nation through the
elimination of select historical monuments is wrong, particularly when said monuments
commemorate people who fought and died for their country. As I am a Vietnam-era army veteran
I would concede that my judgment in that regard is somewhat skewed.
That aside, there are several other issues that should be of general interest that have
been largely obscured by the violence that erupted and the media interpretation of the event
to fit in with its own preferred narrative.
First and foremost is the free speech issue which is being conveniently ignored by a media
and political class intent on punishing the white nationalist protesters no matter what
rights have to be trampled along the way. As far as I can determine, the primary objective of
the Unite-the-Right gathering was to protest against removing a statue, so one has to at
least assume that some demonstrators were there in good faith based on that issue. And surely
many of the counter-demonstrators were there to protest peacefully against some of the
admittedly extremist groups marching under the Unite umbrella.
"The likelihood that there were paid FBI informants on both sides of the conflict leads
me to believe that the federal government knows exactly what took place on August 12th in
Charlottesville, but perhaps no one has either the guts or requisite integrity to be honest
about it as it might be embarrassing all around. What if it turns out that the politically
more acceptable counter-demonstrators deliberately provoked the violence and were allowed
to get away with it?"
Gee you think?
Well there won't be any embarrassment because a) the Imperial media will never cover
such a story and if it leaked out anyway; b) The Empire is inherently incapable of being
embarrassed about anything.
Based on eyewitness accounts and video footage of what took place in Charlottesville,
these facts have emerged: antifa agitators came to Charlottesville impose street justice on
their 'Nazi' opponents and shut down the lawful and peaceful assembly of a conservative
minority.
This is not the first time that antifa activists have unleashed premeditated violence
upon their political adversaries.
Antifa thugs (and their political enablers) are on a dark mission: to deny the
constitutional guarantees of free speech, public assembly and free association to
racially-conscious whites. This is a totalitarian agenda.
Further, the mainstream media–using biased analysis and inflammatory
reporting–is enabling this pernicious pattern of antifa violence to spread.
Today, Americans are taught to celebrate the 'Jewish Community', the 'gay community',
the 'black community', the 'Hispanic community'.
But never the 'white community'. That is not allowed. Never–even though
Euro-Americans are the heart and soul of our extraordinary, English-speaking
civilization.
Fact: white advocacy is not 'white supremacy'.
Yet our mainstream media declares it so.
This deception does real harm. Whites are divided. Ashamed.
White children are increasingly isolated and estranged from their own roots and
community. Political self-loathing and downward mobility have become common among
whites.
White cohesion has been declared racist and uniquely evil. This may be good news for
ambitious and envious blacks, gays, Hispanics and Jews. But whites are in decline.
This worldview is partly the product of double standards. These double-standard are
underhanded.
Antifa extremism is being used by the Liberal establishment to crush if not eradicate
white memory and white continuity.
Please sign and circulate the petition to declare antifa a terrorist organization.
Another excellent essay. Mr. Giraldi, I would appreciate knowing what you think about
one particular aspect of the stagecraft.
Having watched a few (not all, especially as some have been squelched) of the videos
assembled under the parallel Cleburne article, my impression is that these so-called
Uniters of The Right may have selected the forum because they, like the Establishment
generally, desired a violent altercation.
The Friday night torchlight parade as filmed by Vice seems almost scripted, provocative
"reality TV" to stoke fear and loathing among the American manipullati. Men who look like
Haven Monohan's frat brothers chanting "Blood And Soil" (really?!), in perfect formation
behind a drum major who looks like a Viking Hell's Angel, all left undisturbed by
observers. Are these even the same people sent packing on Saturday from the park and down
the street to be abused by hundreds of counter-protestors, as seen in the Goldy video?
Gee, look at the positive side, at least if your part of the MIC or a TBTF Wall Street
Casino. The riots helped box Trump in on the Afghanistan war thing, as he now declares
we'll stay there, bombing the rubble for years to come.
That Afghan opium will keep flowing and the hundreds of billions laundered by those Wall
Street gangsters will also continue to flow.
When the hate-filled Senator Graham admires Trump's Afghan war speech, you know the
nation is in trouble.
"The media train is again rushing headlong into a terra incognita with its only goal
being to bring down President Donald Trump by riding a wave of anti-right wing extremist
revulsion".
What a load of main stream media BS!
The media is owned by the same Wall Street Zionist filth that own Trump.
This idea that Trump is an "American Firster", worked during the election, but has been
seen for the lie it truly is now.
Trump has filled his cabinet with Wall Street Zionists, continued sales of weapons to
terrorist states, has INCREASED our presence in Isreal's wars, and has continued to
antagonize Russia, while TOTALLY IGNORING MASS LATINO IMMIGRATION.
Just like with Obama, the media is playing a role as "anti-Trump", to give Trump cover
for being another Zionist puppet. When Obama was in office the ZioMedia called him the
"most liberal President", even as he took away our rights, bailed out Wall Street and sold
arms to third world despots.
Americans need to GROW UP, stop thinking the world is so black and white and see how we
are being played for fools. Zionists rule Washington, and certainly Trump. Peter Thiel and
Adleson are Trump's biggest financial supporters, are we supposed to believe THEY ARE
AMERICA FIRSTERS, please, they hate America, they are Zionists.
@Anonymous
Nobody died at Columbine. Boston Marathon 9/11 passengers, etc.
Its time Americans wake up to reclaim the nation.
Staging this kind of event is child's play for the CIA. For them, its part of the
standard regime change profile.
Mind control technology delivers activist to the place in the space to commit overt
....acts and to take in true patsy form the untraceable source of the blame for conflict of
ideas to be escalated to mayhem.
Conflict escalation [Ce} was a major tool for the Leninist plan to bring the Czar of Russia
down in February, 1917 Such Ce and it has been successfully applied in the political space
of many nations to bring down well like national leaders. Ce Chaos is the name of the game!
Chaos is one of the dispersant that can be added to separate the people of a nation from
the peace afforded to them by their political structures. Chaos unleashes abusive power the
law and order prevent. Those hidden behind the scenes have a plan..but it cannot be
implemented if the political and cultural structures of the target society remains strong
and its principles upheld . To weaken structure: opposing interest are pitted against each
other to disturb the peace and to create chaos. As the structural integrity of the target
political and cultural system begin to weaken the plan is put into action.
The nations people's support for the structure is generally strong enough to keep the
political and cultural structure in place(i.e.the people continue to adhere to the law and
order accustomed to their national society). What destroys that structure is chaos! Chaos
works because it weakens the leadership. What chaos does is to allow behind the scene
take-overs, it allows to enrage the uninformed public so, that the public itself encourages
legislatures to enact the kind of Draconian rules that self-generate chaos (i.e. limits on
free speech, curfews, and intrusions by governments of law and use of force). My fellow
Americans find themselves once again victims of a mirage staged by those who intended
chaos to be generated , the tools of the chaos generating teams were used to stir to a
frenzy, those who were sincere as to a heart-felt. I quote the article "radical groups ..
came together to demonstrate on both sides?" just as was done in 1917 Russia!
OUTCOME: chaos disperses the people caught inside of media controlled political space.. I
said to a cop a few yrs ago "Boston Marathon was a false flag" he said "Does it even
matter?"
True it doesn't matter, it is taken as real and the objective is realized anyway.
Trump didn't call out Charlottesville as a false flag, he folded to the deep state and
extended the war in Afghanistan.
"It is important to bear in mind that there is great danger in selectively endorsing
politically correct Free Speech. If either the left or right is successful and we lose our
First Amendment rights through "hate speech" legislation or other forms of state censorship
such as have been introduced in Europe it is safe to say that we will have lost our
republic."
I hate to break it to this writer but the train has already left the station, and some
time ago. The left HAS been successful beyond "endorsing politically correct Free Speech".
They now with little resistance enforce the ever expanding PC speech codes because they own
the enforcement apparatus, i.e., the MSM, the courts, the propaganda outlets that make the
shaming machinery of popular culture so efficient. They have us self-censoring. Go to any
university campus and see how far free speech takes you. At your workplace just casually
mention a politically incorrect fact, like black-on-white homicide statistics, and see
where your career goes. Technically, yes, state censorship is not yet in place, but the
left doesn't really need it that much. Plus the censorious SJWs are just one or two Supreme
Court (Democrat appointed) justices in the near future, who will mop things up by upholding
"hate speech" legislation that will criminalize speech that includes facts that hurt the
feelings of "marginalized" people -- delayed for a bit by Trump's surprise upending of
Hillary Hugo Chavez Clinton.
The left wants more than state censorship. They see the destruction of European (white)
civilization.
Philip, thanks. My local newspaper, an intelligent and literate independent, came out
against neo-Nazis today. I suspect the editor was pressured into it, because the phenomenon
of neo-Nazism as a meaningful political movement doesn't exist in my area. Neo-Nazism
doesn't exist as a meaningful political phenomenon in the United States.
Chrissake–I'm venting here–does anyone else here see an obvious parallel
between the actual historical Nazis opportunistically grasping for power after the
Reichstag fire, and the Left grasping at opportunities to efface the memory of prominent
Southerners using the trivial Charlottesville fracas as a pretext? What's that old saw: he
who accuses, excuses. The real Nazis seem to me the other guys–the Left.
@Alfa158 Yeah,
maybe some. But, almost all of this was done by corrupt, lying folks in Virginia state and
local. The Virginia governor and the (J tribe) Charlottesville VA mayor openly worked to
deny the UnitetheRight their legal right to demonstrate in Lee Park/Emancipation Park and
the local police and state national guard force the UnitetheRight Demonstrates to exit the
park to be attacked by massed mobs of Antifa/BlackLivesMatter mobs. This was deliberate. So
it wasn't all some Federal conspiracy in the Trump administration.
These college towns like Charlottesville VA or Durham (Duke) N.C. have been taken over
politically and in the faculty by hard core Leftists, anti Whites – the wealthy
alumni of these once solid Conservative Southern colleges generally doesn't care as long as
the basketball teams do well and the College rankings stay high (rankings done by Harvard
and Yale type academics).
I know the score as I went to the former Southern Conservatives University of Vanderbilt
University in Nashville TN. Vanderbilt now has a J tribe Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos who was
a former Leftist Law professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison – the same
college town that now has an openly Castro Communist mayor who just ripped out Confederate
grave stones outside of Madison.
Has anyone noticed that the so-called "white supremacists" were holding brand new,
recently unfolded flags and were wearing brand new, recently unfolded k kk regalia?
It is no secret that a jewish-owned company "Crowds On Demand" was advertising for
(left-wing) protesters for Charlottesville on craigslist.
Sorta tells you something
The "Unite the Right" promoter Kessler was an 0′bama operative
The whole thing was orchestrated in order to further demonize whites
Yes, this is confusing. One day Vladimir is coming to get us he is hiding under our beds
and infecting our computer systems. Disregard. The next day it is the Alt-Right hiding
under our beds and infecting our water supply.
It appears that the MSM and Progressive movement, no matter how well organized, are a
"one-trick pony". They can only posture one hysterical The End is Nigh meme at a
time for public consumption. This in itself should raise suspicions that these are all
pre-staged political carnivals theaters of the absurd. The question, Who is organizing and
paying for these carnivals and to what end?
To Phillip Giraldi,
You had me laughing with some of your writings. For instance, "When Hillary Clinton
discovered she had lost the election to Vladimir Putin." HA!
Also, Your style of asking questions and then giving only some of the possible answers made
me do some thinking I wouldn't have done otherwise. I hope You continue with this great
style in the future.
@Sam Shama I
don't think the Antifa protesters were "allowed" in the square.
They had no permit.
They weren't "allowed" to be anywhere around there and should have been made to disperse
and go somewhere else, with force if necessary (I mean to be made to go somewhere else to
hold their protest).
The police do this all the time.
"Cage" protesters to avoid problems they foresee.
So, WFT, C'ville Police???
McAuliffe definitely had a hand in this "standing down."
"... Knowing that the Antifa thugs were there with cans filled with cement, baseball bats and even improvised flame throwers why would the police stand down? ..."
"... One answer is because the Democrats wanted a riot to lay at President Trump's feet ..."
"... Angry White Dude ..."
"... The Establishment Strikes Back ..."
"... why was this not done in Virginia? ..."
"... The billionaires of America control our media so control the masses. So called "leftists" should be conducting antiwar marches, or marches for higher wages and single payer healthcare. However, the billionaires manipulate them to march against non-issues to keep workers fighting amongst each other. It was good to see Charles Barkley speak out and say black people never noticed confederate statues and don't care about them. ..."
"... This game begins when billionaires have someone propose removing confederate statues, then encourage groups of whites to protest, pay for a permit, and publicize the event. They have their paid agitators show up to hand out confederate and Nazi flags, give the Hitler salute, and start fights. They also organize leftist groups to have counter-demonstrations and send their black clad agitators to incite violence. Finally, they direct their media to provide massive coverage so that workers are distracted while they continue to loot the world. ..."
"... The System has won. The establishment got the anti-estblishmnet extreme right and the anti-establishment extreme left fight each other. It can't be any better. ..."
"... Antifa is a replay of the 1960s riots and Revolution . But there's a big difference: in the 60s the FBI and police fought the revolutionaries. Now they side with the revolutionaries ..."
"... I view the statue stuff as the summer replacement for transgender bathroom hysteria, all in the service of division and distraction. However, Ron Unz is doing people a great service by courageously publishing this proof of the corruption and suppression of journalism. ..."
"... The USA is now in the grip of oligarch-fostered mass hysteria, giving a large segment of the population – its AntiFa, 'left-libs', poor minorities etc – a thrill of momentary power over other human beings, to substitute for what they are being denied in their lives ..."
"... It is just like Mao's 1966 'Cultural Revolution', or poor Muslims led today to bray for the hanging of 'blasphemers' The oligarchs play on how common people will take the 'path of least resistance' to what makes them feel more powerful against vulnerable targets easy to hand, whom the plebs can feel 'safe' in attacking in the USA & the West generally, that is now of course the oligarch-run 'cultural Marxism' agenda against alleged 'bigots, racists' etc superbly distracting from how common people are being violated in a crony-corrupt economy ..."
"... Again, I see the statue controversy as manufactured distraction. ..."
"... But how many Americans who still rely on MSM are aware that the car reportedly driven by Fields struck another, which in turn struck a third, which then struck people in the street? If Heyer was hit by that third car – assuming this video is legitimate – then much of what is being reported via Establishment outlets is inarguably false. ..."
Knowing that the Antifa thugs were there with cans filled with cement, baseball bats
and even improvised flame throwers why would the police stand down?
One answer is because the Democrats wanted a riot to lay at President Trump's
feet
I would add that the Treason Lobby
wanted a pretext to launch the next stage of their internet purge against the Right, which
clearly was long planned.
Angry White Dude 's astute writer RedStaterNYC states plainly in
The
Establishment Strikes Back August 16 2017 what I think is no more than the truth
the Charlottesville chaos was obviously a setup designed specifically to corner the white
men into violent confrontation with the Establishment's hired goons, "Antifa". Then, they
would use that violence as a pretext to both suppress the rights to peaceable assembly by the
white men, and then plaster the mayhem all over the airwaves to smear them as a group of
unhinged, violent, "domestic terrorists".
The Establishment's muscle, the VA police, did their job, and then their propaganda
arm–the MSM–went right to work hysterically demanding Trump demonize the white
men
He points to the aftermath:
Since suppressing white men's right to peaceable assembly, they have now gone to fully
suppressing their rights to speech and association.
All of the prominent alt-right sites have been taken offline. We are now on day three or
four without most of them. They're just gone. And this is despite having DDOS-protection
services in place and very smart guys on the SA side of things.
Clearly, we aren't dealing with Antifa script-kiddies, but state actors who are behind
this effort to snuff this insurgent pro-white group of young men out of existence before TPTB
lose any more power to them
Expect this to go federal in short order
They are clearly scared, they clearly aren't taking any chances any more and they clearly
aren't going to be stopped by appeals to conscience.
This concurs remarkably closely with our "Charlottesville Survivor"s conclusion:
The American government, at every level, is waging a campaign of extermination against its
own people. If you protest against it, law enforcement tries to get you killed. And if you
survive that, journalists try to get you fired.
Thanks to
the self-control of the Unite The Right people, Charlottesville might well have passed off
without giving the Pogrom leaders the big incident they needed
... ... ...
Two long videos
here and here
give vivid impressions of lethal menace of the Antifa mob in Charlottesville. A week later the
Boston authorities easily
minimized violence by keeping the Antifa and their prey strictly apart. This highlights the
key question: why was this not done in Virginia?
It was because the Left's response to to the MAGA is MAAG (Make America A Gulag). And they
needed a pretext.
(No doubt I have missed useful material. Please send it in.)
The billionaires of America control our media so control the masses. So called "leftists"
should be conducting antiwar marches, or marches for higher wages and single payer
healthcare. However, the billionaires manipulate them to march against non-issues to keep
workers fighting amongst each other. It was good to see Charles Barkley speak out and say
black people never noticed confederate statues and don't care about them.
This game begins when billionaires have someone propose removing confederate statues, then
encourage groups of whites to protest, pay for a permit, and publicize the event. They have
their paid agitators show up to hand out confederate and Nazi flags, give the Hitler salute,
and start fights. They also organize leftist groups to have counter-demonstrations and send
their black clad agitators to incite violence. Finally, they direct their media to provide
massive coverage so that workers are distracted while they continue to loot the world.
Readers may be confused why "single payer" is an important issue. Our bizarre healthcare
systems cost twice as much as other modern nations and produces below average results. The
great Jimmy Dore clarifies in this video clip.
The System has won. The establishment got the anti-estblishmnet extreme right and the anti-establishment
extreme left fight each other. It can't be any better.
It is the simplest thing to set up known by police forces around the world since the 19
century.
You want to play politics you need to learn and do your homework. Start with the class
"Agent provocateurs 101."
The entire Charlottesville event was a staged event, a classic strategy of provocation
operation which is going to be used as psywar pushing for national imposition of martial law
and the deep state coup against Trump and the remnants of the Republic.
Read on.
The facts about Charlottesville that the Zionist dominated MSM do not allow:
and:Proof of staging, see video:
different cars, different driver than alleged driver Fields, photo shopped 'flying people'
& crash backgrounds, lot's more.
It's not difficult, just open your eyes.
Seen from the other side of the Atlantic the conflict seems to be over identity, who is
the real American ?
American here, in the sense hated by those in S America, of USA citizen.
When I visited the USA, and met USA citizens, the real Americans obviously were those whose
ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, and/or signed the Declaration of Independence.
Of course the ancestors of the real Americans fought on the right, that is, winning, side of
the Civil War.
These real Americans thus are of NW European, preferably British descent, they are not
Irish or catholic, and they are white.
Immigration numerically changed the USA, catholics hardly arrive any more from Europe, but
they do arrive from the South and Middle America's, speaking spanish.
Muslim immigrant also get a stronger position in USA society, their advantage is that they do
speak english.
Maybe it is this advantage that made Chaim Saban do anything to prevent that a USA Muslim
Senator became chairman of the USA democratic party, Saban also did not want Bernie Sanders,
Sanders seems to be not enough pro Israel.
So what we see now is Cold Civil War, between the voters of Trump and Deep State, and
between the 'real Americans' and those who 'just' have the USA nationality, but are not seen
by the Mayflower/ Declaration Americans as real Americans.
What confuses these two cold civil wars further are religious issues, about homosexuality,
abortion, euthanasia.
The present Dutch political problem of families with three or more parents does not even seem
to have reached the other side of the Atlantic.
I'm thinking of going to the Crissy field San Francisco demo next Saturday. It's on
federal land, the Presidio. The city of San Francisco is trying to get the Feds to revoke the
permit.
"Natural conservative" high IQ Mayor Ed Lee and the rest of the Chinese politicians are
really pushing to get the permit revoked.
So much for the natural alliance of hardworking high IQ Whites and Asians hoped for by the
conservatives who run websites imagining a future in which Whites and Asians unite against
anti White liberals.
The pro White group doing the protest is
"Patriot Prayer". I don't know much about them. But patriot? I hate America as much as George
Foxman and George Soros do. Prayer? I don't believe in God and the Christian churches are as
anti White as the government.
If it's permitted the national park rangers will be in charge of security. Generally,
neither city nor state police come on federal land.
Antifa is a replay of the 1960s riots and Revolution . But there's a big difference: in
the 60s the FBI and police fought the revolutionaries. Now they side with the
revolutionaries
"(Look at them quickly: the way things are going they will all be shut down in a few
days.)"
At least three apparently already have been. I view the statue stuff as the summer replacement for transgender bathroom hysteria, all
in the service of division and distraction. However, Ron Unz is doing people a great service
by courageously publishing this proof of the corruption and suppression of journalism.
This reminds me of the Travon Martin situation. All the main stream media came out big
time against Zimmerman. The incident with the Dodge Challenger is the same, just to pat. I
look for an unraveling to take place when it comes to the trial.
The USA is now in the grip of oligarch-fostered mass hysteria, giving a large segment of
the population – its AntiFa, 'left-libs', poor minorities etc – a thrill of
momentary power over other human beings, to substitute for what they are being denied in
their lives
It is just like Mao's 1966 'Cultural Revolution', or poor Muslims led today to bray for
the hanging of 'blasphemers' The oligarchs play on how common people will take the 'path of
least resistance' to what makes them feel more powerful against vulnerable targets easy to
hand, whom the plebs can feel 'safe' in attacking in the USA & the West generally, that
is now of course the oligarch-run 'cultural Marxism' agenda against alleged 'bigots, racists'
etc superbly distracting from how common people are being violated in a crony-corrupt
economy
Long ago, Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), suggested that 3 things explain much of human
social behaviour:
The law of dimishing returns
That the inferior will tend to drive out & overwhelm that of higher quality
The path of least resistance
Oligarch media has put this whole AntiFa etc purge insanity on a platter, & offered it
to any miscreant who would like to power-trip over some now-vulnerable victims, formerly
'powerful' but now able to be cut down. But like any mania, this will in time burn itself out as its absurdity becomes more
obvious, probably more on the time-scale of the Cultural Marxism Maoist excesses, which Mao
himself declared 'over' in 1969 after just 3 years
What may be a more permanent legacy, tho, is the USA mass censorship that has begun,
parallel to the Chinese & to some degree also Russian internet web forum de-platforming
Big Powers Agree, control those interwebz!
I have another comment awaiting moderation, but have now watched the last (Faith Goldy)
video which appears to have captured in real time the automobile horror.
Again, I see the statue controversy as manufactured distraction.
But how many Americans
who still rely on MSM are aware that the car reportedly driven by Fields struck another,
which in turn struck a third, which then struck people in the street? If Heyer was hit by
that third car – assuming this video is legitimate – then much of what is being
reported via Establishment outlets is inarguably false.
Richard Spencer has to start throwing the "Nazi" charge back at the Antifa, the Clintons
and Obama. Point out that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton gave the direct order to organize
and fund a Neo-Nazi Coup in the Ukraine that caused the death of 15-20 Conservative Russian
Christians in the Eastern Ukraine .
Then Point out the fact that Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS ..
Then point out that the Antifa voted for the WAR CRIMINAL NeoNazi enablers Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton
Spencer must be unrelenting and obsessive on these points .every day every minute denounce
Obama and the Clintons as indictable WAR CRIMINALS!!
Conspiracy theory: the Deep State is behind this and they are preparing for a coup.
Think about it.
1. In 1930s Germany, the old order collapses. The Nazi party is on the verge of splitting
apart then one faction purges the other, leaving only one left.
2. The other day, Secretary of Defense Mattis was in Silicon Valley – traveling to
Google. His excuse was something like "not wanting soldiers to be disadvantaged by
technologies on the battlefield." Does anyone buy that? Does that even make sense?
3. Youtube "adpocalypse" happens. Google uses this as an excuse to curb dissenting
political opinions. They announce that they will be shadow-banning content they disapprove of
even if it does not violate their terms of service. Many videos, and entire channels, are
mysteriously demonitized without explanation. Notoriously left-wing anti-free speech
organizations including the SPLC and the ADL, along with several foreign government NGO
fronts, are providing the information to Youtube on what channels/videos to ban.
Other Social Media follow suite: Facebook, Twitter, etc.
4. Then a potential false flag happens (Charlottesville = Reichstag fire).
Which UTR groups came "combat ready" and which did not? It would be instructive to know
why some did and some did not. Were some groups better informed?
Richard Spencer point out that the black racist organization BLM .it's leadership .made
many trips to the Obama Whitehouse where they plotted with Valerie Jarrett to racially harras
White Americans across the US .Point out the role of BLM in the post-Ferguson race riots and
the murder of White Police Officers across the US .Also point out that the SPLC was-is openly
endorsing the black racial identity politics of BLM and their enabler Valerie Jarette
However, the billionaires manipulate them to march against non-issues to keep workers
fighting amongst each other.
The verity of that concept is so glaringly obvious that it's a pity it has to be stated so
clearly.
If one really looks at the causes of WW2, that concept applies as well. Note that it was a
mass slaughtering of Christians vs Christians to a great degree. Since they haven't been able
to stir up enough hate against Muslims, I guess they'll just make up any excuse to stir the
pot. It's all against all and through it all the banksters keep rubbing their greasy grubby
hands and raking in the moolah.
Linh Dinh, in another excellent article stated it thus
Slitting each other's throat, we can't even see that our common enemy is the
American Israel Empire, or what the Saker calls the AngloZionists. (Emphasis mine.)
- Linh Dinh, Siurana, Charlottesville and Barcelona
I'm intrigued by the expression "historic American nation". What does it mean? Who is part
of it? Who isn't? Who decides whether someone is "in" or "out"? Clearly, the word "nation" is
not being used in the European sense.
The primary question is, what are the psychopaths that are losing control of us, trying to
hide with these created distractions? It must be so horrific as to boggle the mind, as these
distractions have become ever more violent, insane, and inhuman
Left IS the estabilishment, open your goddamn eyes.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
In the '30s, after the establishment quit bashing Commies, it became all the rage, indeed
fashionable, to support them and the establishment backed the Reds to the hilt.
Once their usefulness expired, it was back to bashing "Commies" again.
These things shift and the establishment backs what it thinks will do its bidding best.
The reason(s) they keep flip-flopping is(are) usually not too hard to discern.
I'll admit it. I'm racist. I hate the entire human race.
Today, I'd like to point a hateful middle finger at the demagogue Israel as it actively
engineers zionist-nazism within and zionist-communism beyond, its borders.
Their deceptive false flags abound, including 9/11 and Charlottesville Virginia.
Couldn't help but think of the self-serving Israel and their "friendship" with the U.S.,
while watching this particular video.
The Alt Right position on the economy:Our goal is for the Historic Native Born White
American Working Class to control-the means of production Google Microsoft the internet
belongs to OUR PEOPLE!!!
@Michael Kenny Whose out? Greater China's GENELINE in California Greater India's GENELINE
in California .Greater Korea's GENELINE in California .anyone serving in the IDF Muslim
Michigan .and this is just for starters
The nonwhite majority Democratic Party Voting Bloc in California is biological warfare
against The Historic Native Born White American Working Class
Socialist Labor Leaders Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers had the right idea in 1888 .
I'm intrigued by the expression "historic American nation". What does it mean?
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what
I choose it to mean -- "
Alice in Wonderland
[During the war]words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was
now given them.
Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation,
specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all
sides of a question, inaptness to act on any.
- Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chap X, ~400 BC
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
! Samuel Adams, Letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
@Judge Dredd Hilarious.
You largely rely on two sources for your "facts". Both notorious for their easily debunked
lies, Jew supremacist hatred of white gentiles, and their redneck Zionist control.
Science, rational thought, & logic simply demolish the 'holocaust' storyline.
And that's why there are Thought Crime Laws that imprison those who engage in free speech
about it.
Truth is hate to those that hate the truth.
[MORE]
There were the 'Nazis' with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and
there were the 'Nazis' without the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
And who is it that demands massive immigration into Europe and the US, but demands that
non-Jew immigration be prevented into "that shitty little country"?
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
@jacques sheete h/t to you for spotlighting Linh Dinh's concise statement of who the
adversary is.
The "Jews will not replace us" chants were jarring -- they made me cringe and made my
well-mannered Sunday-go-to-church self feel embarrassed.
But a revolution is not a tea party.
And the reality of Charlottesville is that Jews -- more appropriately, the Anglozionists -- are replacing Charlottesville's old-line, Jefferson-loving culture and elites.
Charlottesville and the DC-to-Charlottesville corridor has experienced a major increase in
federal government institutions, including outfits that monitor geospatial satellites. This
in turn draws private sector entrepreneurs in highly specialized highly-educated data and
intelligence gathering fields to the area: these are fields Israelis/Jews have traditionally
been very interested in.
If Blacks, in Charlottesville or anywhere else think that changeover will make Black lives
better, they should check their reality meters.
RobinG chides me for saying so, but imo it is also appropriate to have "Nazis" represented
in the UTR coalition. I say this because, as many of us here know, any alternative narrative
of the wars in Europe that does not comply with the Jewish narrative is censored. Therefore,
the full story has never been told; our children are taught lies, about themselves first and
foremost. The full and honest history of the era of the world wars -- the Anglozionist wars -- needs to be told.
In addition, those who study the means by which the three groups that Lindbergh cited -- the British, FDR, and Jews -- ginned up hatred of Germany/Hitler/Nazis, beginning from the
very earliest days of the 'Hitler counter-revolution,' recognize that almost exactly the same
pattern is being played out today.
The fact that the same behaviors that eventuated in war in Europe and in an alleged
holocaust of Jews is being repeated today, almost step-for-step, apparently with the same
goals -- to gin up war to perpetuate Anglozionist dominance, implies either that
a. the first holocaust did not occur as claimed; or
b. Anglozionists are so bent on killing masses of goyim that they are willing to -- or
eager to cull their own ranks as well, and are setting up the conditions for another
holocaust; or
c. that Anglozionists are so stupid that they think the same behaviors will produce a
different outcome.
Left IS the estabilishment, open your goddamn eyes.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
In the '30s, after the establishment quit bashing Commies, it became all the rage, indeed
fashionable, to support them and the establishment backed the Reds to the hilt.
Once their usefulness expired, it was back to bashing "Commies" again.
These things shift and the establishment backs what it thinks will do its bidding best.
The reason(s) they keep flip-flopping is(are) usually not too hard to discern. David Horowitz
and Ron and Allis Radosh are the poster children for this sort of opportunistic,
playing-both-sides switcheroo.
@anonymous "(Look at them quickly: the way things are going they will all be shut down in
a few days.)"
At least three apparently already have been.
I view the statue stuff as the summer replacement for transgender bathroom hysteria, all
in the service of division and distraction. However, Ron Unz is doing people a great service
by courageously publishing this proof of the corruption and suppression of journalism. I
agree confederate statutes are the next artificial cause after transgender bathrooms. I
wonder what the next cause will be? Probably something cooked up at Soros central. I predict
the 2018 elections will be a sweep for the Republicans. The radical democrat candidates will
repel everyone but lunatic radicals. The non White and moderate democrats will stay home. The
normal sane people will elect republicans. And the republicans will as always betray the
Whites who vote for them.
"You largely rely on two sources for your "facts". Both notorious for their easily
debunked lies"
Those "sources" are themselves sourced by dozens of other sources. Wikipedia has also been
found by recent studies to be about as accurate as most professional sources of information.
In any case, it's the point that matters, not the details. Ironically, you didn't bother to
counter anything he said. All you did was attack the messenger.
@Reveal I'm not a southerner but I used to read occidental dissent a lot. They often had
confederate flag demonstrations. The demos were all peaceful, just a few Whites with the
confederate battle flag, no police, no counter demonstaters, just a peaceful little
demonstration of the confederate heritage . They also had larger demonstrations against the
chicken and meat packing plants that hire nothing but illegal Hispanics. Good for them.
@WHAT Why are you so shortsighted? I am afraid that when the time comes you might be the
first to be manipulated and used as a useful idiot just as the left is being used right know.
Let's suppose you and your buddies on the right will learn that we are going to attack, say
Venezuela, because, say they sunk our ship. How many from the right, i.e. your buddies will
show with flags and start flag waving and how many on the right will be protesting the war?
Are you sure you and your buddies will be on the right side? The identity politics was
exactly invented to keep the left going after issues that in larger scheme of things are
irrelevant to the establishment. This is to sow the discord only. It is a perfect distractor
from all kinds of stuff that is wrong in this pathetic country of pathetic people. Do not be
like the stupid carp in the park pond that always takes a bait and goes through infinite
number of catch and release cycles.
@Wally Seriously, could you explain this "redneck Zionist" thing you keep banging on
about? Zionists, i.e., Jews, are notoriously urban in their habits and culture. Thus,
"redneck" would seem to be oxymoronic.
@jilles dykstra Jilles
You know nothing about America. The American Civil War was fought on both sides by people of
the same British and NW European background. Further, there was no "right" side, you fool.
Slavery had existed all over the USA and New Englanders brought the slaves here, not
Southerners. Slavery was just one cause of the war.
As for South Americans resenting the term "American", tough. We are not called USA citizens.
We are Americans. We won that name on the battlefield 40 years before the Latin Americans
ceased being Spanish subjects.
My advice to you is to study our history before you open your mouth.
Whatever "proof" this author may provide, one truth remains crystal clear, for those who
can see all apologists for the klanscum, and other assorted naziscum, are simply
soulless zombies. You know, sort of.
On a somewhat related note, I hear most of them zombies, are fervent pagan polytheist
human worshippers and that too a presumed white human. After all, "heaven forbid" worshipping
a "coloured" man, yeah?
A batshit deluded faith well suited for the likes of them.
@SolontoCroesus " RobinG chides me for saying so , but imo it is also appropriate
to have "Nazis" represented in the UTR coalition."
Umm, no.
First, 'chide' is not accurate. I razzed you for suggesting that I should accost my
neighbor in the same (aggressive, accusatory) manner that you routinely confront Sam
Shama.
Second, I've said nothing about 'appropriateness' of Nazi representation. My only stated
position is agreement with ACLU. (And, less directly, that the whole debacle was manipulated,
color revolution style. N.B., I said manipulated, not fake.)
Third, this misattribution of words and thoughts to me, does nothing for your status as an
analyst. Sorry.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"In
an article for Quillette.com on "Methods Behind the Campus Madness," graduate researcher
Sumantra Maitra of the University of Nottingham in England reported that 12 of the 13
academics at U.C. Berkeley who signed a letter to the chancellor protesting Yiannopoulos were
from "Critical theory, Gender studies and Post-Colonial/Postmodernist/Marxist background."
This is a shift in Marxist theory from class conflict to identity politics conflict;
instead of judging people by the content of their character, they are now to be judged by the
color of their skin (or their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, et cetera).
"Postmodernists have tried to hijack biology, have taken over large parts of political
science, almost all of anthropology, history and English," Maitra concludes, "and have
proliferated self-referential journals, citation circles, non-replicable research, and the
curtailing of nuanced debate through activism and marches, instigating a bunch of gullible
students to intimidate any opposing ideas.""
"... Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent the same talking points memo. ..."
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
"... I vividly recall staying up past 1 AM on election night 2016, watching CNN, as it became clear that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States. News anchor Dana Bash was beside herself at the outcome, and at one point, in a fit of honesty, she exclaimed, "This means the end of identity politics." Well, yes, but a deep ideology like identity politics does not die a quiet and sober death. Last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw identity politics playing out--violently. Whether it was the white protesters who formed part of the original crowd, or the black and "antifa" protesters who formed part of the counter-demonstration, we witnessed a clash of identities. ..."
"... Watching the tirades on MSNBC and other news outlets over the past 48 hours, I can't help but lament how twisted our public discourse has become. Clearly some of the counter-demonstrators were part of the very same "antifa" apparatus that got very different news coverage when they torched and trashed Seattle a number of years back in protest at a WTO meeting. This time around, they were defended by the icons of media, who denounced any thought that there was "moral equivalence" between their violence and the violence of the hardcore white racists who made up part of the protesters on UVA campus. ..."
"... There is a difference between legitimate civil rights struggles, which at times led to violence, and the reverse racism that I see and hear far too often out of the Black Lives Matter people. ..."
"... Soros Money Matters too. He is not a benign figure but a promoter of division and discord. I sat in a room when he complained bitterly, with racist overtones, during a meeting of the Drug Policy Foundation years ago, that there were not black voices promoting the legalization of crack cocaine, part of his libertine agenda. Is he a friend of the black community? I don't think so. ..."
"... Identity politics is a disease. It divides people and makes them into the sum of their self-defined attributes. Far from bringing about the end of identity politics, the Trump election has hardened the fault lines, whether on Capitol Hill or on the streets of American cities. ..."
I vividly recall staying up past 1 AM on election night 2016, watching CNN, as it became clear
that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States. News anchor Dana Bash
was beside herself at the outcome, and at one point, in a fit of honesty, she exclaimed, "This means
the end of identity politics." Well, yes, but a deep ideology like identity politics does not die
a quiet and sober death. Last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw identity politics playing
out--violently. Whether it was the white protesters who formed part of the original crowd, or the
black and "antifa" protesters who formed part of the counter-demonstration, we witnessed a clash
of identities.
President Trump was not wrong when he said that there were violent protesters on both sides of
the clash, and that many of the protesters were not there to show their racism, but to protest the
tearing down of a statue of a figure in American history who cannot be airbrushed out of our nation's
story. Is the next step to burn down the campus of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia,
because it was co-named after Robert E. Lee after the Civil War?
Watching the tirades on MSNBC and other news outlets over the past 48 hours, I can't help
but lament how twisted our public discourse has become. Clearly some of the counter-demonstrators
were part of the very same "antifa" apparatus that got very different news coverage when they torched
and trashed Seattle a number of years back in protest at a WTO meeting. This time around, they were
defended by the icons of media, who denounced any thought that there was "moral equivalence" between
their violence and the violence of the hardcore white racists who made up part of the protesters
on UVA campus.
There is a difference between legitimate civil rights struggles, which at times led to violence,
and the reverse racism that I see and hear far too often out of the Black Lives Matter people.
And there is the matter of George Soros spending millions of dollars to help launch that movement
after Ferguson. Soros Money Matters too. He is not a benign figure but a promoter of division
and discord. I sat in a room when he complained bitterly, with racist overtones, during a meeting
of the Drug Policy Foundation years ago, that there were not black voices promoting the legalization
of crack cocaine, part of his libertine agenda. Is he a friend of the black community? I don't think
so.
Identity politics is a disease. It divides people and makes them into the sum of their self-defined
attributes. Far from bringing about the end of identity politics, the Trump election has hardened
the fault lines, whether on Capitol Hill or on the streets of American cities.
Brennan Gilmore, Tom Perrielo, Michael Signer, and other friends of Podesta arranged the Charlottesville
violence. This isn't just a bunch of college-age leftists getting excited about Derrida. The Charlottesville
violence was the result of a conspiracy by well-connected insiders.
I quote the "Signs of the Times" website linked below:
The STOP KONY 2012 psyop was all about using the Joseph Kony boogieman to justify letting Barack
Obama send Special Operations troops into Africa to run around and squash any and all resistance
to our new imperialism campaign. It was a fraud. A show. And Brennan was part of it.
He was also part of the campaign of Tom Perriello's in Virginia to become the next governor.
End quote.
"Signs of the Times" dot net has a story on this that I will link in the third field below.
I fear that we are approaching a season of disintegration. September 11 at Texas A&M and September
16 on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia will be indicators. pl
On June 6, 1944, a bunch of "protesters" attacked Nazis and did so violently. Was there a moral
equivalency then too? You have to reach rather low to accept Nazis, et al, and try to deflect
blame for what they stand for. What the defenders of the Confederacy has managed to do is to thoroughly
discredit their cause by associating with these despicable groups. It is again a lost cause and
again, they only have themselves to blame.
We may be watching the end of the Trump era come nearer. By association, he is rapidly losing
the moral stature of the office that he holds. A lot of people near him are losing their reputations
forever.
Of course Sweden did not fight the Nazis at all. Was there a moral equivalence there or was
it just self-interest? In fact there were many Swedish volunteers in the 5th SS Panzer Division.
What is the factual basis for saying that the people who would not have the statues moved are
Nazi-associated or supporting? Do you think the UDC and SCV (of whom I am not qualified to be
a member) are Nazi-associated? pl
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
Google fires employee James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.
– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White
men, Centrists, and Conservatives.
– No, we don't. You're fired.
A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of
modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.
Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender
stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our
addresses, our voice samples (
OK Google
), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our
sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our
own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably
temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine
algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a
central
House of Cards
plotline.
Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that
shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the
company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so.
Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and
aggressively feminist values.
The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled
Google's
Ideological Echo Chamber
was circulated through the local network of Google. The author
lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This
policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint
a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white
cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them
fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based
advantage.
The author argues that Leftism and "diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber"
within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through
this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that
matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency,
with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.
In contrast to Google's buzzwords of "vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the
company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a
morass.
As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals
are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the
Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares
all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.
The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs.
bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto
gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed
women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US
presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing
the "diversity" policy.
The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to
conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this
Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best
there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation
programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies,
disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness,
if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic,
Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.
What is the proposed solution?
Stop diving people into "oppressors" and "the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the
alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.
The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating
Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be
protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a
focused and methodical approach to work.
Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct
America.
End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with
non-discriminatory ones.
Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not
only expensive but also pit one part of the company's employees against the other.
Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company.
Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss facts. Instead of cultivating
sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.
Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of
oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.
The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to
formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is
to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.
Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can't take the
methods of competition considered natural among men.
Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with
status
Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are
still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to
them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).
It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the
greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes,
and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving
him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was
fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the
memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in
our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a
unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a
"free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all
claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian
Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired
Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in
discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing
the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make
history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own
views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western
thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative
naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are
biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into
account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for
being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate
"biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore
"arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically
correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all
of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice
for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main
Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for
creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of
stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth
reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the prejudice is a
colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness
that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such
circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it.
Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works
most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost
invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo
Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram
user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we
could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue
of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is,
that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their
efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of
the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and
cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad
assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like
relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore
claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing
with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a
whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them
down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical
determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without
any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is
tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of
tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion. Putting men
into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the
polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as
"superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the
"superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility
during the Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women
but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the
historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural,
biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is
defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a
rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where
adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call them roles –
the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and
females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and
talent.
The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave
a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet
it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the
more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater
reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of
the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is
the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West:
men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as
members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is
already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile
relations, it's probably for the better.
"... The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw). ..."
1) The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House
In this case, I'd have to disagree. When I examine the bizarre events of the
2000 election in hindsight, it seems likely that
someone
was absolutely determined
to get Bush into the White House at all costs, probably so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could
appoint all the neocons to neutralize the Pentagon and the CIA, leaving the country ripe
for attack.
Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is
not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by
either foreign elements, or traitors or both.
Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that –
a dream.
It's like George Carlin said: "The reason they call it the American Dream is
because you have to be asleep to believe it."
In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically
forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7!
The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he deliberately brought
down building 7 through controlled demolition, even though the exact justification he
offered is implausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be
Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that
– a dream.
small point in your overall pic, Saker, but annoying as hell:
The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent
invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon
confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw).
Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin did not "pledge their lives, their
fortune, their sacred honor" for
the American Dream.
@Erebus
I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.
Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they
live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they
don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent
professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for
themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using
some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....
Why?
Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life
changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just
murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight
this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family
and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering
how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live
an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".
Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are
the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation,
scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the
window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried
as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.
That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.
Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous
bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about!vanity and anarchy. Truther's
beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of
the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the
official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist
(for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you
libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your
little catalog of epithets.
This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little
dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better
I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every
excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions
whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those
institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You,
sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth
while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik,
another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.
But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what
really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of
acknowledging that!gasp!!their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident
that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.
What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply
doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been
slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of
time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of
cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government
would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the
US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to
ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that
it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding
the sanctity of the federal government.
But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that
whatever powers
ought
to be governing the affairs of men!be it the Constitution "as
written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy!really are pure and perfect as the
driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them:
enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that
your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and
future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon
The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their
high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as
moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You
covet
them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them
and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the
sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought
is but the mirror image of the thinker.
But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist
attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security
state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.
"... The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw). ..."
1) The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House
In this case, I'd have to disagree. When I examine the bizarre events of the
2000 election in hindsight, it seems likely that someone was absolutely determined
to get Bush into the White House at all costs, probably so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could
appoint all the neocons to neutralize the Pentagon and the CIA, leaving the country ripe
for attack.
Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is
not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by
either foreign elements, or traitors or both.
Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that –
a dream.
It's like George Carlin said: "The reason they call it the American Dream is
because you have to be asleep to believe it."
In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically
forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7!
The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he deliberately brought
down building 7 through controlled demolition, even though the exact justification he
offered is implausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be
Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that
– a dream.
small point in your overall pic, Saker, but annoying as hell:
The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent
invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon
confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw).
Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin did not "pledge their lives, their
fortune, their sacred honor" for the American Dream.
@Erebus I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.
Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they
live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they
don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent
professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for
themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using
some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....
Why?
Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life
changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just
murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight
this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family
and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering
how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live
an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".
Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are
the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation,
scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the
window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried
as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.
That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.
Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous
bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about!vanity and anarchy. Truther's
beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of
the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the
official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist
(for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you
libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your
little catalog of epithets.
This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little
dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better
I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every
excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions
whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those
institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You,
sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth
while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik,
another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.
But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what
really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of
acknowledging that!gasp!!their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident
that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.
What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply
doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been
slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of
time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of
cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government
would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the
US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to
ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that
it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding
the sanctity of the federal government.
But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that
whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men!be it the Constitution "as
written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy!really are pure and perfect as the
driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them:
enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that
your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and
future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon
The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their
high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as
moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You
covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them
and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the
sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought
is but the mirror image of the thinker.
But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist
attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security
state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.
The memo at the heart of the latest blowup at the National Security Council paints a dark
picture of media, academics, the "deep state," and other enemies allegedly working to subvert
U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a copy of the document obtained by Foreign Policy.
The seven-page document, which eventually landed on the president's desk, precipitated a
crisis that led to the departure of several high-level NSC officials tied to former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The author of the memo, Rich Higgins, who was in the
strategic planning office at the NSC, was among those recently pushed out.
The full memo, dated May 2017, is titled "POTUS & Political Warfare." It provides a
sweeping, if at times conspiratorial, view of what it describes as a multi-pronged attack on
the Trump White House.
Trump is being attacked, the memo says, because he represents "an existential threat to
cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative." Those threatened by
Trump include "'deep state' actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment
Republicans."
The memo is part of a broader political struggle inside the White House between current
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and alt-right operatives with a nationalist worldview
who believe the Army general and his crew are subverting the president's agenda.
Though not called out by name, McMaster was among those described in the document as
working against Trump, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the memo and the
events. Higgins, the author, is widely regarded as a Flynn loyalist who dislikes McMaster and
his team.
BACKGROUND. The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns
designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the President. Possibly
confusing these attacks with an elevated interplay of otherwise normal D.C. partisan
infighting and adversarial media relations, the White House response to these campaigns
reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive
and dangerously inadequate to the threat. If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to
these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early
departure from the White House.
This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that
is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the
news cycle. It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken. At
its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of
effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural
Marxist outcomes. The campaigns operate through narratives. Because the hard left is aligned
with Islamist organizations at local (ANTIFA working with Muslim Brotherhood doing business
as MSA and CAIR), national (ACLU and BLM working with CAIR and MPAC) and international levels
(OIC working with OSCE and the UN), recognition must given to the fact that they seamlessly
interoperate at the narrative level as well. In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat
to the "politically correct" enforcement narratives they've meticulously laid in over the
past few decades. In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to
ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.
INTRODUCTION. Responding to relentless personal assaults on his character, candidate Trump
identified the players and the strategy:
• 'The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through
means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a
racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed." - President Trump, Oct 2016
Culturally conditioned to limit responses to such attacks as yet another round in the
on-going drone from diversity and multicultural malcontents, these broadsides are discounted
as political correctness run amuck. However, political correctness is a weapon against reason
and critical thinking. This weapon functions as the enforcement mechanism of diversity
narratives that seek to implement cultural Marxism. Candidate Trump's rhetoric in the
campaign not only cut through the Marxist narrative, he did so in ways that were viscerally
comprehensible to a voting bloc that then made candidate Trump the president; making that
bloc self-aware in the process. President Trump is either the candidate he ran as, or he is
nothing.
Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that
dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses
and seek his destruction. For this cabal. Trump must be destroyed. Far from politics as
usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president.
Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions. For those
engaged in the effort, especially those from within the "deep state" or permanent government
apparatus, this raises clear Title 18 (legal) concerns.
DISCUSSION.
The Opposition. While opposition to President Trump manifests itself through political
warfare memes centered on cultural Marxist narratives, this hardly means that opposition is
limited to Marxists as conventionally understood. Having become the dominant cultural meme,
some benefit from it while others are captured by it; including "deep state" actors,
globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans. Through the campaign,
candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at
risk and is slipping away. Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to
succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be
destroyed. Atomization of society must also occur at the individual level; with attacks
directed against all levels of group and personal identity. Hence the sexism, racism and
xenophobia memes. As a Judeo-Christian culture, forced inclusion of post-modern notions of
tolerance is designed to induce nihilistic contradictions that reduce all thought, all faith,
all loyalties to meaninglessness. Group rights based on sex or ethnicity are a direct assault
on the very idea of individual human rights and natural law around which the Constitution was
framed. "Transgender acceptance" memes attack at the most basic level by denying a person the
right to declare the biological fact of one's sex. When a population has 2 + 2 = 5 imposed on
it, there are many that benefit:
Mainstream Media
- The principle mechanism for implementing narratives.
The Academy
- Academia has served as a principle counter-state node for some
time and remains a key conduit for creating future adherents to cultural Marxist narratives
and their derivative worldview.
The Deep State - The successful outcome of cultural Marxism is a bureaucratic state
beholden to no one, certainly not the American people. With no rule of law considerations
outside those that further deep state power, the deep state truly becomes, as Hegel
advocated, god bestriding the earth.
Global Corporatists & Bankers
- Exploitation of populations, unfettered by
national protections and notions of personal morality and piety.
Democratic Leadership
- The democratic leadership has been a counter-state
enabler that executes, sustains, and protects cultural Marxist programs of action and
facilitates the relentless expansion of the deep state.
Republican Leadership
- More afraid of being accused of being called a racist,
sexist, homophobe or Islamophobe than of failing to enforce their oaths to "support and
defend the Constitution," the Republican Establishment accepts and enforces cultural
Marxist memes within its own sphere of operations. In doing so, knowingly or not, it
becomes an agent of that. These "conservatives" become increasingly indistinguishable from
their democratic counter- parts save that they misrepresent themselves to their
constituents. Lacking the discernment to recognize their situation, they will work with
globalists, corporatists, and the international financial interests and will likewise
service the deep state. These establishment Republicans are the hard left's designated
defeat mechanism in the destruction of the old regime as well as the American ideal.
1
(
For more information on how influence operations of the former
Soviet Union targeted leading conservative groups and individuals in order to bring them
into line with cultural Marxist narratives. See Link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZhqeLRIMo
) Because candidate Trump publicly exposed them for their duplicitous activities, they are
at risk as long as Trump can turn on them and are, therefore, bitter foes. Candidate
Trump's success remains an ongoing existential threat to establishment Republicans.
Islamists
- Islamists ally with cultural Marxist because, as far back as the
1980s, they properly assessed that the hard left has a strong chance of reducing Western
civilization to its benefit. Having co-opted post-modern narratives as critical points,
Islamists deploy these narrative to strategically blind and then control US decision
makers. This is by design and purposeful. "By their own hands!" has been the declared
strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood since 1991. This strategy seeks to divide American
society against itself with the forced imposition of Islamist objectives on one half of
American society by the other half. Once a society has been effectively atomized, the
population will have lost its faith in the old order, detest those who reduced it, and
divide along the lines of narrative adherence. This is the intended outcome of hostile
information cum political warfare campaigns and today we see their effects on American
society.
Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his
message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him
in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed.
While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump's
insofar as he holds to
the vision that made him president.
Political Warfare Attacks - A Primer.
As used here, "political warfare" does not
concern activities associated with the American political process but rather
exclusively
refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency
model.
2
Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency.
Maoist methodologies employ synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on
mobilization of individuals and groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of
non-violent operational arts and tactics as elements of combat power. In Maoist insurgencies,
the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a
hostile competing state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure.
Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the "counter-state" and is primarily
focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and
demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be
implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.
Political warfare is warfare. Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize
through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes.
They principally operate through narratives. Because the left is aligned with Islamist
organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the
fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive
narratives.
Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his
message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him
in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed.
While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump's
insofar as he holds to
the vision that made him president.
Political Warfare Attacks - A Primer. As used here, "political warfare" does not concern
activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to
political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency model.
2
Political
warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency. Maoist methodologies employ
synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on mobilization of individuals and
groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operational arts and
tactics as elements of combat power. In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state
is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile competing state acting within
an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of
the activities of the "counter-state" and is primarily focused on the resourcing and
mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted
political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational,
or tactical levels of operation.
Political warfare is warfare. Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize
through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes.
They principally operate through narratives. Because the left is aligned with Islamist
organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the
fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive
narratives.
2
This discussion relies on Thomas A. Marks' treatment of the Maoist model as
discussed in Maoist People's War in Post-Vietnam Asia (Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press,
2007), 1 - 14. Hereafter "Thomas A. Marks, Maoist People's War."
As used in this discussion, cultural Marxism relates to programs and activities that arise
out of Gramsci Marxism, Fabian Socialism and most directly from the Frankfurt School. The
Frankfurt strategy deconstructs societies through attacks on culture by imposing a dialectic
that forces unresolvable contradictions under the rubric of critical theory. The result is
induced nihilism, a belief in everything that is actually the belief in nothing.
That post-modern (diversity/multiculturalism) narratives seeks to implement cultural
Marxist objectives can be demonstrated by reference to founding Frankfurt School theorist
Herbert Marcuse's repurposing of the term tolerance. In a 1965 paper, Marcuse defined
tolerance as intolerance; said it can be implemented through undemocratic means to stop
chauvinism (xenophobia), racism, discrimination; and should be extended to the left while
denied to the right:
• "The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward
prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies,
attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed."
• "Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a
democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e in the majority of the people). This
means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and
if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require
apparently undemocratic means They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and
assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism,
discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of pubic
services, social security, medical care, etc." (8-9)
• "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the
Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and
intolerance:... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and
propaganda, of deed as well as of word.
-
(12)
It is through such post-modern constructs that interoperable narratives are established
among various left-wing groups as well as between them and Islamist groups at all levels. For
example, from the 2001 Conference of Foreign Ministers at Bamako, Mali, the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC) declared its commitment to fight racism and xenophobia and then
declared Islamophobia a "contemporary form of racism":
• In this context, the world Conference urges all states... take all necessary
measures to comoat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence. Intimidation
and coercion motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
particularly against Islam
• Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which display
an increasing trend, in their most subtle and contemporary forms, constitute a violation of
human rights. 3 Contemporary forms of racism are based on discrimination and disparagement
on a cultural, rather than biological basis. In this content, the increasing trend of
Islamophobia, as a distinct form of xenophobia in non-Muslim societies is very
alarming.
That the OIC made these claims as part of its planned inputs to the United Nation's "Third
World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination. Xenophobia and Related Intolerance"
further demonstrates the coordinated and interoperable nature of these narratives at
international levels in international forums.
As cultural Marxist narratives intensify, they are to be further operationalized in the
form of hate speech narratives. Hate speech narratives are non-random, coordinated, and fully
interoperable escalations of cultural Marxist memes. Key international players include the
European Union, the UN, and the OSCE, the OIC and the International Muslim Brotherhood. Hate
speech memes are structured, coordinated, and implemented through these same international
forums. They involve close coordination with media and social media and include the
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narratives. David Shipler's book Freedom of Speech
provides a road map for how hate speech narratives are to be structured, deployed and
enforced.
Battlespace.
These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum and
institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news
cycle in all media, and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies and within
the foreign policy establishment. They inform the entertainment industry from late night
monologues, to situation comedies, to television series memes, to movie themes. The effort
required to direct this capacity at President Trump is little more than a programming
decision to do so. The cultural Marxist narrative is fully deployed, pervasive, full spectrum
and ongoing. Regarding the president, attacks have become a relentless 24/7 effort.
While there is certainly a Marxist agenda and even Islamist motivations that must be
seriously addressed in their own right, these motivations alone seem inadequate to explain
the scope and magnitude of the effort directed against the president. The economic drivers
behind the Marxist and Islamist ideologues are enormously influential and seek to leverage
these ideological movements for their own self interests. While beyond the actual scope of
this document, the benefactors of these political movements include; Urban Real Estate who
depend greatly on immigrant tenants, International Banking who seeks to maintain US debtor
status so as to control the application of American power, and elements of the business
sector that depend upon immigrant labor or government infrastructure. The overall objective
of these economic forces is the forced urbanization of the populace, thereby necessitating a
larger, more powerful government. In summary, this is a form of population control by certain
business cartels in league with cultural Marxists/corporatists/lslamists who will leverage
Islamic terrorism threats to justify the creation of a police state.
Adversary Campaign Plan. Political Warfare has been described as "propaganda in
battledress."
3
The effort directed at President Trump is executed along one
overt, as well as two covert, lines of effort:
The overt line of effort is PUBLICITY. Publicity is the straightforward projection of a
case that builds a picture in the audience's mind designed to garner support. It is facts
without context and information the adversary wants the audience to possess that creates an
impression and sets conditions. It seeks to establish good will and receptiveness to
additional inputs.
There are two covert lines of effort: PROPOGANDA and INFILTRATION/SUBVERSION.
о Propaganda is the deliberate direction, even manipulation, of information to
secure a
definite outcome. It is an attempt to direct the thinking of the recipient, without his
conscious collaboration, into predetermined channels that are established in the Publicity
line of effort. It is the unwitting conditioning of the recipient by devious methods with an
ulterior motive that seeks to move them incrementally over time into greater belief and
acceptance of message transmitted in the Publicity line of effort.
о Infiltration and subversion operate internal to the targeted organization in order
to
inform, target, coordinate, and amplify the effects of the publicity and propaganda.
Both operate to gather intelligence, obstruct legitimate courses of action, provide inside
information, and leak sensitive information that undermines the leadership and suppresses the
morale of friendly elements.
3
"Political Warfare Executive - The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of
Political Warfare," His 8ritannic Majesty's Government, London, 1942, 5.
о Infiltration of political and social groups within a target state is done for
the purpose of extending counter- state influence and control. The endgame is concealed and
may involve illicit activities.
о Subversion undermines or detaches the loyalties of significant political and
social groups within the target state and transfers political and/or ideological loyalties
to the counter-state. As the counter-state forms, a counter-elite of influential individual
and key leaders within the target state will later facilitate the legitimacy and permanency
of the new regime.
Political warfare employs both publicity and propaganda. It recognizes no intrinsic virtue
in the news but rather envisions it as a mechanism to exploit and build up support. From a
political warfare perspective, control of the news cycle is the most potent means of
attracting and building up a favorable audience.
As it relates to the news cycle, publicity and propaganda can be merged to form a
"pseudo-publicity" that is presented as news in furtherance of sustaining pseudo-realities
maintained by cultural Marxist memes. Pseudo-publicity treatment of President Trump dominates
the news cycle. The current campaign against President Trump operates in the following
manner:
The Meta Narrative. Meta narratives seeks to delegitimize President Trump, his
administration, and the vision of America he projected as a candidate. With cultural Marxist
memes serving as the backdrop, President Trump is to be relentlessly characterized as unfit
through the use of supporting narratives acting to move unwitting populations to belief in
the meta narrative. Hence:
• "President Trump is illegitimate"
• "President Trump is corrupt"
• "President Trump is dishonest"
Note that the twitter accounts and mainstream media personalities pushing this narrative
have seen their audience numbers rise greatly in the past 6 months. This is a direct result
of the supporting and backdrop narratives channeling individuals to this meta-narrative.
Supporting Narratives.
Meta-narratives are supported by an ongoing series
supporting-narratives that can be swapped out as circumstances warrant. It is important to
recognize that these stories do not have to be true, valid or accurate to serve their
purpose. Overtime, deserved or not, the cumulative effect of these supporting narratives will
result in a Trump fatigue. From a political warfare perspective. President Trump's inability
to meet this challenge will cast him as a weak failed leader. The current list of supporting
narratives include:
"Russia hacked the election" - illegitimate
"Obstruction of Justice" -corrupt
"Hiding Collusion" -dishonest
"Putin Puppet" - treasonous
Backdrop Narratives.
The backdrop to the meta and supporting narratives are
cultural Marxist memes designed to sustain a general sense of loathing of President Trump and
the America that elected him. Hence:
• "[meta] President Trump is illegitimate, [supporting] he was elected because of
Russian hacking, [backdrop] and besides, he a racist, sexist xenophobe."
Adversaries utilize these interlocking narratives as a defensive political and information
warfare screen that silences critics and smears supporters of President Trump. When people in
the media question the behavior, actions and decisions of the Trump Administration's
opponents, they are immediately said to be "working for the Russians" or "supporting Russian
propaganda." Individual Americans who support the President are deemed "deplorable" and
"racist."
End State. Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about
destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups
seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America
that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized,
immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a
large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become self-aware of Its own
disenfranchisement.
CONCLUSION.
The recent turn of events give rise to the observation that the defense of President Trump
is the defense of America. In the same way President Lincoln was surrounded by political
opposition both inside and outside of his wire, in both overt and covert forms, so too is
President Trump. Had Lincoln failed, so too would have the Republic. The administration has
been maneuvered into a constant back- pedal by relentless political warfare attacks
structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses. The
president can either drive or be driven by events; it's time for him to drive them.
The problem is that that appointing a Special Prosecutor was a special
operation directed against Trump. So Session behavior was the behavior of
enabler of this special operation. Whether he did so because he was afraid of of
being tarred and feathered with Russian connections himself, or he simply
behayed Trump is unknown. But reclusing himself in such a critical for Trump
Presidency matter is probably betrayal in any case.
Notable quotes:
"... The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation. ..."
"... For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. ..."
"... Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation. ..."
"... I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean. ..."
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the
Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be
said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself
back into the Russia investigation.
Trump would then want his new Attorney General to fire Mueller and fire whomever
Mueller reports to. I can't think of any other reason why Trump would want Sessions
removed.
For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with
something to hide. The problem here is that Trump has such a trashy personality
and such all-around trashy behavior that pure spite and irritation for no good
reason at all is just as good a motive for Trump to want Sessions gone.
Sessions won't want to go. He has a legal-ideological mission at Justice.
He won't resign. He will tough it out in place as long as he can.
Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread
of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to
pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation.
That could be, but we will never know as long as Sessions remains AG.
Because Sessions will remain focused on the DoJ mission, and not get involved
in a spat-fight with Trump.
Also, if indeed Trump did ask Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions declined
to do so; perhaps Sessions has given Trump reason to understand that firing
Sessions would play right into the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative which
the Remove Trump forces are engineering.
And perhaps Sessions will have given Trump reason to understand further
that even having given Sessions the reQUEST to fire Mueller could in itself
further the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative. But in the event of imparting
that further level of understanding unto the Trumpster, Sessions will then
have followed up by reassuring Trump that as long as Trump does not fire
Sessions, no one need ever know that Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller.
In the event of all these dominoes having fallen "just so" in a private
discussion between these two men, Sessions will have reassured Trump that
"no one need ever know about the request" . . . for as long as Sessions
remains AG without being fired.
This is all pure speculation following on from your speculative question.
We of the Great Uncleared will never know what has or hasn't been said behind
the locked doors of steel and oak.
I agree with the first part of your comment, but IMO the reason he wants
Muller (or any Special investigator) removed is that he don't want his past
business dealing and tax returns to be investigated, IMO they are scared
of old days business deals, write off etc. and i think that's what Demos
and Borg wants to pull out in a legal public way, and not the Russian connection.
IMO the real sewer lies in past business and tax deals.
I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation
serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like
a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for
obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart
or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already
been gone through thoroughly, he is clean.
Sessions offered his resignation a while back after he recused himself,
Trump refused. Spicer went quickly and quietly, so would Sessions if he
wanted him gone.
This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible
to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and
the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular,
the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.
It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive
they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people.
It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have
the internet. Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level
of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:
"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone,
whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple
questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then
the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction
simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like
a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs
to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the
tip of."
This is a good analysis. Given the author's not insignificant role in the surreptitious
imposition of the cultural Marxism under which we all live today in which the expression of
any ideas by those in public life which run counter to the cultural and economic consensus
are greeted with loud indignation, feigned offence and derision, frequently leading to social
ostracism, one wonders how the new ideas are to be even debated, let alone taken up.
Pikkety (?) is a good example of original thinking, with whom I don't personally agree,
but the way in which he has been derided in most MSM or, worse, completely ignored shows up
shallowness of modern political and philosophical discourse.
I have no idea what you mean by 'cultural Marxism', it seems you're way off beam. We have
lived through a period of hegemony dominated by neo liberal capitalism - as Martin describes
so well. Share
Facebook
Twitter
'Cultural Marxism' is usually a euphemism for political correctness and identity politics
which the right-wing commentariat see rooted in 1960s counter culture supposedly influenced
by French and Frankfurt School marxian philosophy.
Similarly Malcolm Turnbull, the ultimate symbol of the success of greed who promoted massive
tax cuts to the corporations as an election strategy, was stunned by his rejection at the
last election and by the rise of Pauline Hanson, an individual who represents an Australian
version of Donald Trump.
Meanwhile other neo-liberal reactionaries like the Premier of NSW, Mike Baird, continue to
sell public assets such as the electricity supply, dismantle and dismiss democratically
elected local councils, give business owners two votes in Sydney City council elections, tear
down functional buildings such as the Power House Museum and the Entertainment center in
order to hand the sites to property developers and approves coal mines on prime agricultural
land and in areas of great natural beauty yet imagines that he will get away with what he is
doing.
He may well discover that come the next election, even the ordinary members of his own party
will desert him as the revolt against his destructive and arrogant mis-government catches up
with him.
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited
an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to
scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that
his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media
outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously
false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.
A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press
when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community
had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.
"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were
the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now
reports
. "The rest were doing other work."
Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently
reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.
"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic
fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him
get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working
under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.
A few days later, the Associated Press
echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly
blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.
The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections
at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.
The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable
truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.
"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact
wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies,"
CNN blared .
The New York Times
took
it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading"
narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads
on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."
But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance
of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest
echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political
operatives and anonymous "officials."
Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from
the top.
The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few
weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies
that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report
incorrectly claiming there are
19 intelligence agencies).
She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt
to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.
"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere
in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks,
these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply
disturbing."
Trump took the bait.
"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated
over and over in the press as evidence
he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our
country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."
With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.
Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And
the fact checks came rolling in.
The New York Times
,
Politico ,
ABC News ,
Politifact and PBS
all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number
with authority in its reporting, saying
in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."
The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate
talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.
"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from
the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line
in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.
Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now
framed it as common
knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military
and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"
The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a
particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."
All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes,
the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list
of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.
The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence
organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under
DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless
a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.
That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down
at the speed of common sense and Google.
Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate
agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of
the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately
reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.
Nevertheless, the claim persisted.
"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump
in
an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"
"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the
contrary," the Daily Beast
reported
that same day .
NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget
in
a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting
report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.
"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But
since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning
was clear."
Reuters, too, touted the number
in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.
The declassified DNI report that followed in January
provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion
was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times
conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)
A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing
about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.
"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence
community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting
the record.
"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And
we all know how that's right."
Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly
involved in this assessment, plus my office."
"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.
"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a
special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."
So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that
none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they,
since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?
At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report
made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.
Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim
in an interview
with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.
"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in
agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence'
that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."
A little while later the bogus claim
showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation
fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then
twice
more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well
in a June
11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim,
which was rather strangely corrected four days later.
After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta
actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where
does that number come from?" Acosta asked.
The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying
Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially
doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim
mostly false in a separate fact check.
So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking
point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than
six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly
reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.
We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters --
proved
more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia
investigation.
The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.
Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the
news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally
coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.
The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.
Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30."
Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out
to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.
In a report casting
the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe.
The White House refuted the anecdote
in no uncertain terms
the following day.
Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid
definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an
infected site on a work computer.
CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey
would
refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such
thing. In fact he
corroborated Trump's account .
Just weeks after retracting a story
on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their
first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course,
it was wrong
. One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.
We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian
meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled
in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should
be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.
The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.
"... Among the sources of division are the various forms of identity politics that have swamped academia and popular culture, and which the alt-right sees as "inclusive" of everyone except white people many of whom are clearly "have nots." In this world, some, as George Orwell (1903 – 1950) predicted, are clearly more equal than others. ..."
Among the sources of division are the various forms of identity politics that have swamped academia
and popular culture, and which the alt-right sees as "inclusive" of everyone except white people
many of whom are clearly "have nots." In this world, some, as George Orwell (1903 – 1950) predicted,
are clearly more equal than others.
The Left, frustrated by Trump's rise and its inability to control the public conversation, has
reached the point where violence is acceptable (Richard Spencer has been physically sucker-punched
on video).
Its representatives in dominant media, including social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter,
are doing everything they can to censor the alt-right, including making it difficult for its most
visible leaders to function in public.
There are many US Libertarians, Progressives, and others that are dismayed at the
exceptional!
go-along-to-get-along and corporate-controlled media, all led by
neolibcons that want MOAR!
Americans are (mostly) either fed-up, checked out, suffering from Stockholm syndrome,
or some combination of the these. What they need a kick-in-the-ass. And that is likely
to come from what has been termed "the reset": a point at which the can can no longer be
kicked.
Well said...!
I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today
suffering and paying a price. And I agree that (widespread) anti-American
sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism.
It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each
others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the
global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick
in the world, but it seems to work every single time...sad! ;-)
"... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'.
the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that
the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what
if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine
yards?
so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
by Justin Raimondo Posted
on June
30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media,
and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling,
one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary
Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.
The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation:
"Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama,
and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin:
Well, almost nothing."
Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:
"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the
United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."
This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's
questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name
doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:
"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say
is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there
are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one
gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."
So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because
the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And
so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the
election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question
as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect
of getting along with Russia so problematic.
Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference,
I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters
"should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have
tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more
perceptive progressives are
saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."
This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted
what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:
"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president
and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president
to make good on the promises he gave to the people."
To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that
has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:
Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the
White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American
partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of "
libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that
the Ukraine snipers who shot
at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the
end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available
to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a
number of other places." Putin has evidence of
Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took
out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported
to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier.
And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So
trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely
evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that
route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone
and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming
from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According
to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the
Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their
alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US
Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."
And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden
revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting
that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way.
Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that
this is indeed the case .
There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the
instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points
the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that
it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies
of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies
it: "I'm a capitalist!"
There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove,"
the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's
face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy
in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question
very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral
abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:
"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the
first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."
To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.
Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences
for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:
"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone.
I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on
to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about
to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace
and consciousness to the world."
Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is
that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being
a "
useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals
who used to be labeled as such.
And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to
realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely
described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing
this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it
for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man
who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and
Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.
What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both
countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which
Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything
to stop it. But why?
There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility
between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues.
Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason.
Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class,
and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.
Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against
not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a
separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even
more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions
such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.
This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict
that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national
sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts
the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.
In his famous essay, " The End of History
," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as
the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its
power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in
that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they
are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country
and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the
ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle
to the globalist project.
That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism"
of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism.
Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would
demonize him and his country for this very reason.
As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture
a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous
State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.
Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver
Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is
here , and the second part is
here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film –
here .
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
Those of us who are highly critical of Israel's ability to manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites that permit
comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance.
Given that it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously, react
similarly to its content, and then go on to express their disgust in very similar language, many of us have come to the conclusion
that the Israeli government or some of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests turn loose supporters who are dedicated
to combating and refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a negative light.
The fact is that Israel is extremely active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area between covert operations and overt governmental
activity. Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in the media, but they normally do it openly with an ambassador
or press officer countering criticism by sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a talk show. Such activity is generally
described as public diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized government official and the information itself is both plausible
and verifiable, at least within reasonable limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in other activities that are not
so transparent and which are aimed at spreading false information.
When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating "false news," it is referred
to as a "disinformation operation."
But Israel has refined the art of something that expands upon that, what might be referred to more accurately as "perception management"
or "influence operations" in which it only very rarely shows its hand overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers
or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign
Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name,
hasbara, which means literally "public explanation." It is essentially an internet-focused "information war" that parallels and supports
the military action whenever Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or seeks to influence public opinion in the United
States and Europe.
... ... ...
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has sent a letter out to a number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the "importance of the
internet as the new battleground for Israel's image." Haaretz reported in 2013 how Prime Minister Netanyahu's office collaborated
with the National Union of Israeli Students to establish "covert units" at the seven national universities to be structured in a
"semi-military" fashion and organized in situation rooms. Students are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the online targets.
The serious collaboration between government and volunteers actually began with Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, an incursion
into Gaza that killed more than 1,800 Palestinians, when the Foreign Ministry pulled together a group of mostly young computer savvy
soldiers supplemented by students both overseas and within Israel to post a number of government-crafted responses to international
criticism.
Many of the initial volunteers worked through a website giyus.org (an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support). The website
included a desktop tool called Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles appearing on the internet that had to be challenged
or attacked. There were once believed to be 50,000 activists receiving the now-inactive Megaphone's alerts.
There have also been reports about a pro-Israel American group called Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
(CAMERA) preparing to enter its own version of developments in the Middle East on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. E-mails
from CAMERA reveal that the group sought volunteers in 2008 to edit material on Wikipedia "to help us keep Israel-related entries
from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors," while also recommending that articles on the Middle East be avoided initially by supporters
so as not to arouse suspicions about their motives. Volunteers were also advised to use false names that did not hint at any Israeli
or Jewish connection and to avoid any references to being organized by CAMERA. Fifty volunteers reportedly were actively engaged
in the program when it was exposed in the media and the program was put on hold.
CAMERA is an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions to it are tax exempt. Such
exemptions are granted to organizations that are either charitable or educational in nature and they normally preclude any involvement
in partisan political activity. As CAMERA would not appear to qualify as a charity, it is to be presumed that its application for
special tax status stressed that it is educational. Whether its involvement in "un-tainting" Wikipedia truly falls within that definition
might well be debated, particularly as it appears to have been carried out in semi-clandestine fashion. CAMERA might well also be
considered to be a good candidate for registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), as its activity is uniquely
focused on promoting the perceived interests of a foreign government.
The use of Israel's universities as propaganda mills by the government also raises other significant issues. The growing BDS movement
has included some Israeli universities as targets because of their alleged involvement with the government in the occupation of the
West Bank. That the universities are also involved in possible government-sponsored information operations might be an additional
convincing argument that BDS supporters might use to justify blacklisting at least some Israeli academic institutions.
Every government is engaged in selling a product, which is its own self-justifying view of what it does and how it does it. But
the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more
than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign
government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not. What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed
against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s.
That Israel can continue to reap huge amounts of aid and political cover from Washington while it is actively working to make
sure that Americans are poorly informed about the Middle East reveals more than anything the corruption of our political class and
media, both of which appear to be ready to sell out for thirty shekels to anyone with the cash in hand. Time to drain the swamp,
indeed.
This is documented long-term foreign influence which has reached treason levels in the past, for instance at the time the USS
Liberty was sunk in June, 1967. This can be contrasted with the phony Russia accusations levelled by many of the same people whose
first loyalty is to the Israeli state rather than to the yankee imperium employing them. I don't see this ending well.
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress
curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.
Israel's global news penetration (via hasbara) and other disinformation strategies are routine. Diabolical, but routine.
The Zionist state's various tricks and manipulations are legendary and ruthless. They function as a backdoor attack on intellectual
liberty as well as open political discourse. They are anti-democratic.
Thus, even 'freedom of expression' in America is under constant Israeli pressure and surveillance. No stone goes unturned.
This is why Holocaust 'education' is ubiquitous and, when possible, mandatory. If the stories fail, inject guilt. It's an unscrupulous
strategy that is working.
Meanwhile, Zionist myths rain down endlessly via American TV and throughout American mass media. Deep Zionist victimology has
penetrated even US public schools. Hasbara is strategic. It is unrelenting. Ironically, it represents the tribal interest of a
foreign power. Do Americans live under soft occupation? It increasingly looks that way.
This explains why Jewish suffering, Jewish innocence, and Jewish victimology are now compulsory subjects in American life–from
schools to children's TV, to higher education and adult cinema. 'Dominare the message'.
On the other hand, Israel's commitment to segregation between Jews and gentiles is quietly steadfast. "Unshakable'. This head-scratching
phenomena has been obscured by the Fake News meme involving America's 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Yet it is an absolute ruse.
No such heritage exists. These are Zionist-lead political movements and Zionist headlines. They tread on the thin, manufactured
ice. Theydo not exist organically.
Christ's teachings were in fact a break from Judaism. Christ said as much. Christianity is an Open Admissions theology that
stresses universal ethics that are non-racial. On the other hand, Israel is tribal, racial and exclusionary. This wouldn't be
so repulsive if not for Israel's vociferous (and insincere) support for 'equality' and its pious contempt for 'white nationalism'.
Jewish racism is commanded by God. And Israel's ethical basis is polluted by nepotism, 'chosenness' and racial favoritism under
God. It is a collection of myths and yarns that drip with tribal supremacism.
It's worth remembering also that Jews in Israel have a distinct word for their version of 'Apartheid'. It is 'Hafrada', which
means 'separation' in Hebrew. Ever heard of it? Of course not! Hasbara operatives and their cousins in US news media make sure
of that.
Sadly, we Americans live under soft occupation.
Significantly, few non-Jews have ever heard of 'hafrada'. But everyone has heard of 'Apartheid'.
Gee. How come?
We can thank the legions of young Israeli activists (and their elders) for this deliberate omission and assorted side shows.
Control speech. Control thought.
Make no mistake about it: Israel is a racial supremacist state. Segregation is a core Zionist value. Jewish exceptionalism
is their paramount goal. America is a useful, but temporary, ally. This is the nature of the 'special relationship.'
Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews are capable of.
In 1948, thanks to the persecutions of the jews during WWII, Israel had a lot of sympathy in the world.
Nowadays, with no solution anywhere in sight for the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, in Germany a Secretary
for, against, Antisemitism seems necessary.
Germany debates if criticism of Israel, antizionism, is he same as antisemitism.
Norman Finkelstein and Ilian Pappe recently were not allowed to speak in Germany.
Indeed Israel is great in propaganda, but the effects are less and less.
Israel has but one 'friend', the USA, and how sincere this friendship is is more and more debatable.
Mobilising jews to write on fora, in many languages, any time there have been Israeli atrocities, may have the opposite effect.
Anyone familiar with these fora notices how these propagandists pop up, and disappear after some time.
What they are paid even is known, four or five dollars per message.
It looks like 'you can fool all people some time, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time', still is true.
"What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would
have run back in the 1970s and 1980s"
Hi Phil
Jesse Ventura would have us believe the CIA is as busy as it ever had been, when it comes to running operations against the
American people. I agree with Jesse.
Meanwhile, here's a collection of links I'd assembled some time back, includes American military psyops (esp Air Force) along
the lines of hasbara (who're also included)
The CIA and NSA are essentially the jewish elite secret police. They align exactly with Mossad. Hence 9-11. Read the Devil's Chessboard by Stephen Talbot. We've previoulsy lived under a gentile plutocracy since the assasination of
JFK.
But something happened since as Zion rose to prominence. The coup against Nixon by the Deep State is a part of the puzzle.
Allen Welsh Dulles groomed Nixon. So his loyalists would never have removed him. My hunch is that Nixon's fall to the Washington
Post, consummate deep state pillar, is the key to understanding the later 20th century and our current 'occupation'. Its a pity
nobody could ask David Rockefeller in candour how his group had lost control or merged with the new Zionists.
sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar
in both tone and substance.
Speaking of substance, they typically lack any of it. They usually resort to smarmy personal attacks as well as scatological
foolishness and crass bragging. Some resort to juvenile pseudo-intellectual banter that's obviously intended to intimidate or
humiliate, while another favorite tactic seems to be off topic trash that's also supposed to impress the rest of us somehow.
Nevertheless, I encourage the trolls to keep it up and leave them to figure out why.
But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which
receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people
working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not.
Also interesting is how they manage to do this without widespread condemnation and/or suspicion. It's like people know about
it, but the Israelis create an environment where people don't quite care. Contrast that to the wumao, China's paid commenters,
who arouse widespread suspicion and constant accusations of shilling.
So Israel must have gone one step further. They manage their image with propagandists, but they also manage the image of the
propagandist as well.
The articles show American taxpayers' money in action.
Again, what was the aftermath of 9/11 about – fighting against Al Qaeda? If yes, then why should not Israel be designated as
a terrorist state supporting Al Qaeda, the US sworn enemy? It seems that Al Qaeda is "good guys" nowadays because they help to
farther the Eretz Israel project
The Israel-occupied US government is proverbially dancing on the graves of 9/11 victims: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria"
CAMERA is as old as the hills. I remember when I subscribed to the Atlantic back in the 80s this mangy outfit would
run little 2×3 inch print ads. I always wondered what the fuss was about; I mean, who could be against accurate reporting in the
ME? Then it became clear. And they most certainly should be subjected to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as should many others,
including NY-based Irish Central (a propaganda sheet for the Paddy open borders crowd).
By this time, pretty much everyone does this. Israel might be the biggest or most extensive, but anyone engaged in politics
or related activities does pretty much the same thing.
Any major political party now does this. For example, I was relatively sure the Democrats did this only a couple of weeks back.
AG Sessions was due to testify in a major hearing. It seemed to me that the Democrats both recruited a Senator to hammer a particular
theme, which was to put Sessions in a spot where he had to refuse to answer questions for perfectly legal reasons, and a small
army of internet activists, paid trolls, or bots was mobilized to push memes on the internet on this topic.
By this time, I regard a political party that does not do this as being incompetent.
Corporations also do this. They call it 'brand protection' or 'guerrilla marketing'. Anyone with a little bit of money can
find firms that offer this as a service. What it costs to buy this service would seem expensive to ordinary citizens, but given
the amount of money in play, the cost of a few hundred thousand to a 'consultant' firm is chicken feed. You don't even need to
recruit humans to do it. After all, a fake name and a fake email address can easily be connected to a computer generated fake
message.
A website I go to for news often has headlines like "Twitter explodes to .". I pretty much ignore these as its predictable
and obvious that this can be pre-arranged and manipulated.
The interesting issue I saw raised not too long ago let to the possibility that AI's might manipulate this in the future. At
some point, we'd have to question if there is even a human entity behind this, or is it just an AI that managing our perception
towards itself or other AIs.
There's an old saying that all politics is local. We might actually have to go back to talking to each other face to face.
Good article, but fails to mention that the hasbara would not work without Jewish control of "our" media/entertainment (NYT,
WaPo, Google, Facebook, Hollywood, TV, etc.) industry, not to mention the financial sector and disproportionate representation
of Jews in Congress. Sorry, but those are facts.
@HAL 9000 Israel
is the only country that has control of our congress, our media and the control of the dumb masses to keep driving the US to ruin.
The "everyone does this" line is not much of a response.
Hasbara trolls and websites which publish them are an important measure of true public opinion for the zionists. The Lobby
has its own internal opinion polls which are never shared, certainly not in the crap served up to us by Zogby, Reuters and Pew,
etc. etc. etc.
I suspect that this database is far more comprehensive than commonly known, probably going as far as linking an "anti_Semite"
rating to individual commenters.
@Wally The mooch
fest never ends, unless there's a growing under-current to cut the tentacles. And with cooperative efforts like Technion/Cornell
partnering, they are anchoring themselves to the US indefinitely – so if they fail, they'll pull the US down with them.
They brought Zionist terror to the Middle East, but the victim shtick, via hollywood, has caused the complacent TV-watchers
to be lulled into a false narrative, and who never challenge what a corrupt collective of occupiers, and land swindlers they are.
A review of 'Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto' – by Gilad Atzmon
"WaPo has a 8,300 word weekend opus on how Obama failed to react to CIA director Brennan's claims that Putin himself ordered to
hack the U.S. election.
Note:
Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking"
is the absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude created for too much money as opposition research against Trump . The only
other "evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has a Ukrainian nationalist agenda,
was hired by the DNC , had to retract other "Russian hacking" claims and no one else was allowed to take a look at the
DNC servers. Said differently: The whole "Russian hacking" claims are solely based on "evidence" of two fake reports."
The Crowdstrike' report was concocted under command of Dmitri Alperovitch, a rabid Russophobe of Jewish ethnicity, who is also
an "expert" at Atlantic Council, where he joins other "experts" like Eliot Higgins. Higgins was nicely dressed recently by the
honorable C0l. Pat Lang who wrote about Higgins: " an uneducated, inexperienced guy with an opinion The fact that this gentlemen
is treated as a credible source is further proof of the insanity that has taken over the public debate. He knows nothing other
than what he has read. He has not been through live agent training at Fort McClellan (I have). He has no scientific background
in the subject matter and no experience (other than playing video games) with actual chemical weapons (Ted Postol, who has written
extensively on the subject, does have actual scientific and military expertise on the topic). Higgins knows nothing of the military
doctrine for employing such weapons. He knows nothing of the process and procedures required for a military unit to safely handle,
load, activate and deploy such weapons."
To illustrate the power of the Lobby, it is educational to know that Higgins is also a "Visiting Research Associate at the
Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS,"
- kidding you not. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/visiting/higgins.aspx
Looks like after Hersh story was published trump decided to double down.
Notable quotes:
"... The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it: ..."
"... Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) ..."
"... Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation. ..."
"... Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses. ..."
"... i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'. ..."
"... It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'. ..."
"... What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance. ..."
"... Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent. ..."
"... I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative. ..."
"... Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it. ..."
"... If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice. ..."
"... The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed. ..."
"... After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving! ..."
"... This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true. ..."
"... I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited. ..."
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ..."
"... It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures. ..."
"... Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen. ..."
"... thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed... ..."
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage. The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for
another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which
will be blamed on the Syrian government.
In August 2013 Syria invited inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
to investigate chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian army. As soon as the inspectors arrived in
Damascus a "chemical attack" was staged in Ghouta near Damascus. Lots of Jihadist video coverage
of killed children was published and the "western" media blamed the incident on the Syrian government.
It never explained why targeting a militarily irrelevant area with chemical weapons at the same time
as inspectors arrived would have been a rational decision for a Syrian government that was just regaining
control and international standing.
The "attack" was clearly staged by
the opposition of the Syrian government and its foreign supporters. The Obama administration had
planned to use it to launch U.S. attacks on the Syrian government but refrained from this when Russia
arranged to remove Syria's strategic chemical weapons, aimed at Israel, instead.
In early 2017 the new U.S. president Trump made positive comments about the Syrian government.
Assad can stay, he said. The Syrian military and its allies had gained the upper hand and were victorious
on all fronts.
Two days later another "chemical attack" was staged in the al-Qaeda held town of Khan Sheikhun.
Lots of Jihadi video coverage of killed children, likely prepared in advance, was spilled onto the
"western" public. U.S. intelligence
knew that no chemical attack by the Syrian government had taken place. But the Trump administration
used the incident to launch a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian military airport. The neoconservatives
were delighted. They finally had Trump where they wanted him. The media coverage changed from damming
Trump for his alleged "Russian connections" to lauding his decisiveness in response to the faked
attack.
Late May the new French president Macron ostensibly changed his position towards the Syrian government.
The hostile position of France (and other EU countries) against the Syrian president Assad that had
been eminent throughout the last six years
changed on a dime :
Macron said that on Syria: "My profound conviction is that we need a political and diplomatic
roadmap. We won't solve the question only with military force. That is a collective error we have
made. The real change I've made on this question, is that I haven't said the deposing of Bashar
al-Assad is a prerequisite for everything. Because no one has introduced me to his legitimate
successor!
But Macron also added:
"I have red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian corridors. I said it very clearly to Vladimir
Putin. I will be uncompromising on that. So the use of chemical weapons will be met with a response,
and even if France acts alone."
This immediately set off my warning lights:
Moon of Alabama @MoonofA -
4:28 PM - 29 May
2017
You like fakes? Tune in to Macron announcing the next False Flag chemical weapon attack in Syria.
Like all "red lines" this one Macron set was an invitation to the Takfiris to launch more fake
incidents. Others had a
similar reaction
to Macron's (fake) turnaround.
The end of the war on Syria is
in sight . One can start to tabulate the
winners and losers . The U.S. military
conceded that it had lost the race to occupy south-east Syria. All these turns in favor of Syria
show that the war is practically won unless some of the outside sponsors of the Takfiri "rebels"
again escalate.
Such an escalation is now happening. The White House
claims to have
information that the Syrian government is preparing
a chemical weapon
attack to kill "innocent children":
In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation , Press Secretary
Sean Spicer said the U.S. had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons
attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including
innocent children."
He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that
killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass
murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."
Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said
they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn't appear to be discussed in advance
with other national security agencies. Typically, the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S.
intelligence agencies would all be consulted before the White House issued a declaration sure
to ricochet across foreign capitals.
The White House claim is of course nonsense and not supported by any evidence or logic at all.
No one
but the White House, not the State Department nor the Defense Department, seems to be informed
about this (though that could be a ruse):
Five US defense officials said they did not know where the potential chemical attack would come
from and were unaware the White House was planning a statement.
The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who
commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and
Iranian governments who will held guilty of it:
Nikki Haley @nikkihaley -
2:36 AM - 27
Jun 2017
Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia &
Iran who support him killing his own people.
A U.S. bomb attack on an Islamic State used building in Mayadin, Syria, just
killed 57 prisoners of the Islamic State. Will Nikki Halley hold the Syrian government responsible
for this?
Trump has call with France's Macron first thing this morning, before intel brief. Then meeting
w Nat. Sec. adviser McMaster
Intense U.S. military reconnaissance
takes place
along the Syrian coast. The UK Defense Minister just
announced that his government is "in full agreement" with any U.S. "retaliation" for a chemical
attack in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis announced that the U.S. will
continue to arm its
Kurdish proxies in Syria even after ISIS is defeated.
During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied
Golan heights were
supported by Israeli air attacks .
This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria.
Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies. The U.S. wants to split up the country.
The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely
happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported
Takfiris to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and
announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is probably planned to happen
shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:
President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month.
...
While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group
of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an
event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.
Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will
be the pressure point against Putin. The
neoconservatives in his administration want to
break up
Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.)
Syria insists
that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia
warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats
unacceptable .
Posted by b on June 27, 2017 at 07:49 AM |
Permalink
Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never
issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon
faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as
a vaccin, to avoid this operation.
Intresting b,- on the France connection, perhaps France are the ones feeding the false info to
bomb Syria, the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support? Anyway, check EU, Western nations,
Media these days and see the ugly propaganda being played out, once again the west plan, threat
with illegal wars and their media is right there to help them.
Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have
shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know.
Because, after Syria, Russia like Iran and North Korea will also sooner or later be bombed.
Be sure about that. These are sick lunatics ruling the American military.
Remember who rule America these days, its not Trump:
Bannon: Trump's strategy is 'let the warfighters fight the war'
The US Regime is obviously in panic mode. The SAA is rapidly advancing on three fronts:
1. Raqqa - The SAA is quickly moving around the hapless Kurds and moving to the area south
of Raqqa. Ensuring IS is unable to execute their agreement with the US Regime to evacuate towards
Deir ez-Zur.
2. Deir ez-Zur - Huge numbers of SAA are quickly approaching the defenders in Deir ez-Zur.
Once Deir ez-Zur is secure, the SAA will move north to link up with the SAA forces in al Hasakah.
3. al Bukamal - The SAA and Iraq PMU are working as a unified force on both sides of the border
and are preparing to surround the border city.
What this means is:
The US Regime partion dreams are dead. There is no viable Kurdish 'state' other than a
bunch of clowns pretending to be a new 'government' in Raqqa.
The Iraq PMU are increasingly working side by side with the SAA. Any attack by the US Regime
puts their bases in Iraq open to attack.
The absurd threats from Saudi Arabia towards Qatar now have the various terror groups still
alive in Syria attacking each other.
Syria is close to a decisive military victory against the foreign terrorists. Once the
SAA secures the bulk of the Eurphrates only Idlib and Daraa remain as security problems.
Every day the SAA advances and IS or terrorist pockets are cleared, more and more troops
are freed up and being moved to the major fronts in either Daraa or the Eurphrates.
Turkey and Russia are in complete agreement on preventing any sort of Kurdish state in
the north of Syria. Any attempts by the US Regime to establish some sort of giant military
base backed by Kurds is going to have to fight Turkey, the SAA, Russia, and quite possibly
Iraq.
The success of the de-escalation zone means that the US Regime is greatly hamstrung in
coming up with further faked chemical attacks. The only real options now are Idlib and Daraa.
IS is being wiped out in the eastern Syrian desert by the SAA and in the western desert of
Iraq by the PMU. Those giant grey IS areas on battle maps are evaporating and at the same time
the entire pretext for the US Regime to be attacking Syria.
Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag.
Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize
why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses.
Now almost three months later the White House is actually staging a roll out of the false flag.
Incredible. Legacy media can't raise a ruckus because their complicit in previous false flags.
Russia on the other hand can't back down this time. To do so would be to invite perpetual rape
and plunder by the U.S. and its various clients. Russia needs to make a very clear statement right
now -- paratroopers dropped around Deraa -- to prevent the false flag from going forward.
The US military generals got caught with their pants down. They are losing the war -- everything
but the wastelands. For the military/intel, losing is FAILURE. They basically get fired. So they
will pull any stunt to not "fail". Of course, the Russians are going to make them fail despite
all their "valiant" efforts. Trump better wake up and smell the coffee, or he will wake up to
a brilliant flash.
@2 a, 'Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could
have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know'
i think so too, every time. but I've been wrong everytime so far. it's finally occurred to
me that there's more going on than what i know about, and that the Russians are dealing with a
fuller deck than i am. And that they've spent their lifetimes at this kind of high pressure stuff
and have a far better understanding of it all than i do. but don't take my word for it ... look
at the results they've gotten.
It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else
- state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump
wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what
we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'.
Massivly won? Sleazy Macron won an election where huge part of France didnt even vote not only
in the prez. election but in the parliamentary election.
Or please tell us why this sleazy Macron threat Syria with war all of a sudden? For what reason?
This guy is globalist 101% this is what people like himself do to get support.
This guy for crying out loud just warned some weeks ago that France will respond to a chemical
attack! What more proof do you need?
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that America will continue to provide weapons
to Syrian Kurdish fighters after the battle to oust Islamic State militants from Raqqa, Syria,
is over.
Mattis said the de-confliction talks continue and are happening at several military levels,
to insure that aircraft and ground forces are safe.
What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation
for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely
clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested
in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And
those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack
outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have
sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance.
it's hard to believe the us wehrmacht is in such obvious disarray. if the Russians wait it
out, the Americans will defeat themselves in Syria. Looks like in short order, too.
Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine.
Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for
the perfect dummy agent.
Trump does not need a chemical weapons attack to actually take place in Syria. He may be planning
to preempt such an incident. This way there will be no phony White Helmets video footage to dissect.
Listen to what the British Defense Minister has to say:
British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said London would support U.S. action to prevent a
chemical weapons attack but that it had not seen the intelligence on which Washington based
Monday's statement.
Moon is precisely right. The implied assumption of WH/intel Junta is that Ivan is coward and will
not stand. The implied action is that WH/intel intends attack RuF/Sy?Ir/+ forces. Assumes
Iran etc will not stand. Is this an incorrect assumption set? Failure of WH strategy is thus proximate.
Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's
hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the
intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it.
Hersh is again the go to mouth piece on this one for the neo cons. If the neo cons narrative
on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even
after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line
of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice.
This whole show is a cock and bull offering. The neo cons are getting desperate, like a
scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military
ability is all but crushed.
So desperate they US neo con brain trust is willing to go to the poison gas well again and
again with their 'tell the big lie often' meme....after all it is only the Syrian civilian population
and innocent beautiful babies that will have to die this time around again. I'll give the Israelis
some credit for at least having the better excuse for their aggression against the Syrian nation
and people.
After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a
crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they
are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving!
Mattis is clearly working secretly with the White House on a plan to counter the steady progress
of the SAA. He seems strangely unprepared for recent developments on the ground. There is still
a good possibility he will try something foolhardy like sending his militia at al Tanf north thru
SAA lines to join the fight at Deir Ezzor.
The SAA probably won't take Raqqa, but will focus on Deir Ezzor which is only 75 miles away.
Expect the chemical attack to be in the vicinity of deir ezzor.
The recent series of failures of the US in Syria, together with a shift of Turkey on the side
of Bashar al Assad's army and France's u-turn on Bashar Assad necessitated a big noise: The threat
of a 'new' chemical attack that would united the "friends of Syria" again.
Another infantile drama from desperate Pentagon to show the US relevance in the region! France
will not buy it and Russia will make sure that false flag wont happen again.
yeah, but they have to pose in their photo-ops themselves. no one else wants to be seen in
pictures with them in the imagined future. the rump loves it ... 'larger than life'.
well, if they shut up now and wait a bit, they can announce that they were successful in preventing
the dastardly attack on the babies by 'assad' ...
on the other hand, they may well have to figure out what to do after al-cia-duh 'surprises'
them with some dead babies ... they'll be shocked! never imagined that might happen! wasn't in
their copy of the script ... it's all a sit-com to them ...
Looks like Assad is taking a "tour" of Russia's airbase...
https://twitter.com/AliHa_97/status/879685253878734849
Looks like the time frame has been moved up dramatically since b's report... AP also
running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared.
I've got a quibble with the intro to this post. It should say...
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing " another chemical
weapon attack".
"another" is the presumptuous, Hollywood-ish weasel word intended to pre-emptively legitimise
the false and unproven Yankee allegations that the Syrian Govt has conducted ANY chemical attacks.
In fact, one could go farther and point out the measures taken by the Christian Colonial Clowns
to AVOID producing evidence to support their past claims.
G20 G20 G20. If Putin wants to avoid WW3 he must get the leaders of countries like China, Germany,
Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Korea, who else? to stand up behind him and condemn this rush to war.
The time has come for Merkel to make a decision - and it happens to be at her home G20 Summit.
Does Mutti have the cojones???
This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that
just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed
the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about
future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as
true.
It's the same tactc he is using regarding Russian interference. He is redirected there as well
to Obama. "Why didn't Obama do anything about the leaks."
That said you can't put anything beyond the empire. SAA, Russia and friends need to be ready.
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against
the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite
the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in
control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform
the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I
wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from
Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If
any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect.
Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing
up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the
ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from
criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not
a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.
Hmmm. If the preemptive strike against an alleged chemical attack preparation takes out Assad?
Just serendipity, icing on the cake? Any chance that the message is that these uSA has intelligence
on Assad's movements?
I suppose now that CNN has fired three journalists that Special Council Mueller will give notice
to his investigators to pack it in and go home. Yep, nothing to see here folks. Sorry for wasting
your time. Fat fucking chance. This cat's on a mission and won't be deterred.
It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main
man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet
full of world class swamp creatures.
Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and
Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous
president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen.
The U.S. regime has recently seen chemical weapons activity at the Shay'rat Airbase in the
Homs Governorate, the Pentagon claimed, as reported by Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
this seems pretty whack. the syrians will say hey, come have a look? the us will go and say ...
oops, our mistake? what's going on here? i guess it's the pentagon giving the rump a way to climb
down? he can say he 'forced' an inspection? or something?
Since we know that Trump gets his info from his favorite cable TV programs and a select few websites
and doesn't use the vast resources of the U.S. Intel community, has anyone found the original
source for the new Assad allegation? It would be interesting to see what The Donald is reading
nowadays.
thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all
that is needed...
ditto many comments here..
@ 22 Hoarsewhisperer.. yeah - 'another' when they haven't verified any previously... more lies
and insinuation of responsibility absent any facts... who needs facts when you want to destroy
another country?
@29 quote "If people in the West don't want WW3 they're going to have to do something about
the people who bribe, and own, their politicians." but hoarsewhisperer - that is what all these
lies and deception are meant to do - keep the people in the west completely ignorant of the facts
and reality.. dontcha know that lying to your people in the msm regularly keeps the sheeple quiet
and passive? us freaks here at moa are in a real minority..
@34 chuba - they just make this shit up man... the first source i saw was from yesterday spicer
idiot..
Konrad Lorenz
and
Desmond Morris
, or anthropologists such as
Lionel Tiger
. They linked studies of animal behaviour to the idea of Darwinian
evolutionary principles to tell readers just how very like the beasts we were in
our sex lives, our workplaces and our recreational behaviours. We were advised to
look at chimps and other primates and derive understanding of ourselves from their
apparently culture-free activities and traits. Underneath all our fancy culture
and language, we were simply naked apes enacting primitive territorial
imperatives.
The reading public lapped it up as both a neat, satisfying
narrative, and as an excuse for all manner of not-so-civilised behaviours for
which we no longer had to take personal and moral blame. We go to war – well, so
do baboons; it's in our genes, we can try to overcome it, but in the end as in the
beginning we're all just animals. By 1976 we didn't even have to blame the animal
in ourselves: Richard Dawkins gave us the selfish gene, whose sole reason for
existence was to reproduce itself. And we, that is the body and brain of you and
me, were nothing but vehicles for these genes which compelled us to optimise their
chances of replicating. Talk to the gene, the conscience isn't listening.
Much of this was based on algebraic theories of altruism developed by
WD Hamilton
, who shifted the mechanism of evolution from making groups fitter
to survive to a new insistence on individual inclusive fitness. This was via kin
selection, which drills down deeper than the inter-relatedness of individual
organisms, to the separate alleles (of which genes are made) in every organism:
these preferentially promote only those vehicles which contain alleles most
closely related to themselves. Genes were responsible, somehow, for you fighting
the whirlwind to save your sister, but probably not your less related cousin, and
certainly not the stranger from down the road.
Some people were not crazy about this view of the human race. Genes doing
algebra didn't suit a more macrocosmic idea of a fallible but responsible
humanity.
Robert Trivers
was the man who produced the unifying theory of kin selection
and altruism. Now, decades on, he has arrived at a big, new universal theory, also
essentially based on the arithmetic of gene selection. Deceit is useful where
telling the (unpleasant) truth would hamper your progress. Progress towards what?
Trivers would say your fitness, which is defined as raising the chances of
replicating your genes into the next generation.
Your genes, apparently, would agree with him; but they would, wouldn't they?
That is if they were capable of agreeing. I want to hang on to the fact that the
building blocks of ourselves do not want or intend anything. Chemicals aren't
conscious, although by amazing chance they can combine to make a conscious
organism.
Once self-conscious humans begin to do science, and with the benefit of
language, start to describe the nature of the chemicals that make them what they
are, but having to use regular language if they want a large audience (maths is a
much better language, but fewer people can read it), they cannot help but slide
into the notion of intention. Dawkins's selfish gene gained an absurd life of its
own because most people don't speak arithmetic.
The biological mechanism by which we conceal inconvenient truths from ourselves
and others is shown, says Trivers, in functional MRI scans of blood flow
associated with neural activity in the brain: "It is estimated that fully ten
seconds before consciousness of intent, the neural signals begin that will later
give rise to the consciousness and then the behaviour itself." Freud, who always
believed that neurology would discover a physical basis for the unconscious, would
be delighted, though according to Trivers, psychoanalysis is nothing more than a
money-grabbing hoax. Yet there remains a void between brain chemicals doing what
they do and the emergence of the sense we all have of possessing a mind.
Trivers's theories of deceit and self-deceit are based on multiple gleanings
from experimental psychology. A trial with rats shows this, another with students
suggests that. The actual experiments are referenced, rather minimally, in
page-related endnotes, but Trivers's writing is full of halting phraseology as he
slips from findings in the lab or questionnaire to the generality of human social
behaviour.
He suggests from relatedness theory that fathers should show a "slight genetic
bias towards their daughters", but "no one knows if this is true". General
assertions about human behaviour are peppered with such phrases as "One is tempted
to imagine ", "in mice at least ", "work still in its infancy ", "first
speculations ", "Whether any of my speculations are true I have no idea ". And,
really, if he doesn't, I certainly don't.
Once he has laid out his evidence, our biologically determined deceit behaviour
is ready to account for just about everything Trivers doesn't like about the
world, such as the false justifications for the invasion of Iraq, the
self-deceiving use, by the US and UK, of 9/11 to declare war on oil-rich countries
and on to torture, religion and stock-market trading. It so happens that Trivers
and I dislike much the same things but, though I daresay knowledge is generally
better than lack of it, I'm not convinced of the benefits of offering us the
excuse of having been manipulated by our genes for our repeatedly scurrilous
behaviour.
While the first part of the book explains the theory, and the second part
discusses how deceit was responsible for all the political and social injustices
both he and I perceive in the world, there is a third element woven through both.
An actual individual life, that of Trivers himself, emerges, like a gene in the
organism, offered perhaps as a consciously self-deprecating example of what
evolutionary pressure to deceive can do to a person. Somehow, though, it comes
across as back-handed boasting.
The man whom Trivers calls "I" is a compulsive thief who can't go into a room
without coming away with a trophy. He talks of his "'inadvertent' touching of
women", which occurs exclusively with his left (unconscious) hand. Apropos chimps
turning their backs to hide an erection from a dominant male, he explains that he
finds it very hard "in the presence of a woman with whom I am close, to receive a
phone call from another woman with whom I may have, or only wish to have, a
relationship, without turning my back to pursue the conversation".
He understands the male/female gender split by recollecting "trying to poison
the minds of my three daughters against their mother". He nearly killed his
girlfriend and nephew by driving the nephew's "cool car" too fast on a precipitous
road, when he noticed her interest in the younger man. And after pages and pages
on biological selection, evolutionary pressure and the dangerous deception that is
religion, it not only turns out that he prays regularly, but he gives a short
lecture on the proper way to say the "Lord's Prayer" (emphasise "thy"). I wasn't
surprised to discover that he is on prescription antidepressants, as well as using
ganja and cocaine.
There will be Iron Johns who read this book and cheer, and although he explains
that each sex (abhorring the word "gender", which he calls a euphemism) contains
both male and female genes, my male genes are just too wimpy to find any charm in
Trivers's display of self-disclosure – machismo and pet peeves – dressed up as an
important new evolutionary understanding of humanity.
Jenny Diski's
What I Don't Know About Animals
is published by Virago.
Oh dear- could you then...disentangle your own behaviour from
your 'human nature".
In general- Yes. Human behaviour changes rapidly and depends on
culture and individual choices. Human nature changes very very slowly,
in 'evolutionary time'. Too slowly for it to be observed.
On the level of the individual -- No. I can't disentangle my personal
choices from my inherited tendencies. To what extent does my behaviour
(or my character)reflect my genes or upbringing, to what extent is it
my own free will? Nature, Nurture, or Nietzsche?, as Stephen Fry would
say. I can't say- except that I believe that we all have free will and
are therefore in most cases responsible for our actions.
As for 'my' human nature, that is a meaningless phrase. Human
nature I would define as the (evolved) psychological traits humans
have
in common
.
In his article Pinker gives (I think) quite a convincing
explanation of how human behaviour can be changing for the better,
while human nature (perforce) remains the same.
Oh dear- could you then-with the help of Pinker's
pseudo-scientific, deterministic, eurocentric tosh and/or Dawkins
overly simplistic, to the point of idiocy take on genes and evolution-
disentangle your own behaviour from your 'human nature.' I am really
curious.
@Sam J. "...In the end, it is the American people who decide whether Israel is to be or not
to be a vital American ally and friend..."
To make informed decisions you have to have information. The American people don't have that.
So they really haven't made a decision at all. They've been tricked into doing things that are
covered up in lies. The American people are responsible even if they are being manipulated by
the MSM.
Too many Americans are woefully ignorant about the world, particularly about the extent that
Jewish interests have manipulated so many aspects of our government and our culture. If you even
bring this issue up you are immediately branded a hater and your arguments dismissed.
In short, many Americans are happy to drink the kool aid.
It is a much deeper problem than simply our American Pravda.
Many of us have chosen to be blind, refusing to even consider the possibility that we are being
manipulated, and in the process fail as responsible citizens.
One can choose to be red pilled today. This is ultimately the choice to go through life with
an open mind and to have a high regard for reality, however uncomfortable that reality may be.
@Sam J. "...The source of Jewish power in the US is their brokerage of voter bias and federal
entitlements between the federal government and the public..."
There may be a little bit of that but it's not the main reason. The main reasons are:
1. They own practically all media in the US.
2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way.
So if you run against them in the primary you will have extremely well funded opponents and the
press will savage you. If that doesn't work they will try to redistrict you out of a job. If that
doesn't work they will frame or kill you like they did to Ohio Congressman James Traficant. "1.
They own practically all media in the US.
2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way."
And this has been leading the States – and Israel along with the States – to the demise. The
US governing institutions have lost their ability to respond to reality and instead they respond
to personal desires only. Hence the approaching danger of a hot war.
Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and
website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television.
If so, you'll need to issue a retraction of your statement and all the other insinuations you
derived from it. If it is not the video, I issue my apologies in advance.
......he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was
replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson.
With this slander which others commented on earlier, it does deserve repeating emphatically,
you've submerged yourself in conspiracies for reasons which appear to be occult Jew hatred
impossible to contain just under the surface. It beggars belief that statement was written
tongue in cheek; excessive cheek, tongue impossible to pry unstuck. An attempt at humour? Poor
taste, really.
The Israelis know what is going on all the time.
Pure nonsense at some level. At another level, it is well-known we know more about our allies
than their respective governments do and vice versa.
......but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves
as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris,
So they are progressives, what of it? You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as
a nation of people which took hostage American diplomats. These congressmen are doing no more
than what their constituents want.
The readership of UR, a collection of a few excellent thinkers, overwhelmed by a larger
group of lunatics, do not reflect the sentiment of the vast majority. They could not care what
you or I think of Iranians. They remember Nov 1979.
And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14th.
Antisemitism is a serious matter and it is well for it to bear scrutiny in some cases where
through their actions overzealous elements[some in the judiciary] trivialise its intent. But
you seem to favour an environment where mere vigilance through a bill deserves defeat. Unanimously.
President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu
took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting"
violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it
It's comical to behold the "select" group which voted for Trump now complain on these pages
of the UR about what the man said he was going to do from the very beginning on the Israel-Palestine
issue. It is not a sham. Trump never believed the "bullshit" coming from the U.N. [a body which
has over 40 Muslim and Arab members] on the contrary, attacking the solitary Jewish nation
state. He required no "taking aside" by Bibi. One needn't travel to the West Bank to find Jew
hatred; a few months' worth of reading your columns being quite sufficient.
I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they
were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated"
Such a Senate resolution requires convincing senators of its necessity. No one is stopping
anyone.
I understand you feel Jerusalem is better in the hands of Palestinians and Arabs. We disagree.
A gem of an article all things considered.
"You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as a nation of people which took hostage
American diplomats."
"... The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo. ..."
"... As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome"). ..."
"... This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West. ..."
"... As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party. ..."
"... Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet. ..."
"... More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news. ..."
"... It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media. ..."
"... Social Democrats ..."
"... Christian Democrats ..."
"... The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth. ..."
"... I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity. ..."
We have had a certain amount of success in exposing the amorphous and mendacious term "Fake News"
for what it is: a tool in a major campaign of propaganda against dissenting independent journalism
and political writing, a campaign perpetrated by governments and corporate media. The wealthy
and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion
were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing
velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information
networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status
quo.
As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint
appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone
and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental
crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! –
to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this
and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our
Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome").
This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly
successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid
fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries
are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible
for the spreading chaos in the West.
As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and
deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed
apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids
were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that
someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party.
Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and
can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective
analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet.
More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute
media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed
TV, radio, and print news.
It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly
differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream
media.
Which brings us to one of the latest victims in the assault on language by the 1% and their pawns
in the presstitute media: the word "extremism".
Here in the European Union where I live, this word is currently heard so often in the traditional
media – along with another victimized word being brutalized almost non-stop, "populist" – that even
poorly-educated persons who aren't sure exactly what is meant can understand that they must mean
something very, very bad.
If any such confused persons should take the time to pay closer attention and attempt to ascertain
what it is that makes these "extremists" and "populists" so deplorable and dangerous, they may soon
notice that at least one of these words, "extremist", has a pretty nebulous field of application.
According to major sources of conventional wisdom in the EU, terrorists are "extremists". But "extremism",
more generally, is also applied casually to nearly any political parties and interest groups to the
Left and the Right of the large (if shrinking in some countries like France) parties called "people's
parties" (Volksparteien) here in Germany: the no-longer-socialist Social Democrats who are
allegedly center-left, the pseudo-Christian Christian Democrats who portray themselves as
center-right, and even the thoroughly compromised and faded-to-brown Green Party , which
has gone to great lengths and engaged in stupendous contortions of deliberate conformism to achieve
its modern status as a pillar of the established order, a long journey from its radical roots in
the 1980s.
As you may have deduced from my snarky tone, I find myself firmly ensconced among the so-called
"extremists" of the Left.
What, one may legitimately ask, are the views which have led to this branding as a dangerous individual?
Do I advocate keeping a stock of Molotov Cocktails handy for quick use when the shit starts to fly?
I do not.
Do I engage in plots to overthrow the "legitimate" government and spread chaos throughout the
EU? Do I support terrorism? I do not. While I have grave reservations about the ostensible "legitimacy"
of a number of the governments named, and have major issues with the extent to which they are in
thrall to American imperial foreign/military policy and the destructive austerity policies of the
IMF and World Bank and Big Finance, you will find no blueprints for violent revolution at my house.
I pay taxes and comply with bureaucratic governmental requirements. And as far as terrorism goes,
I would even argue that it is NATO countries' complicity in American imperial designs and hegemony
which is the source of most terrorism and is thus, in reality, "extreme" (see my recent article "Russia
Didn't Do It").
Am I armed? I am not. I have never owned a gun. My only weapon is the keyboard at which I now
write.
Do I support dangerous political organizations? I support the German party "Die Linke" (The Left),
which is the largest opposition party in Germany's Parliament, the Bundestag, and a full participant
in the national electoral process, having won around 14% of the vote in the last election. AHHH
now we're getting somewhere. "Die Linke" is accused quite regularly in the corporate and government
media of being "extreme".
And why? What positions does the party hold which are considered dangerous?
Okay I guess I'll have to come clean. Here are the radical, dangerous, "extremist" positions
I support when I advocate more influence for this political party:
An end to weapons exports from Germany, especially into crisis regions, but more broadly, in principle.
The disbanding of NATO, which was formed as an allegedly defensive alliance against the "Warsaw
Pact" or communist military bloc led by the Soviet Union – which no longer exists. An end to German
participation in overseas military intervention (such as the current activity in Afghanistan).
A more extensive social system which builds more low-cost housing and offers greater protection
for the rights of workers and less affluent citizens – rights which were scaled back by the program
"Agenda 2010" to make the German economy more "competitive".
Active measures by government to stop the widening of the gap between rich and poor which, although
not yet as profound in Germany as in the USA, is heading in the same direction.
Higher taxes on the wealthy.
A much more independent position on the world stage for Germany and the EU, with an end to EU
servility to the USA.
Fundamental reform of the EU, with less power for Big Finance in its deliberations and economic
policies, which have created great hardship in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.
In addition, there is my allegedly "extreme" position on the environment, which is not so much
a priority for "Die Linke" but is the most important issue of all for me personally. I am convinced
that only a radical transformation of the world economy can save this planet, including most life
on Earth. I believe this can only come about through an end to industrial capitalism: a ban on most
fossil fuels, an end to the production of most plastics, an end to most beef production and strict
organic regulation of all meat production, and worldwide mandatory measures to clean up the poisonous
residue of the current system which is killing the planet. This will necessarily involve huge cuts
in most military structures and war-making as well. The US military is by far the greatest polluter
on Earth.
For these views, and my concomitant rejection of the large political parties in the EU and the
USA which have done almost nothing to save the planet that was not outweighed by massive destruction
– parties which thus, in the name of "realism", have sold our future to the rich and may have doomed
all life on this planet, as scientific opinion is near unanimous that time is short – for these views
I am labeled an "extremist".
I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth.
Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme
governmental authority. Extreme stupidity.
The author mixed Trump with Clinton political machine and his characterization are applicable first
of all to Clinton political machine, and only secondarily to Trump,
Notable quotes:
"... As important as the Trump-Comey affair is, it runs the risk of both exacerbating the transformation of politics into theater ..."
"... You belong by affirming. To win, you don't need reasons anymore, only power." ..."
"... This is especially important at a time when the United States is no longer a functioning democracy and is in the presence of what Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis refer to in their book Liquid Evil as "the emergence of modern barbarity." ..."
"... Note: This is an expanded version of a piece that originally appeared on Ragazine . ..."
...Trump cannot be trusted because he not only infects political discourse with a language
of hate, bigotry and lies, but also because he has allowed an ideology built on the use of disinformation
to take over the White House. Under the Trump administration, the truth is distorted for ideological,
political and commercial reasons. Lying has become an industry and tool of power. All administrations
and governments lie, but under Trump lying has become normalized. It is a calling card for corruption
and lawlessness, one that provides the foundation for authoritarianism.
Trump is a salesman and a bully. He constantly assumes the macho swagger of a used car salesman
from a TV commercial while at the same time, as Rebecca Solnit observes, he bullies facts and truths
as well as friends and acquaintances. He is obsessed with power and prides himself on the language
of command, loyalty and humiliation. He appears fixated on the fear that the United States could
still act on the memory, if not the ghosts, of a real democracy.
... ... ...
A democracy cannot exist without informed citizens and public spheres and educational apparatuses
that uphold standards of truth, honesty, evidence, facts and justice. Under Trump, disinformation
masquerading as news -- often via his Twitter account -- has become a weapon for legitimating ignorance
and civic illiteracy. Not only has Trump lied repeatedly, he has also attacked the critical media,
claimed journalists are enemies of the American people and argued that the media is the opposition
party. There is more at stake here than the threat of censorship or the normalization of lying; there
is also an attack on long-valued sources of information and the public spheres that produce them.
Trump's government has become a powerful disimagination machine in which the distinction between
fact and fiction, reality and fantasy are erased.
... ... ...
Berkowitz's piece is worth citing at length.
He writes :
The reason fact-checking is ineffective today -- at least in convincing those who are members
of movements -- is that the mobilized members of a movement are confounded by a world resistant
to their wishes and prefer the promise of a consistent alternate world to reality. When Donald
Trump says he's going to build a wall to protect our borders, he is not making a factual statement
that an actual wall will actually protect our borders; he is signaling a politically incorrect
willingness to put America first. When he says that there was massive voter fraud or boasts about
the size of his inauguration crowd, he is not speaking about actual facts, but is insisting that
his election was legitimate. 'What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts,
but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.' Leaders of these mass
totalitarian movements do not need to believe in the truth of their lies and ideological clichés.
The point of their fabrications is not to establish facts, but to create a coherent fictional
reality. What a movement demands of its leaders is the articulation of a consistent narrative
combined with the ability to abolish the capacity for distinguishing between truth and falsehood,
between reality and fiction.
As important as the Trump-Comey affair is, it runs the risk of both exacerbating the transformation
of politics into theater and reinforcing what
Todd Gitlin refers to as Trump's support for an "apocalyptic nationalism, the point of which
is to belong, not to believe. You belong by affirming. To win, you don't need reasons anymore, only
power." Trump values loyalty over integrity. He lies, in part, to test the loyalty of those who both
follow him and align themselves with his power. The Trump-Comey affair must be understood within
a broader attack on the fundamentals of education, critical modes of agency and democracy itself.
This is especially important at a time when the United States is no longer a functioning democracy
and is in the presence of what Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis refer to in their book Liquid
Evil as "the emergence of modern barbarity." Trump's discourse of lies, misrepresentations and fakery
makes it all the more urgent for us to acknowledge that education is at the center of politics because
it is crucial in the struggle over consciousness, values, identity and agency. Ignorance in the service
of education targets the darkness and reinforces and thrives on civic illiteracy. Trump's disinformation
machine is about more than lying. It is about using all of the tools and resources for education
to create a dystopia in which authoritarianism exercises the raw power of ignorance and control.
Artists, educators, young people, journalists and others need to make the virtue of truth-telling
visible again. We need to connect democracy with a notion of truth-telling and consciousness that
is on the side of economic and political justice, and democracy itself. If we are all going to fight
for and with the most marginalized people, there must be a broader understanding of their needs.
We need to create narratives and platforms in which those who have been deemed disposable can identify
themselves and the conditions through which power and oppression bear down on their lives.
This is not an easy task, but nothing less than justice, democracy and the planet itself are at
risk.
Note: This is an expanded version of a piece that originally appeared on
Ragazine .
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.
Henry A. Giroux
Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest
in the English and Cultural Studies Department and the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical
Pedagogy. His most recent books are America's Addiction to Terrorism (Monthly Review Press,
2016) and America at War with Itself (City Lights, 2017). He is also a contributing editor
to a number of journals, including Tikkun, the Journal of Wild Culture and Ragazine. Giroux is also
a member of Truthout's Board of Directors. His website is
www.henryagiroux.com .
"... The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea, all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington. ..."
"... More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium. ..."
"... So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. ..."
"... The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism, the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups. ..."
"... The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. ..."
"... Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly as the Israelis, who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the threat posed by Tehran for a number of years. ..."
Terrorism supporters in Washington and Riyadh close ranks against Qatar
The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed
in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by
force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked
up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the
yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea,
all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington.
More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama
with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction,
Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently
Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use
of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict
generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that
span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium.
So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East
are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. On the 5th of June,
Saudi Arabia led a gaggle of Arab and Muslim nations that included the United Arab Emirates, Egypt
and Bahrain to cut off all diplomatic, commercial and transport links with Qatar, effectively blockading
it. Qatar is currently isolated from its neighbors, subject to sanctions, and there have even been
Saudi threats of going to war against its tiny neighbor. Salman al-Ansari, the president of the Saudi
American Public Relation Affairs Committee, even tweeted: "To the emir of Qatar, regarding your alignment
with the extremist government of Iran and your abuse of the Custodian of the two sacred mosques,
I would like to remind you that Mohammed Morsi [of Egypt] did exactly the same and was then toppled
and imprisoned."
It is the second time the Saudis have moved against Qatar. Two years ago, there was a break in
diplomatic relations, but they were eventually restored. This time, the principal allegation being
directed against Qatar by Riyadh is that it supports terrorism. The terrorist groups that it allegedly
embraces are Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi's affiliation. Hezbollah and Hamas
are close to Iran which is perhaps the real reason for their being singled out as many would call
them resistance movements or even legitimate political parties rather than terrorists. And the Iran
connection is critical as Qatar has been under fire for allegedly saying nice things about trying
to respect and get along with Tehran, undoubtedly somewhat motivated by its joint exploitation with
Iran of a vast gas field in the Persian Gulf.
Qatar's ownership of al-Jazeera also has been a sore point with the Saudis and other
Gulf states as its reporting has often been critical of developments in the region, criticisms that
have often rankled the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptians. It has been accused of spreading propaganda
for "militant groups." One of the Saudi demands to permit Qatar to again become a "normal" Arab Gulf
state would be to close down the network.
The terrorism claims by the Saudis are, of course, hypocritical. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are
well known as sponsors of Salafist terrorism, including the funding and arming of groups like ISIS
and the various al-Qaeda franchises, to include al-Nusra. Much of the money admittedly comes from
private individuals and is often channeled through Islamic charities, but both Qatar and Saudi Arabia
have been extremely lax in their enforcement of anti-terror and money laundering regulations. In
a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was
stated
that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist
groups worldwide." Qatar, meanwhile,
has been
described as a "permissive environment for terrorist financing."
The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on
neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism,
the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror
while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups.
The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance
but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. He has taken
credit for the burgeoning conflict, implying that his recent visit to the region set the stage for
the ostracizing of Qatar. His twitter on the affair, posted on June 6 th , read ""So good
to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would
take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will
be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!" And he again came down on Qatar on June
9 th during a press conference.
Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could
also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian
propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention
of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly
as the Israelis,
who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the
threat posed by Tehran for a number of years.
The societies try to be "secret," but their lies and crimes are
Emperor's New Clothes obvious for anyone caring to apply a high school level of education
to look:
The US is a
literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. The history is uncontested and
taught to anyone taking comprehensive courses. If anyone has any refutations of this professional
academic factual claim for any of this
easy-to-read and documented content , please provide it. Rogue state empire is the
most accurate term to describe the US for the following reasons:
People around the world view the
US as the greatest threat to peace ; voted three times more dangerous than any other country.
The data confirm this conclusion:
The total deaths caused by rogue state empire for resource control (natural and human)
in the last 20 years is ~400 million , more than all total wars and violence in all recorded
Earth history .
orwell also did not actually say 'we should love those rough men in the night who slaughter for
us so we can sleep in 68 degree air conditioning bc the Saudi remain in power........'
And GC Scott's Patton's speech was a compilation.......
My copy of Barlett's does not list this Orwell quote and Fred's link pretty well dispells it from
being definitively an Orwell quote, although not absolutely.
It is possible that he did SAY IT to some group or other in England, rather than write it in
one of his books, essays, or articles and that is how it survives today with his attribution.
Such attribution is not unheard of for older English authors. Apparently they drank a lot in
pubs and clubs.
Keep in mind that even today the English don't 100% agree that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's
plays or poems, at least not without help from another.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
"In a time/state of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is a statement
often attributed to author George Orwell (1903-1950). The saying doesn't appear in his novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four (1948), his essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946), or any other of Orwell's
writings. The saying has been cited in print since at least 1984 (when it was attributed to George
Orwell).
A similar saying was used by author and presidential candidate Ron Paul in 2008-"Truth is treason
in the empire of lies."
You can't fix the media because its very raison d'etre is to subvert,
mislead and corrupt, to put the viewer and the nation inside a mental
labyrinth.
You see, in the US and the Western World, the Media is owned by
a cartel of Jewish people with a common agenda – they only talk about the
same events, with the same perspective. They change gears and news cycles in
unison, they command the discourse window.
Of course, Fox News is the opposite of CNN to the masses of disinformed,
but this is just a cordial accord between Owners to not eat each other's
audiences. Mainly a market strategy to not create cannibalization.
If the Media was supposed to be serious, "but currently is not and in
need of saving", instead of the truth of it never being anything close to
that, just a propaganda machine, then, in all those decades, and specially
now in the age of the internet, they should have been speaking about the
system of Debt Currency that ruins all nations, or how today in America we
have the biggest monopolies in the history of mankind, or how Immigration
from countries with non-European populations destroys social trust,
neighborhoods, cities, lower wages, overbudens public services, reintroduces
extinct diseases and many many more.
But they don't talk about any of that, and never will.
Forget about the media altogether, let it die and rot.
Empire of Lies is a 2008
thriller novel
written by Andrew
Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by
Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in
an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it
by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the
term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined
as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample
of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha
proved to be a real artist in this art.
Notable quotes:
"... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
"... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
"... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
"... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
"... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
"... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
"... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
"... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
"... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it
is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.
One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition
of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values
- to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and
has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the
last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never
tires of pointing out, "We won."
In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr.
Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory
in America. This is a good thing.
The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump
and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the
election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to
task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration,
the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged
to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?
The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly,
in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression,
but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them.
He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and
got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made
him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.
Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is
rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites
people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong,
only winners and losers.
Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps
to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance
and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.
In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor
Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely
by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically,
that their politics are based on values and principles.
This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism,"
the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians
retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption,
they claim that the entire world is corrupt.
This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration
for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded
Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"
To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their
country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy
to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea
that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...
The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition
activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast
Asia.
Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.
Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate",
and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried
bc a Bill of rights argument would win!
How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo
(the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?
If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!
"... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside
Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image
shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with
quotes from the article:
1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.
The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic
forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."
2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.
Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold
War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.
3) Russia spies on you.
The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic
or not sympathetic."
4) America is losing the cyberwar.
As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning
to figure out how to fight back.
5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.
American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations
into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence
them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as
bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.
6) Russia has huge troll farms.
Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing
cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering.
Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news
outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.
7) You must trust mainstream media.
Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you
questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook
or Twitter feed.
8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .
Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.
That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted
from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented
stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.
10) The evidence:
Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's
agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the
ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior
intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.)
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has
said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day
the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm,
RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of
Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept.
16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure
out how many were Russian.
But their elections have one critical thing in common: They both came out of NOWHERE to become
president, with characteristics that previously would have throttled their chances before they delivered
their first speech in Iowa.
There's no need to recount everything from Trump's florid life and campaign that sensible people
were sure disqualified him. But we've forgotten how the sensible people at first saw Obama in much
the same way, and for reasons that went far beyond him being African American. He'd been a senator
for just two years when he started running and would have to beat the entire party establishment.
His father was Muslim. He wasn't just not named Henry Smith, his middle name was Hussein.
He'd even used cocaine, and openly admitted it.
Yet both Obama and Trump vaulted over everyone and everything into the White House. Tens of millions
of Americans were willing to place their lives in the hands of political anomalies whose central
pitch was that they would deliver profound change. The rise of Bernie Sanders, who's proven that
you can become the most popular politician in the country without owning a comb, demonstrates the
same thing.
What does this mean?
I'd say it means that something has gone incredibly wrong with this country's political
system, that large numbers of us are desperate, and are willing to hand over power to absolutely
anyone. That's brings us to the peculiar reality that it's not just Obama and Trump's elections that
had something significant in common, it's likely their presidencies.
Obama
said American healthcare was in crisis and that "plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong
to yesterday." Obama was also
outraged
by pharmaceutical companies gouging Medicare.
According to Trump , "People all across the country are devastated" by the healthcare system,
but
if we put him in charge , "Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken
care of now." Trump was also
infuriated
by Big Pharma and just like Obama vowed to crush them.
Yet Obama delivered a halfway measure that tinkered with the problem, and never went after drug
manufacturers. Trump is now poised to give America literally the same thing.
Obama called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" in 2008. In 2016 Trump said NAFTA had caused
"devastation" and was "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed." But Obama didn't renegotiate NAFTA.
Trump
just announced he's not going to pull out of it, and it seems clear the odds of any real renegotiation
are slim.
Obama
attacked
Wall Street, and
so did Trump. Both then stocked their administrations with bankers.
And Obama and Trump both ran against the Iraq War, and both of their constituencies understood
them to mean they would rethink our entire policy toward the Middle East. Both Obama and Trump then
faithfully continued the Afghanistan War, bombed Syria, and helped Saudi Arabia starve Yemen.
... ... ...
"Now that we have vanquished the Dhimmicrats and cuckservatives," Steve Bannon proclaimed, "we
shall -" and then tripped on his shoelaces and fell down 97 flights of stairs.
"... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine
free speech. ..."
"... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain
since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological
Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend
and foe alike. ..."
"... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the
CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but
for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their
own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
"... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them.
..."
"... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down
world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss
of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism
and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to
"predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing
local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it
appears to be a native development." ..."
"... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also
took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized
the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and
so on.' ..."
"... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged
the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
"... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its
covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging
Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
"... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD
served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According
to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ,"
"the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output
(i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists
who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well
as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties
in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means,
and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
"... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out
stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy.
Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own
intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others
that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
"... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International
experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet
Union. ..."
"... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan,
it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without
anyone being the wiser. ..."
"... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What
Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic
society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is
of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force
and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never
without fraud." ..."
Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig
called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon
takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read
Part 1 ,
Part 2 and
Part 3 .
The recent
assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false
narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan
Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war
launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep
roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before
deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.
Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy
at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the "
Countering Disinformation
and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December
2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only
to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred
to as " the Global Engagement
Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize,
understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation
efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The
real purpose of
this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges
Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or
jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's
firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for
a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.
This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back
to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots
are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from
Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of
the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's "
The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun
with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.
In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's
Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy
of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was
only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion,
terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back
wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and,
when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.
The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for
genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto"
employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free
at all, but a concoction of the CIA's
Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare
program waged on friend and foe alike.
The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying
the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals,
but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans
from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know
it.
"The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal
with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the
cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists
or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing
their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility
within the various intellectual professions."
Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was
the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in
the document
PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement,
to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion,
doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual
appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the
West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the
planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American
origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."
While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal
critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2
itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system"
that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields
of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology
and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded:
"That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."
Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall
also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which
emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel,
Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in
his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when
PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully
to hand."
Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a
fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy.
With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old
Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.
The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere.
Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the
emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.
Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research
Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.
Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the
IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977.
According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of "
Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole
aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies
and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies
and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available
channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which
might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit
the British Left."
IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right
wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and
distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered
story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established
with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte
Brian Rossiter
Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political
analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years
as one of Britain's top
propagandists and secret agents .
If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment
alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look
no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told
outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan
in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't
need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream
believer, a dangerous imperialist who
acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until
his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé
Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco
and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize
governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to
delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.
The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put
out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist
spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in
his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book
above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think
about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction
between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which
was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled
at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the
use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used
by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as
valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in
1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method.
Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or
the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more
of less absolute."
But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his
Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage
for rolling back the Soviet Union.
In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented
a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International
(6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of
the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be
caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen
"because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist
one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals.
In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "
Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired
as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam
in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the
Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.
As George Orwell wrote
in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned
to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed
and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical,
and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can
sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."
Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain
his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine
Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to
one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say
in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all
ye who enter here.
This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see
The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a
consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony.
When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging
the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new
set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator
who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's
defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.
At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official
Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary
of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New
American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim
of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the
naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It
is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would
shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.
Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul
David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein
would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida
and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.
Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose
loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly
in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S.
and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades
in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the
U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly
that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon,"
bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no
retort. Russian jets
destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But,
the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in
order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change"
policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling
class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the
corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown,
blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under
the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country
where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist
network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: "
The U.S., Not
Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")
After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives
that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about "
fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset,
he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well
and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything
seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."
Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire,
and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the
subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for
his first public speech since leaving the
White House.
"It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University
of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts.
The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations,
and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to
confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."
Obama continued:
"If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall
Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're
just looking at cat videos [laughter].
"So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news
and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of
creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different
news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so
you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's
become more polarized."
Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used
to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and
the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared
by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").
However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity
of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers
also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers
"back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to
read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that
were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate
news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of
facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism"
and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition
to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.
Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's
emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's
going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.
"But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information,
or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation,
and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated,"
Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase
myself."
What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that
"the community will feel more welcome."
If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives
on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All
of it lies.
Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].
A few seasons back, South Park pointed out how easy it was for corporations
to co-opt social justice rhetoric. Since then, life has stubbornly insisted on
supporting that thesis.
Every now and then the un-system bites back as we just saw with the Pepsi
ad, although they did get a ton of free press, similar to United. That
approach worked for The Donald ..
Corporations love non-class based identity politics. They love arguing
that the real problems in society are not about economic inequality but
rather on identity based sensitivity. You can learn the fancy sensitivity
codes at your uppity college and look down your nose at the poor whites who
don't get the semiotic coaching. Business as Usual.
"... The palter was to skip the fact that it had broken down twice in the last year, instead saying, "This car drives very smoothly and is very responsive. Just last week it started up with no problems when the temperature was 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The outright lie would have been: "This car has never had problems." Researchers learned that car sellers perceived paltering as more ethical than lying, and thus used it more. ..."
"... Paltering allows people who consider themselves honest to deceive others while getting the same results that lying would. In a third experiment, participants in a pretend real estate negotiation performed just as well when they paltered as they did when they lied. Their successes didn't come without costs, however. When the deception was discovered, negotiation partners deemed palterers as untrustworthy as liars. ..."
"... One occasional advantage of paltering over lying is plausible deniability: You can blame any misunderstanding on the listener. ..."
"... So how can you avoid falling victim? "If you ask a specific question, that specific question should be answered, not a variant of it," Rogers says, even though insistence on clarification "often makes you look like a jerk." ..."
"... Paltering relies on our tendency to trust others and not cause a scene. ..."
Although paltering occurs in all realms of life, researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
focused on its use in negotiation. In one of eight studies to be published in the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, study participants pretended to sell a used car on eBay. They answered the
buyer's question "Has this car ever had problems?" with a response selected from a list supplied
by the researchers.
The palter was to skip the fact that it had broken down twice in the last year, instead saying,
"This car drives very smoothly and is very responsive. Just last week it started up with no problems
when the temperature was 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The outright lie would have been: "This car has never
had problems." Researchers learned that car sellers perceived paltering as more ethical than lying,
and thus used it more.
In another study, half of surveyed executives said they paltered in more than "a few" of their
negotiations, versus a fifth who said they actively lied more than a few times. Consistent with this
discrepancy, executives viewed the behavior as more honest than lying.
Paltering allows people who consider themselves honest to deceive others while getting the
same results that lying would. In a third experiment, participants in a pretend real estate negotiation
performed just as well when they paltered as they did when they lied. Their successes didn't come
without costs, however. When the deception was discovered, negotiation partners deemed palterers
as untrustworthy as liars.
Another study found that victims saw palterers as less ethical than palterers saw themselves.
We have a "broken mental model" of paltering, the researchers have concluded, seeing this behavior
as honest when others do not.
One occasional advantage of paltering over lying is plausible deniability: You can blame any
misunderstanding on the listener. Without knowing the speaker's intentions, it's difficult to
diagnose paltering with certainty says Todd Rogers, a behavioral scientist at the Kennedy School
and the paper's lead author. Few examples are as clear as Bill Clinton's response when asked if he'd
had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky: "There is not a sexual relationship - that is accurate."
(Note the slick use of present tense.)
So how can you avoid falling victim? "If you ask a specific question, that specific question
should be answered, not a variant of it," Rogers says, even though insistence on clarification "often
makes you look like a jerk."
Paltering relies on our tendency to trust others and not cause a scene. "It's pretty
amazing how much you can get away with because of people's truth bias," says David Clementson, a
researcher at Ohio State University's School of Communication, who was not involved in the study.
"Paltering totally takes advantage of that, diabolically and deceptively."
Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards
of Using Truthful Statements to Mislead Others
Rogers, Todd; Zeckhauser, Richard; et al.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol 112(3), Mar 2017, https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000081.pdf
"... Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42] ..."
"... Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith. ..."
"... I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that. ..."
"... Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place ..."
"... Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here. ..."
"... Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal. ..."
"... A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies. ..."
"... A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack. ..."
"... This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. ..."
"... I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies. ..."
"... It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit. ..."
"... Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.) ..."
"... It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." ..."
"... The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.) ..."
"... Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!) ..."
"... C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists." ..."
"... It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos. ..."
"... Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about. ..."
"... Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton. ..."
"... We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest. ..."
First, to explain our basic concepts and most important insights in plain English. Famously,
Paul Samuelson, the founder of modern macroeconomics, was asked whether economics told us anything
that was true but not obvious. It took him a couple of years, but eventually he gave an excellent
and topical example – simply the theory of comparative advantage.
Similarly, I often say that the most useful thing I did in my 6 years as Chief Economist at
DWP was to explain the lump of labour fallacy – that there isn't a fixed number of jobs in the
economy, and increased immigration or more women working adds to both labour demand and labour
supply – to six successive Secretaries of State. So that's the first.
Second is to call bullshit.
O.K. I call bullshit. What Portes explained "to six successive Secretaries of State" was
a figment of the imagination of a late 18th century Lancashire magistrate, a self-styled "
friend
to the poor " who couldn't understand why poor people got so upset about having their wages cut
or losing their jobs - to the extent they would go around throwing rocks through windows, breaking
machines and burning down factories - when it was obvious to him that it was all for the best
and in the long run we would all be better off or else dead.
I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was
simply the return of the repressed - the obverse of "Say's Law" (which was neither Say's nor a Law)
that "supply creates its own demand," which John Maynard Keynes demolished in The General Theory
of Employment, Interest and Money and that John Kenneth Galbraith subsequently declared "
sank without trace " in the wake of Keynes's demolition of it.
I call bullshit because when Paul Samuelson resurrected the defunct fallacy claim that
Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State, he did so on the condition that governments
pursued the sorts of "Keynesian" job-creating policies that the discredited principle of "supply
creates its own demand" insisted were both unnecessary and counter-productive.
But the lump of labor argument implies that there is only so much useful remunerative work
to be done in any economic system, and that is indeed a fallacy . If proper and sound
monetary, fiscal, and pricing policies are being vigorously promulgated , we need not resign
ourselves to mass unemployment. And although technological unemployment is not to be shrugged
off lightly, its optimal solution lies in offsetting policies that create adequate job
opportunities and new skills.
[Incidentally, as Robert Schiller has noted, the promised prevention of mass unemployment by vigorous
policy intervention did not imply the preservation of wage levels. Schiller cited the following passage
from the Samuelson textbook, " a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of
technological shifts in an industry can he adapted to - lower relative wages and migration of labor
and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers."]
I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was
not even Paul Samuelson's policy-animated zombie lump-of-labour fallacy but a supply-side, anti-inflationary
retrofit cobbled together by Richard Layard and associates and touted by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder
as the Third Way " new supply-side
agenda for the left. " Central to that agenda were tax cuts to promote economic growth and
"active labour market policies" to foster non-inflationary expansion of employment by making conditions
more "flexible" and lower-waged:
Part-time work and low-paid work are better than no work because they ease the transition from
unemployment to jobs.
Encourage employers to offer 'entry' jobs to the labour market by lowering the burden of tax
and social security contributions on low-paid jobs.
Adjustment will be the easier, the more labour and product markets are working properly. Barriers
to employment in relatively low productivity sectors need to be lowered if employees displaced
by the productivity gains that are an inherent feature of structural change are to find jobs elsewhere.
The labour market needs a low-wage sector in order to make low-skill jobs available.
I call bullshit because in defending the outcomes of supply-side labour policies, Portes soft-pedaled
the stated low-wage objectives of the Third Way agenda. In a
London Review of Books review, Portes admitted that "it may drive down wages for the low-skilled,
but the effect is small compared to that of other factors (technological change, the national minimum
wage and so on)." In the Third Way supply-side agenda, however, a low-wage sector was promoted as
a desirable feature - making more low-skill jobs available - not a trivial bug to be brushed aside.
In other words, in "driving down wages for the low skilled" the policy was achieving exactly what
it was intended to but Portes was "too discreet" to admit that was the stated objectives of the policy.
Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage.
He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's
most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached
their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative
advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple
the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally
the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are
the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing
returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest
on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they
wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42]
Galbraith also contends that "For most other commodities, where land or ecology places limits
on the expansion of capacity, the opposite condition – diminishing returns – is the rule. In
this situation, there can be no guarantee that an advantage of relative cost will persist once
specialization and the resultant expansion of production take place. A classic and tragic example,
studied by Erik Reinert, is transitional Mongolia, a vast grassland with a tiny population
and no industry that could compete on world markets. To the World Bank, Mongolia seemed a classic
case of comparative advantage in animal husbandry, which in Mongolia consisted of vast herds
of cattle, camels, sheep, and goats. Opening of industrial markets collapsed domestic industry,
while privatization of the herds prompted the herders to increase their size. This led, within
just a few years in the early 1990s, to overgrazing and permanent desertification of the subarctic
steppe and, with a slightly colder than normal winter, a massive famine in the herds."
Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics
lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain
someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement
that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics
was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith.
I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang
as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative
advantage.
James K Galbraith is the son of the famous New Deal economist John K Galbraith.
John K G:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
"In the case of economics there are no important propositions that cannot be stated in plain
language."
"I was an editor of Fortune under Henry Luce, the founder of Time, Inc., who was one of the
most ruthless editors that I have ever known, that anyone has ever known. Henry could look over
a sheet of copy and say, "This can go, and this can go, and this can go," and you would be left
with eight to ten lines which said everything that you had said in twenty lines before.
And I can still, to this day, not write a page without the feeling that Henry Luce is looking
over my shoulder and saying, "That can go." That illuminate one "problem" in our age of internet,
unlimited space to be verbose and no editors that de-obscure the writers "thoughts".
I wonder if this phenomenon – the desirability succinct communication -- was a holdover of
earlier times, when accurate communication made the difference between life and death. Settling
and developing a continent would place a high value on such purposeful human exchanges.
Today, we are awash in branding and marketing intended to maintain the current order. The language
is used to obfuscate, not clarify experience or goals.
An expert in any field that has the ability to communicate in a general , popular mode, is
of great value to society. Truth and understanding is its main function. Knowledge, or insight
that cannot be shared is more often than not just an excuse to hide methods of control and exploitation.
If citizens can't get the generalities right, the specifics will be impossible to comprehend.
Almost everything can go. I remember seeing a video of the photographer William Klein saying
a master photographer is remembered for just a handfull of images. Maybe 10 or 15, tops. Out of
probably at least 100,000 serious photos.
Of course what goes is necessary fertilizer for what doesn't go. You can't avoid it. Hahahah.
But you have to let it go anyway. Or your editor has to be williing to cut.
I've noticed lots and lots of posts here could be a lot better if the post author had said
the same thing in half as many words. Most wouldn't lose any persuasion, if they had any to begin
with. And they'd gain reader attention for the pruning.
I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that
quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who
write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just
being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know
better than to write like that.
Having saidd all that, Say was rite. If the supply of labor increases, that createes its
own demand for jobs! How is that not completely obvious.
Huffington Post review has a synopsis of the Ha-Joon Change book.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html
My favorite: Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics
doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the
rich in the first place
Thanks for the tip PK & thank you fd for the link to the review. I'm going to check this fellow
out; sounds like he has some interesting things to say. One of the "things" that may apply to
the above article:
Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important
economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual
reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little
to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated
by the experts here.
Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael
Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with
Samir Amin of Senegal.
A word of warning from the UK. Denigrate experts too much and you end up like us with government
by people who really are inexpert. That is not an improvement.
Ha! I think an anti brexiter just rolled the white eye.
Strange that the awful things that the experts told us all would happen haven't and don't look
like happening since the people called bullshit on the EU mess. Britain with or without those
blokes in dresses up north will do just fine as they steer themselves out of the EU quagmire.
I'll take the people anytime anonymous – they have more common sense than the experts. Didn't
you read the article?
I remember back in the 1980s, when so-called "experts" were prattling about such nonsense as
. . .
"Computers don't make mistakes, humans make mistakes !"
Which was surely untrue as anyone with any real IT expertise back then would have explained
that 97% or more of hardware crashes generate software problems (for obvious reasons).
A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently
selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the
evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of
communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological
preconceptions and justified their intended policies.
A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the
cure of a quack.
This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember
how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying
to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. This is in chemistry, so things are
typically straightforward, no need for convoluted explanations and massaging of the data.
But people still do it because that's the culture that they've been educated in, a scientific
paper has to be high-brow, using obscure words and complicated sentences.
I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the
rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that
delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but
you have made powerful enemies.
It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit.
So in the end, we wind up with Say's Law anyway, since creating a "low wages" sector is exactly
how Say's Law functions–supply creates its own demand because declining wages means investment
spending can increase, which keeps aggregate demand where it needs to be for full employment.
This is the solution, we are told, to Keynes "sticky prices." Jim Grant makes this very argument
in his book about the "short-lived" crisis of the early 1920s. Leave workers exposed to starvation
long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis
of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and
start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.)
It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate
stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system.
High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral
life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."
The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little
problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be
exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.)
Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of
jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so
intelligent after all!)
Just finished a book called, The Death of Expertise , by a professor of national security
(oh give me a frigging break!!!!), Tom Nichols.
Biggest pile of crapola I have ever read! The author was also yearning for the days when "experts"
were blindly followed!
It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your
opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban
Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos.
The answer is that said "experts" have failed the general public miserably.
Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was
faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot
society. That"s what this was always about.
Now people wonder, why they don't trust "experts"?
Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts",
particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq
would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence
to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we
are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed
Clinton.
We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves.
We need experts who act in the public interest.
Everybody lies. But American
politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it
is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.
One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted
since taking office is this tradition of aspirational
hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in
accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition
has set the standard of behavior for government officials and
has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government
and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr.
Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior,
because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won." In
requesting the resignation of his national security adviser,
Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public
concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a
minor victory in America. This is a good thing.
The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the
2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders
accused their respective parties and the country's elites of
hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to
turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task,
for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump
favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went,
should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife,
Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United
States on a visitor's visa?
The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because
it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful
position of advocating the deportation of someone for a
long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump
wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was
destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the
system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got
away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could
force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted
as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by
all.
Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling
forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The
Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how
fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy"
and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong,
only winners and losers. Hypocrisy can be aspirational:
Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals
perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding
the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and
gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate
motivations for political behavior.
In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats
like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this
cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is
driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the
Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that
their politics are based on values and principles. This
stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda
tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument
against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections,
Russians retort that American elections are not
unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption,
they claim that the entire world is corrupt.
This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of
whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr.
Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You
got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think
our country's so innocent?" To an American ear, Mr. Trump's
statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their
country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied
on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the
country. No American politician in living memory has advanced
the idea that the entire world, including the United States,
was rotten to the core. ...
"... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
"... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
"... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
"... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
"... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
"... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
"... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control,
there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could
take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.
Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological
operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point
moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's
true sovereigns.
For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21,
2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where
U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics
in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.
If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could
let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're
concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are
backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders
is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.
Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because
it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing
Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
operating near the Golan Heights.
The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the
Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus
to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's
political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment
views the Middle East.
But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests
of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites
as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come
from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.
This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's
"group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's
travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice,
there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked
the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.
This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction
goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong
countries.
But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth
about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream
media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the
truth cannot be spoken.
There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability –
might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he
has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans
can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime
change" adventures.
But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives,
a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the
violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with
Russia.
Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James
Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a
top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State
but that idea, too, has met resistance.
The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign
policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean
fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote
in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because
their roots connect them."
In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow.
Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington
tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.
So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues
who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.
What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have
the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts
that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.
Very good analysis.
The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article
shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based
on misleading the public.
On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve
relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.
Snowden should not be worried, since the report is groundless and is clearly a provocation. To
see why it is only necessary to look at
the NBC report itself , which makes it clear who is behind it...
U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden
as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who
deserves to be executed.
That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence
reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to
"curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence
about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.
(bold italics added)
It turns out that the story does not originate in Russia. It originates with our old friends the
'anonymous officials' of the US intelligence community.
One of these officials claims that the story is based on "intelligence" of "Russian conversations"
that the US intelligence community has 'gathered since the inauguration". We have no way of knowing
at what level these "conversations" took place, assuming they took place at all, but it is inconceivable
that the US intelligence community is genuinely informed of discussions within the top level of the
Russian leadership – where such a question would be discussed – or if it is that it would publicise
the fact by blurting the fact out to NBC.
The reality is that there is no possibility of the Russians handing Snowden over to the US in
order to please Donald Trump . Not only would doing so almost certainly breach Russian law – as Snowden's
lawyer, who has
denied the whole story , has pointed out – but it contradicts what I personally heard Russian
President Putin say at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2014 when the subject of
Snowden was brought up, which is that Russia never hands over people like Snowden once they have
gained asylum in Russia. That is indeed Russian practice extending far back into the Soviet period,
and I can think of no exceptions to it.
As it happens Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has denied the story in a
Facebook post which links it to the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the
US intelligence community (about which see more below). Here is how RT
translates
her post
Today, US intelligence agencies have stepped up their work, updating two stale stories, 'Russia
can gift Snowden to Trump' and 'confirmation found on the details of the scandalous
dossier
on Trump allegedly collected by an ex-employee of British intelligence.' But it may seem so only
to those who do not understand the essence of the game. None of these statements have been made by
representatives of the special services, but is information coming from NBC and CNN, citing unnamed
sources. The difference is obvious, but only to experts. Yet it is useful for scandalizing the public
and maintaining a degree of [public outrage] .
It is evident that the pressure on the new administration on the part of political opponents within
the United States continues, bargaining is going on. And that's why the US foreign policy doctrine
has not yet been formed
It is just possible that US intelligence overheard some gossip in Moscow about the Kremlin handing
Snowden over to Donald Trump in order to curry favour with him. The various reports the US intelligence
community released during the Clinton leaks hacking scandal show that the US intelligence community
is not actually very well informed about what goes on in Moscow or how the Russian government works.
In light of that it would not be entirely surprising if someone overheard some gossip about Snowden
in Moscow which the US intelligence community is over-interpreting.
Far more likely however is that – as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation,
spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what
Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to
Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence
community's support in seeking better relations with Russia.
This story is interesting not because of what it says about what the Russians are going to do
to Snowden – which in reality is nothing. Rather it is interesting because it shows the degree to
which Snowden continues to be an object of obsession for the US intelligence community.
The reason for that is that the US intelligence community knows that Snowden is not a Russian
spy.
As Snowden has pointed out, if he really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would be talking
about the Russians handing him over. The Russians do not hand their spies over any more than the
US does, and if Snowden really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would talking about the Russians
handing him over.
However if Snowden had been a Russian spy his actions would in that case have been simply a Russian
intelligence operation of which the US intelligence community was the victim, of which there have
been many since the Second World War. Espionage is what the US and Russia routinely do to each other,
and there would be nothing remarkable about Snowden in that case.
It is the fact that Snowden is on the contrary a deeply patriotic American who acted from patriotic
motives that has the US intelligence community enraged and alarmed. From their point of view having
a patriotic American publicly expose their practices Jason Bourne style is a far greater threat than
have a Russian spy penetrate their systems, since because of the far greater publicity it is far
more likely to damage them politically.
This explains the extraordinary feud the US intelligence community has waged against Snowden,
which in part explains why it has become so hostile to Russia, the country which has become his protector.
Mr.Sono -> knukles •Feb 12, 2017 5:41 PM
Putin is a man of his words and not a little bitch like Obama. I was suprised that fake news was
all over zerohedge regarding this topic, but at the end zerohedge confirmed the fake news.
Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter •Feb 12, 2017 5:35 PM
One of the smartest plays the deep state could make is allowing him back, make small fuss, and
issue a pardon. It would go far in deflating, diffusing the situation, de minimis so to speak.
But, I suppose it is more about absolute control, control of the narrative, full spectrum dominance,
cautionary tales etc. Pride goeth before the fall (destruction) I believe. Eventually this laundry
is going to get sorted and cleaned, one way or the other.
boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:13 PM
" as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US
intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants
better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the
US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in
seeking better relations with Russia."
A full pardon from Trump would improve his standing with the American people, IMHO, on both
the left and the right.
HumanMan -> boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:29 PM
This was my thought when the story broke. Putin can no longer claim to be a protector of human
rights if he hands over Snowden...Unless Trump is going to pardon him. As you pointed you, that
would be great (politically) for Trump too. Done this way would be a win win for the two and another
win for We The People. On top of that, Putin doesn't want to babysit Snowden. I'm sure the Russians
would be happy to have a politically expediant way to get the American spy out of their country.
HRClinton •Feb 12, 2017 5:16 PM
The Deep State rules, no matter what DJT thinks.
The roots go deep in my fomer DOS and in the CIA Even in the DOD and Senate. Bill and I know
this better than anyone.
FAKE NEWS:
On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve
relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.
How many gringos were fooled???--- not many
shovelhead •Feb 12, 2017 5:37 PM
Pissgate II...
Brought to you from your friends at the CIA
Mr. Crisp •Feb 12, 2017 5:50 PM
Snowden showed the world that the NSA wasn't just tracking terrorists, they were tracking pretty much
everyone, everywhere. He deserves a full pardon.
Nick Cohen makes a good
point
: it is not congenital liars that should worry us, but
congenital believers – those who fall for the lies of
charlatans. We know that many do so: almost half of voters
believed
the lie that leaving the EU would allow us to spend
an extra £350m a week on the NHS.
This poses the question: why do
people fall for lies? Here, we can learn from behavioural
economics and
research (pdf)
into criminal fraud. I reckon there are
several factors that liars exploit in politics.
One is wishful thinking. People
want to believe there's a simple solution to NHS underfunding
(leave the EU!) or to low wages (cut immigration!) just as they
want to believe they can get rich quick or make money by taking
no risk: Ponzi schemers like Bernie Madoff play upon that last
one. The wish is often the father to the belief.
Relatedly, perhaps, there are
lottery-type preferences. People like long-odds bets and pay too
much for them: this is why they back
longshots (pdf)
too
much
and pay over the odds for speculative
shares
. To such people, the fact that an offer seems too
good to be true is therefore, paradoxically, tempting. A study
of fraud by the OFT
found
:
Some people viewed responding
to a scam as taking a long-odds gamble: they recognised that
there was something wrong with the offer, but the size of the
possible prize or reward (relative to the initial outlay)
induced them to give it a try on the off-chance that it might
be genuine.
There's a particular type that is
especially likely to take a long-odds bet: the desperate. Lonely
people are vulnerable to the
romance
scam; gamblers who have lost take big bets to get even; losing
teams try "hail Mary" tactics. In like fashion, people who feel
like they have lost out in the era of globalization were
tempted
to vote for Trump and Brexit.
There's another mechanism here:
people are likely to turn to con-men if the alternatives have
failed. Werner Troesken
shows (pdf)
how snake-oil
sellers
exploited this. They invested a lot in advertising
and in product differentiation and so when other products failed
they could claim that theirs would work when the others hadn't.
I suspect that fund managers use a similar trick: the failure of
many to beat the market leads investors simply to trust others
rather than tracker funds. The fact that previous policies had
failed working people thus encouraged them to try something
different – be it Brexit or Trump.
Yet another trick here is the
affinity
fraud. We tend to trust people like ourselves, or who at least
who look like ourselves. Farage's endless posturing as a "man of
the people" – fag and pint in hand, not caring about "political
correctness" – laid the basis for people to trust him, just as
Bernie
Madoff
joined all the right clubs to
encourage
wealthy (often Jewish) folk to trust him. By contrast, the
claims from the Treasury and various think-tanks that Brexit
would make us poorer came from metropolitan elites who were so
different from poorer working class people that they weren't
trusted. And in fact the very talk of "liberal elites" carried
the subtext: "don't trust them: they're not like you".
All of these tendencies have been
reinforced by another – the fact that, as David Leiser and Zeev
Kril have
shown
, people are bad at making
connections
in economics. The idea that Brexit would hurt us
rested upon tricky connections: between the terms of Brexit and
trade rules; from trade rules to actual trade; and from trade to
productivity. By contrast, the idea that leaving the EU would
save us money was simple and easy to believe.
Now, I don't say all this merely
to be a Remoaner; complaining about liars is like a fish
complaining that the water is wet. Instead, I want to point out
that it is not sufficient to blame the BBC for not calling out
Brexiters' lies. Yes, the BBC
disgraced
itself during the plebiscite campaign. But we must
also understand how voters fall for such mendacity. As Akerlof
and Shiller write:
Voters are phishable in two
major ways. First, they are not fully informed; they are
information phools. Second, voters are also psychological
phools; for example, because they respond to appeals such as
lawnmower ads [a candidate seen mowing his own lawn is
regarded as a man of the people] (
Phishing
for Phools
, p 75)
All this raises a challenge for
liberals. Many used to believe the truth would win out over lies
in the marketplace for ideas. This is no longer true, if it ever
were. Instead, the questions now are: what can we do about this?
And what should we do? The two questions might well have
different answers. But we can make a start by understanding how
lies are sometimes believed.
Keith |
February 07, 2017 at 04:47 PM
The marketplace of ideas assumes that the consumers are able and
willing to inform themselves and be rational rather than
emotional. Clearly this is not true of a lot of voters when
confronted by a manipulative press and Tories like Jim with
their right wing agenda slyly hidden for the time being.
Equally as in other areas such as health care shopping around is
impossible to do as the consumers lack expert knowledge.
Allowing the profit motive to apply to many areas is sure to be
a disaster for human welfare as the profit incentive stops the
experts using their knowledge for good. Finance is a classic
example of the uninformed being repeatedly duped into unsound
investments decade after decade. Benjamin Graham describes how
in his first job selling Bonds to grannies he came to realise
that he was being asked to steal the life savings of pensioners
via commissions designed to get a sale of junk paper. Which is
why he moved elsewhere to a more ethical line of work. But I am
sure leaving the biggest most integrated market in the world
where lots of foreigners have helpfully learned our language
will surely increase our prosperity....Nigel says so.
There will always be gullible people (/ people constrained by
high opportunity cost of information search, as I prefer to
think of them)
And there will always be liars looking to take
advantage of them. Like 99% of politicians ever.
It's very Marxist to wonder how we might change this basic
fact of humanity, when the real solution is clear. Don't set up
powerful central institutions that rely on coercion: it attracts
liars, rewards them, and makes new liars out of honest people.
Oh, we Leavers are being lectured again by our Remainer betters
on our stupidity.
If the statements of the amount we pay to
the EU were lies, how come we owe them €50 billion?
how come no-one ever asks why we have to implement the four
freedoms when Germany gets a free pass on the Free market in
Services?
the government announced house building plans today, and
no-one asks whether a cause of high house prices and a housing
shortage is too much immigration?
It's not the lies, it's the questions never asked that stand
out.
I don't read Jim as a Tory. I read
him as someone who was a Labour supporter but now just stares in
amazement at a group of people who have become EU Federalist
fanatics spouting delusional slogans who can never answer a
straight question and refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems
of democratic accountability.
How on earth did that happen? How did apparently intelligent
people completely lose their critical faculties and join a
quasi-religious cult that chants empty slogans and denounces
anyone who questions them?
Chris missed out the fact that people tend to give others the
benefit of the doubt. I.e. if X tells a monster lie, peoples'
immediate reaction is: "X is is a bastard". But then on second
thoughts they feel ashamed at accusing someone else of being a
bastard, and assume it's they themselves that must be wrong.
There is a bit of a danger here of another comment thread being
derailed with Brexit mud-slinging. Chris's post isn't really
about the pros and cons of Brexit, it just offers a vivid
example of the phenomenon under discussion.
The point Chris makes in the last paragraph is more general
and profound. If any and all data/information/evidence/argument
is interpreted in partisan fashion and subject to massive
confirmation bias so that debates increasingly polarise - or if
different sides in debates proffer their own favoured but
incompatible versions of the truth - then meaningful dialogue,
deliberation and compromise become near impossible. All we get
is intolerance, mistrust and greater partisanship. Clearly these
are not entirely new issues, but it seems undeniable that there
has been a qualitative shift in 'quality' of public debate.
We appear to be witnessing the US political system at great
risk of imploding, as enlightenment values are abandoned and key
tenets of liberal democratic practice are wilfully rejected.
This is the route to chaos.
The questions Chris poses are, to my mind at least, the right
ones. The very nature of the problem means that the old/favoured
remedies are unlikely to be effective. But what can replace
them? Is a violent conflagration the only way of shocking the
system out of hyper-partisanship and the rejection of the
foundational belief that we live in a shared reality (i.e. for
people to 'come to their senses')? Or can we back out of this
particular cul-de-sac peacefully? You've got to hope so. But, if
so, how?
Our upper echelon, i.e. our long-standing middle of the road
Labour MPs and commentators, have long been successful in
fighting off calls for left leaning policy/talk of how things
work (because who knows where this will end) under a guise of
fighting off racism/ a closed shop mentality; the routes of
least resistance 50s – 00s which should alert us to the ability
of the English working class to embrace immigration and avoid
base philosophies. But it seems not. Seems to me our shared
interest beyond race creed colour and gender continues to be
deliberately and systematically no-platformed. What I fail to
understand, given the rise of UKIP, is why this is not glaringly
obvious; because if you're one of the majority who live life as
best you might with as much consideration and tolerance as you
can muster where does credence go when an ordinary workers
tendency to sound 'populist' is marked up to racism no matter
known history...
"Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of
books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on
similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too
intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American
voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant.
They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats
lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics.
Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it
comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to
electioneering. They have brilliant political consultants like
Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, who frame issues so fiendishly, they
can fool the American people into voting against their own best
interests."
And immigration is about economics. This is Sweden an
immigration superpower.
"Swedish police last year issued a report where it detailed
incidents from more than 55 areas which it branded as "no-go
zones" as it detailed brutal attacks on police, sexual assaults,
children carrying weapons and general turmoil sweeping across
the country."
"A ban was supported by 71 per cent of people in Poland, 65
per cent in Austria, 53 per cent in Germany and 51 per cent in
Italy.
In the UK, 47 per cent supported a ban.
In no country did more than 32 per cent disagree with a ban."
"It thereby explains a paradox: why, at a
time when we are better off than ever before in history, all too
many of us are leading lives of quiet desperation."
Chris, a bit off the point, but if everyone followed your advice
and put money in tracker funds and active funds disappeared,
what would happen to the stock market ? Instinct tells me it
would become extremely volatile, but instinct is a bad guide...
It is not an extreme story, I don't speak Swedish
or have any contact with Sweden. I only read the main stream
media which includes the Daily Express.
As you would expect most of the media does not report on
Sweden, unless it has a British angle.
e.g. Birmingham Boy killed by a hand grenade.
(I don't know how you can spin Hand Grenade)
The report originates with the Swedish Police the situation
in Malmo is serious and individual police officers like Peter
Springare's Facebook post.
"After a wave of violence in Sweden's third city, police boss
Stefan Sintéus has appealed to residents in Malmö: "Help us.
Help us to tackle the problems. Cooperate with us.""
This isn't the first time facists have made
inflammatory comments about muslims. Nick Griffin did this and
was prosecuted for inciting racial hatred in 2006. The summary
of what he said is some way down this article.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with banning "fake
news". You have to be really open, transparent and clear and be
absolutely sure you are right, otherwise you end up making
heroes of facists and stoking the notion that its all a plot to
hide the truth from the people. And that is a really bad
outcome.
MPs wrestling with their consciences, loud debates, arguments
about the truth ... this is the sound of a properly functioning
parliamentary democracy and long may that noise continue.
Nick Cohen does make some good points but he himself has a
complicated relationship with the truth in some areas. When he
isn't talking about congenital liars and congenital believers,
he continues to get into a rage about people who opposed the
invasion of Iraq. As far as I can see, the invasion of Iraq has
been the disaster that some of us feared (because regime change
involves putting in place a new regime change, which is very
difficult and for which the USA and UK do not have the skills).
And, as far as I can see, some of the assumptions made by Nick
Cohen in 2002 and 2003 in supporting the invasion (such as the
ability of the Iraqi National Congress to create a new regime)
were very dubious and their weakness of these assumptions is why
the invasion was a failure and has had created an array of other
problems.
In his campaign to avoid a post-truth future, Nick Cohen
claims that people like him "are on their own" and he explicitly
rejects working with the kind of people who opposed the invasion
of Iraq. That's a pity, really, because many people appear to
have started their opposition to the invasion because the
information provided and the logic used appeared to be dodgy.
The period from August 2002 to March 2003 prefigured the
Trump/Brexit era for post-truth information and arguments. Nick
Cohen would be on stronger ground if he admitted that the
invasion of Iraq has not necessarily worked to anyone's
advantage.
I guess that what is going on in Nick Cohen's mind (and I can
only guess) is that he has built up a negative image of the type
of person who opposed the invasion of Iraq and he has difficulty
getting past that image and come to terms with what those people
were saying and what has actually happened in Iraq. Thus in
between writing articles about the need for truth, Nick Cohen
writes expressions of outrage about opponents of the invasion of
Iraq as if they had been found to be wrong.
It seems to be a very extreme example of seeing the messenger
and not the message, which is one of the issues with failing to
recognise lies.
OK, well I've worked most of my life with Swedes and Norwegians,
and have regularly visited Malmo three or four times a year
recently, although the last was a bit over a year ago.
So, yes, immigration is an issue, and the Sweden Democrats
(fascists) have been rising in the polls. Malmo itself has some
problems in the suburbs.
But there are no no-go areas. Armed violence has more
traditionally been associated with biker-gang turf-related drug
wars - otherwise with the far right (see Breivik in Norway) and
then, as your last link discusses, lone serial killers.
Reading anything the Sweden Democrats have to say is the
equivalent of believing Wilders in the Netherlands - they are
loons.
"... I agree with much of what James F writes but one thing that doesn't sit right with me about him commentary is his implication that if your complaint isn't about an immediate threat to life and limb then your complaint is frivolous. That's bullshit. Immediate threats to life and limb require immediate attention but once those threats are dealt with then what? ..."
+1 for Frank's piece. "Meh." to James F's. His crankiness,
while justifiable, doesn't go anywhere.
Also, to say "Obama was defeated in the Massachusetts
senatorial campaign [in 2009, the special election to replace
Kennedy]." is to fundamentally misunderstand that race.
Coakley was a decent AG but utterly inept at connecting
with voters. Brown couldn't win a battle of wits with a
golden retriever but he was perceived as a nice guy. (Whether
he actually is a nice guy is open to debate.)
Brown's victory wasn't a repudiation of Obama; it was a
repudiation of Coakley.
I agree with much of what James F writes but one thing
that doesn't sit right with me about him commentary is his
implication that if your complaint isn't about an immediate
threat to life and limb then your complaint is frivolous.
That's bullshit. Immediate threats to life and limb require
immediate attention but once those threats are dealt with
then what?
Trivializing problems that
"comfortable people" call attention to is just a variation of
"Be thankful you have anything at all." which, at the risk of
overusing the phrase, is bullshit. Comfort the afflicted and
afflict the comforted but be self-aware enough to realize
that whatever your position it is it may change.
PS James F writes:
"We [people in flyover country] provide commodities
like food and coal and oil and metals."
Providing coal and oil may be a near-term necessity but
it's not doing anyone - "comfortable people", "deplorables"
or otherwise - any long-term favors. That you have acute
concerns which you need to deal with is not an excuse to turn
a blind eye to your impact on the world. It may be a reason
but it is not an excuse.
On the Mass race,
i think the failure of Democrats to fight with all their guns
for the 60th Senate seat was a major failure. They were not
willing to send their big guns to say "we cannot afford a
40th Republican, no matter how nice he is".
From amazon review of his book
In the Jaws of the Dragon "Anyone who has read "The World is Flat" should also read "In The
Jaws Of The Dragon" to understand both sides of the issues involved in offshoring. Eamon Fingleton clearly
defines the differences between the economic systems in play in China and Japan and the United States
and how those differences have damaged the United States economy. The naive position taken by both the
Republicans and the Democrats that offshoring is good for America is shown to be wrong because of a
fundamental lack of knowledge about who we are dealing with. Every member of Congress and the executive
branch should read this book before ratifying any more trade agreements. The old saying of the marketplace
applies: Take advantage of me once, shame on you. Take advantage of me twice, shame on me."
Notable quotes:
"... Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed their views to be shaped largely by the American press. ..."
"... That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism. ..."
"... In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. ..."
"... As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than the press makes out. ..."
"... So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability. ..."
"... In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." ..."
"... other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes from fed-up middle Americans. ..."
"... In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital evidence in the Kovaleski affair. ..."
Battlefield communications in World War I sometimes left something to be desired. Hence a famous
British anecdote of a garbled word-of-mouth message. As transmitted, the message ran, "Send reinforcements,
we are going to advance." Superior officers at the other end, however, were puzzled to be told: "Send
three and four-pence [three shillings and four-pence], we are going to a dance!"
Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for
Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed
their views to be shaped largely by the American press.
That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and
reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies
even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's
almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003.
Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are
viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that
he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone
remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades
in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter
Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism.
Now as Trump embarks on office, his true attitudes are becoming obvious – and they hardly lean
towards neo-Nazism.
In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's
husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken
partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's
highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. Trump even wants to move the American embassy
in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This position is a favourite of the most ardently pro-Israel
section of the American Jewish community but is otherwise disavowed as insensitive to Palestinians
by most American policy analysts.
Many other examples could be cited of how the press has distorted the truth. It is interesting
to revisit in particular the allegation that Trump mocked a disabled man's disability. It is an allegation
which has received particular prominence in the press in Europe. But is Trump really such a heartless
ogre? Hardly.
As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than
the press makes out. The disabled-man episode began when, in defending an erstwhile widely ridiculed
contention that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed
a 2001 newspaper account broadly backed him up. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred.
Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he wrote, was an exaggeration.
Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking
reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had succumbed to political correctness.
So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no
ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are
malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York
real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they
could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability.
Trump's plea that he hadn't known that Kovaleski was handicapped was undermined when it emerged
that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower.
That is an experience I know something about. I, like Kovaleski, once interviewed Trump in Trump
Tower. The occasion was an article I wrote for Forbes magazine in 1982. If Trump saw my by-line today,
would he remember that occasion 35 years ago? Probably not. The truth is that Trump, who has been
a celebrity since his early twenties, has been interviewed by thousands of journalists over the years.
A journalist would have to be seriously conceited – or be driven by a hidden agenda – to assume that
a VIP as busy as Trump would remember an occasion half a lifetime ago.
In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump
offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart;
number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many
of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies
his tough-guy exterior), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. In effect Trump is
saying he had a strong self-interest in not offending the disabled lobby let alone their millions
of sympathisers.
After all it was not as if there were votes in dissing the disabled. This stands in marked contrast
to other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans
and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central
pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes
from fed-up middle Americans.
In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital
evidence in the Kovaleski affair.
For a start Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to arthrogryposis. Far from frantically
flailing their arms, arthrogryposis victims are uncommonly motionlessness. This is because relevant
bones are fused together. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the media should have been expected to
have been chomping at the bit to interview Kovaleski and thus clinch the point about how ruthlessly
Trump had ridiculed a disabled man's disability.
The website added: "If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have
done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have
no story."
Catholics 4 Trump added that, in the same speech in which Trump did his Kovaleski impression,
he offered an almost identical performance to illustrate the embarrassment of a U.S. general with
whom he had clashed. In particular Trump had the general wildly flailing his arms. It goes without
saying that this general does not suffer from arthogryposis or any other disability. The common thread
in each case was merely an embarrassed, backtracking person. To say the least, commentators in Europe
who have portrayed Trump as having mocked Kovaleski's disability stand accused of superficial, slanted
reporting.
All this is not to suggest that Trump does not come to the presidency unencumbered with baggage.
He is exceptionally crude – at least he is in his latter-day reality TV manifestation (the Trump
I remember from my interview in 1982 was a model of restraint by comparison and in particular never
used any expletives). Moreover the latter-day Trump habit of picking Twitter fights with those who
criticize him tends merely to confirm a widespread belief that he is petty and thin-skinned.
Many of his pronouncements moreover have been disturbing and his abrasive manner will clearly
prove on balance a liability in the White House. That said, the press has never worked harder or
more dishonestly to destroy a modern American leader.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, therefore, as he sets out to make America great again.
The truth is that American decline has gone much further than almost anyone outside American industry
understands. Trump's task is a daunting one.
Eamonn
Fingleton is an expert on America's trade problems and is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries:
Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston). A version of this article appeared in the Dublin Ireland Sunday Business Post.
America's fate looks dicey in the showdown with the Chinese juggernaut, warns this vigorous jeremiad.
Fingleton (In Praise of Hard Industries) argues that China's "East Asian" development model of aggressive
mercantilism and a state-directed economy "effortlessly outperforms" America's fecklessly individualistic
capitalism
"... By Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Originally published at emptywheel ..."
"... The Count of Monte-Cristo ..."
"... I believe it was Chomsky who said that the print media has content and filler, the content is the advertising and the filler is everything else. ..."
"... As advertising revenues have gone down, the print media may be looking for a new operating funds, maybe from wealthy owners (Bezos, Carlos Slim) paying for their views to be featured, maybe from US government hidden funding to "counter fake news" that is contrary to the story the elite wants told. ..."
"... If there is a feedback loop in the mainstream media, it is very slow and does not correct errors to result in lasting reform. ..."
"... The Times promoted the Iraq war and then had the Bill Keller retrospective "we got it wrong" years later. ..."
"... Then the Times moved onto promoting military action in Libya, the Ukraine and Syria. ..."
Yves here. Marcy points out how what is considered to be "news" has changed greatly over time,
and that the requirement that news be objective is recent and marketing-driven.
This essay covers a great deal of important ground. I'd like to add one topic, which is the role
of propaganda. Even though organizations have done all sorts of evangelizing, the use of the media
and social networks of the day for that purpose is relatively recent. Alex Carey in his book Taking
the Risk Out of Democracy dates it to the early 1900s. One early, successful campaign led by the
National Association of Manufacturers, already a leader in campaigning against organized labor, was
to counter the backlash against immigration, which was then seen as a threat to American values and
communities. One of their initiatives
was institutionalizing "Americanization Day," later rebranded as "Independence Day."
As we've discussed before, the first full-bore government-sponsored propaganda campaign took place
in World War I. The Creel Committee, an agency of the Federal government officially called the Committee
on Public Information used all the communication vehicles of its day, not just newspapers. An overview
from Wikipedia:
The committee used newsprint, posters, radio, telegraph, cable and movies to broadcast its
message. It recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," volunteers who spoke about the war at social
events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span
was judged at the time to be four minutes. They covered the draft, rationing, war bond drives,
victory gardens and why America was fighting. It was estimated that by the end of the war, they
had made more than 7.5 million speeches to 314 million people in 5,200 communities. They were
advised to keep their message positive, always use their own words and avoid "hymns of hate."
For ten days in May 1917, the Four Minute Men were expected to promote "Universal Service by Selective
Draft" in advance of national draft registration on June 5, 1917.
The CPI staged events designed for specific ethnic groups. For instance, Irish-American tenor
John McCormack sang at Mount Vernon before an audience representing Irish-American organizations.
The Committee also targeted the American worker and, endorsed by Samuel Gompers, filled factories
and offices with posters designed to promote the critical role of American labor in the success
of the war effort.
The CPI's activities were so thorough that historians later stated, using the example of a
typical midwestern American farm family, that
Every item of war news they saw-in the country weekly, in magazines, or in the city daily
picked up occasionally in the general store-was not merely officially approved information
but precisely the same kind that millions of their fellow citizens were getting at the same
moment. Every war story had been censored somewhere along the line- at the source, in transit,
or in the newspaper offices in accordance with 'voluntary' rules established by the CPI.
The Creel Committee was able to turn America from being firmly pacifist to being eager to fight
the evil Germans in a mere 18 months. In Serbia, a concerted propaganda campaign was able to turn
public polls radically in a mere six weeks.
In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom realizing
that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get information on
the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified opinion. This may
seem obvious but surprisingly few people are willing to say that in simple terms. The reflex of government
opinion managers and their media allies is to shut down or delegitimate offending outlets. But there
are too many, not just in the US but overseas, for them to do that other than by severely curtailing
Internet publication. Are they prepared to go the route of the Chinese government in terms of restricting
foreign access and censoring domestic writers? That's the end game if they are serious about stopping
what TPTB deems to be "fake news".
By Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties.
She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon,
and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy
of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Originally
published at emptywheel
I've been getting into multiple Twitter fights about the term "fake news" of late, a topic about
which I feel strongly but which I don't have time to reargue over and over. So here are the reasons
I find the term "fake news" to be counterproductive, even aside from the way Washington Post magnified
it with the PropOrNot campaign amidst a series of badly reported articles on Russia that failed WaPo's
own standards of "fake news."
Most people who use the term "fake news" seem to be fetishizing something they call "news." By
that, they usually mean the pursuit of "the truth" within an editor-and-reporter system of "professional"
news reporting. Even in 2017, they treat that term "news" as if it escapes all biases, with some
still endorsing the idea that "objectivity" is the best route to "truth," even in spite of the way
"objectivity" has increasingly imposed a kind of both-sides false equivalence that the right has
used to move the Overton window in recent years.
I've got news (heh) for you America. What we call "news" is one temporally and geographically
contingent genre of what gets packaged as "news." Much of the world doesn't produce the kind of news
we do, and for good parts of our own history, we didn't either. Objectivity was invented as a marketing
ploy. It is true that during a period of elite consensus, news that we treated as objective succeeded
in creating a unifying national narrative of what most white people believed to be true, and that
narrative was tremendously valuable to ensure the working of our democracy. But even there, "objectivity"
had a way of enforcing centrism. It excluded most women and people of color and often excluded working
class people. It excluded the "truth" of what the US did overseas. It thrived in a world of limited
broadcast news outlets. In that sense, the golden age of objective news depended on a great deal
of limits to the marketplace of ideas, largely chosen by the gatekeeping function of white male elitism.
And, probably starting at the moment Walter Cronkite figured out the Vietnam War was a big myth,
that elite narrative started developing cracks.
But several things have disrupted what we fetishize as news since them. Importantly, news outlets
started demanding major profits, which changed both the emphasis on reporting and the measure of
success. Cable news, starting especially with Fox but definitely extending to MSNBC, aspired to achieve
buzz, and even explicitly political outcomes, bringing US news much closer to what a lot of advanced
democracies have - politicized news.
And all that's before 2002, what I regard as a key year in this history. Not only was traditional
news struggling in the face of heightened profit expectations even as the Internet undercut the press'
traditional revenue model. But at a time of crisis in the financial model of the "news," the press
catastrophically blew the Iraq War, and did so at a time when people like me were able to write "news"
outside of the strictures of the reporter-and-editor arrangement.
I actually think, in an earlier era, the government would have been able to get away with its
Iraq War lies, because there wouldn't be outlets documenting the errors, and there wouldn't have
been ready alternatives to a model that proved susceptible to manipulation. There might eventually
have been a Cronkite moment in the Iraq War, too, but it would have been about the conduct of the
war, not also about the gaming of the "news" process to create the war. But because there was competition,
we saw the Iraq War as a journalistic failure when we didn't see earlier journalistic complicity
in American foreign policy as such.
Since then, of course, the underlying market has continued to change. Optimistically, new outlets
have arisen. Some of them - perhaps most notably HuffPo and BuzzFeed and Gawker before Peter Thiel
killed it - have catered to the financial opportunities of the Internet, paying for real journalism
in part with clickbait stories that draw traffic (which is just a different kind of subsidy than
the family-owned project that traditional newspapers often relied on, and these outlets also rely
on other subsidies). I'm pretty excited by some of the journalism BuzzFeed is doing right now, but
it's worth reflecting their very name nods to clickbait.
More importantly, the "center" of our national - indeed, global - discourse shifted from elite
reporter-and-editor newspapers to social media, and various companies - almost entirely American
- came to occupy dominant positions in that economy. That comes with the good and the bad. It permits
the formulation of broader networks; it permits crisis on the other side of the globe to become news
over here, in some but not all spaces, it permits women and people of color to engage on an equal
footing with people previously deemed the elite (though very urgent digital divide issues still leave
billions outside this discussion). It allows our spooks to access information that Russia needs to
hack to get with a few clicks of a button. It also means the former elite narrative has to compete
with other bubbles, most of which are not healthy and many of which are downright destructive. It
fosters abuse.
But the really important thing is that the elite reporter-and-editor oligopoly was replaced with
a marketplace driven by a perverse marriage of our human psychology and data manipulation (and often,
secret algorithms). Even assuming net neutrality, most existing discourse exists in that marketplace.
That reality has negative effects on everything, from financially strapped reporter-and-editor outlets
increasingly chasing clicks to Macedonian teenagers inventing stories to make money to attention
spans that no longer get trained for long reads and critical thinking.
The other thing to remember about this historical narrative is that there have always been stories
pretending to present the real world that were not in fact the real world. Always. Always always
always. Indeed, there are
academic arguments that
our concept of "fiction" actually arises out of a necessary legal classification for what gets published
in the newspaper. "Facts" were insults of the king you could go to prison for. "Fiction" was stories
about kings that weren't true and therefore wouldn't get you prison time (obviously, really authoritarian
regimes don't honor this distinction, which is an important lesson in their contingency). I have
been told that fact/fiction moment didn't happen in all countries, and it happened at different times
in different countries (roughly tied, in my opinion, to the moment when the government had to sustain
legitimacy via the press).
But even after that fact/fiction moment, you would always see factual stories intermingling with
stuff so sensational that we would never regard it as true. But such sensational not-true stories
definitely helped to sell newspapers. Most people don't know this because we generally learn a story
via which our fetishized objective news is the end result of a process of earlier news, but news
outlets - at least in the absence of heavy state censorship - have always been very heterogeneous.
As many of you know, a big part of my dissertation covered actual fiction in newspapers.
The Count of Monte-Cristo , for example, was published in France's then equivalent of the
WSJ. It wasn't the only story about an all powerful figure with ties to Napoleon Bonaparte that delivered
justice that appeared in newspapers of the day. Every newspaper offered competing versions, and those
sold newspapers at a moment of increasing industrialization of the press in France. But even at a
time when the "news" section of the newspaper presented largely curations of parliamentary debates,
everything else ran the gamut from "fiction," to sensational stuff (often reporting on technology
or colonies), to columns to advertisements pretending to be news.
After 1848 and 1851, the literary establishment put out alarmed calls to discipline the literary
sphere, which led to changes that made such narratives less accessible to the kind of people who
might overthrow a king. That was the "fictional narrative" panic of the time, one justified by events
of 1848.
Anyway, if you don't believe me that there has always been fake news, just go to a checkout line
and read the National Enquirer, which sometimes does cover people like Hillary Clinton or Angela
Merkel. "But people know that's fake news!" people say. Not all, and not all care. It turns out,
some people like to consume fictional narratives (I have actually yet to see analysis of how many
people don't realize or care that today's Internet fake news is not true). In fact, everyone likes
to consume fictional narratives - it's a fundamental part of what makes us human - but some of us
believe there are norms about whether fictional narratives should be allowed to influence how we
engage in politics.
Not that that has ever stopped people from letting religion - a largely fictional narrative -
dictate political decisions.
So to sum up this part of my argument: First, the history of journalism is about the history of
certain market conditions, conditions which always get at least influenced by the state, but which
in so-called capitalist countries also tend to produce bottle necks of power. In the 50s, it was
the elite. Now it's Silicon Valley. And that's true not just here! The bottle-neck of power for much
of the world is Silicon Valley. To understand what dictates the kinds of stories you get from a particular
media environment, you need to understand where the bottle-necks are. Today's bottle-neck has created
both what people like to call "fake news" and a whole bunch of other toxins.
But also, there has never been a time in media where not-true stories didn't comingle with true
stories, and at many times in history the lines between them were not clear to many consumers. Plus,
not-true stories, of a variety of types, can often have a more powerful influence than true ones
(think about how much our national security state likes series like 24). Humans are wired for narrative,
not for true or false narrative.
Which brings us to what some people are calling "fake news" - as if both "fake" and "news" aren't
just contingent terms across the span of media - and insisting it has never existed before. These
people suggest the advent of deliberately false narratives, produced both by partisans, entrepreneurs
gaming ad networks, as well as state actors trying to influence our politics, narratives that feed
on human proclivity for sensationalism (though stories from this year showed Trump supporters had
more of this than Hillary supporters) served via the Internet, are a new and unique threat, and possibly
the biggest threat in our media environment right now.
Let me make clear: I do think it's a threat, especially in an era where local trusted news is
largely defunct. I think it is especially concerning because powers of the far right are using it
to great effect. But I think pretending this is a unique moment in history - aside from the characteristics
of the marketplace - obscures the areas (aside from funding basic education and otherwise fostering
critical thinking) that can most effectively combat it. I especially encourage doing what we can
to disrupt the bottle-neck - one that happens to be in Silicon Valley - that plays on human nature.
Google, Facebook, and Germany have all taken initial steps which may limit the toxins that get spread
via a very American bottle-neck.
I'm actually more worried about the manipulation of which stories get fed
by big data. Trump claims to have used it to drive down turnout; and the first he worked with is
part of a larger information management company. The far right is probably achieving more with these
tailored messages than Vladimir Putin is with his paid trolls.
The thing is: the antidote to both of these problems are to fix the bottle-neck.
But I also think that the most damaging non-true news story of the year was Bret Baier's claim
that Hillary was going to be indicted, as even after it was retracted it magnified the damage of
Jim Comey's interventions. I always raise that in Twitter debates, and people tell me oh that's just
bad journalism not fake news. It was a deliberate manipulation of the news delivery system (presumably
by FBI Agents) in the same way the manipulation of Facebooks algorithms feeds so-called fake news.
But it had more impact because more people saw it and people may retain news delivered as news more.
It remains a cinch to manipulate the reporter-and-editor news process (particularly in an era driven
by clicks and sensationalism and scoops), and that is at least as major a threat to democracy as
non-elites consuming made up stories about the Pope.
I'll add that there are special categories of non-factual news that deserve notice. Much stock
reporting, especially in the age of financialization, is just made up hocus pocus designed to keep
the schlubs whom the elite profit off of in the market. And much reporting on our secret foreign
policy deliberately reports stuff the reporter knows not to be true. David Sanger's recent amnesia
of his own reporting on StuxNet is a hilarious example of this, as is all the Syria reporting that
pretends we haven't intervened there. Frankly, even aside from the more famous failures, a lot of
Russian coverage obscures reality, which discredits reports on what is a serious issue. I raise these
special categories because they are the kind of non-true news that elites endorse, and as such don't
raise the alarm that Macedonian teenagers making a buck do.
The latest panic about "fake news" - Trump's labeling of CNN and Buzzfeed as such for disseminating
the dossier that media outlets chose not to disseminate during the election - suffers from some of
the same characteristics, largely because parts of it remain shrouded in clandestine networks (and
because the provenance remains unclear). If American power relies (as it increasingly does) on secrets
and even outright lies, who's to blame the proles for inventing their own narratives, just like the
elite do?
Two final points.
First, underlying most of this argument is an argument about what happens when you subject the
telling of true stories to certain conditions of capitalism. There is often a tension in this process,
as capitalism may make "news" (and therefore full participation in democracy) available to more people,
but to popularize that news, businesses do things that taint the elite's idealized notion of what
true story telling in a democracy should be. Furthermore, at no moment in history I'm aware of has
there been a true "open" market for news. It is always limited by the scarcity of outlets and bandwidth,
by laws, by media ownership patterns, and by the historically contingent bottle-necks that dictate
what kind of news may be delivered most profitably. One reason I loathe the term "fake news" is because
its users think the answer lies in non-elite consumers or in producers and not in the marketplace
itself, a marketplace created in and largely still benefitting the US. If "fake news" is a problem,
then it's a condemnation of the marketplace of ideas largely created by the US and elites in the
US need to attend to that.
Finally, one reason there is such a panic about "fake news" is because the western ideology of
neoliberalism has failed. It has led to increased authoritarianism, decreased qualify of life in
developed countries (but not parts of Africa and other developing nations), and it has led to serial
destabilizing wars along with the refugee crises that further destabilize Europe. It has failed in
the same way that communism failed before it, but the elites backing it haven't figured this out
yet. I'll write more on this (Ian Walsh has been
doing good work here ). All details of the media environment aside, this has disrupted the value-laden
system in which "truth" exists, creating a great deal of panic and confusion among the elite that
expects itself to lead the way out of this morass. Part of what we're seeing in "fake news" panic
stems from that, as well as a continued disinterest in accountability for the underlying policies
- the Iraq War and the Wall Street crash and aftermath especially - enabled by failures in our elite
media environment. But our media environment is likely to be contested until such time as a viable
ideology forms to replace failed neoliberalism. Sadly, that ideology will be Trump_vs_deep_state unless the
elite starts making the world a better place for average folks. Instead, the elite is policing discourse-making
by claiming other things - the bad true and false narratives it, itself, doesn't propagate - as illegitimate.
"Fake news" is a problem. But it is a minor problem compared to our other discursive problems.
Episode 2 of the new gameshow "The Wall", which features up to ~$12 Million in possible prizes,
they cheat the very first question.
Confirm it for yourself. The 'couple' (the game is for 'couples) is a military family. The
hot-shot helo-pilot doesn't know who won the tortise and the hare.
He screams, the hare! And presses the button in plain sight.
Never-the-less he is rewarded a win. His wife later cannot tell the nicknames of the F-16 and
the F-18 apart for 100% sure.
Once upon a time, the search string "I have a secret fake" in Google would return lone string
of a book where a lone voice in the wilderness put in print that the whole show was 'managed.'
A sophisticated re-viewing shows it to have been 'faked' this is all back in the 50's. It's
coming back, but two years after my last research on this, the same search string only gave me
the above link to . what?
The tortise wins. Correction: The show's later episodes (just watched) reveal that answers
in transit can be changed. So this is no repeat of 'Card Sharks' (Time magazine complicity included.)
It's awkward when nobody quite knows what exactly the rules are and the prize is so high.
Let us remember Charles "The Genius Of All Time" Van Doren, and his skyrocket fame (what's
the end point of a skyrocket's trajectory, again?) in the Great Quiz Show Manipulation of the
'50s and early '60s, this story link from the NYT in 2008 kind of lifts some of the corners of
the curtain that the Bernaysian manipulators hide behind, "After 49 years, Charles Van Doren talks,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/opinion/21iht-edbeam.1.14660467.html
"For evil to triumph, all that is required is for a few good people to remain silent," or some
such sh!t.
And there's this, on another YUUUGE cultural phenom, "The $64,000 Question," which was one
of those "quiz" game shows my parents and us kids sat mesmerized watching, with visions of "free
money" dancing in our peabrains, and which "program" (what a wonderful meme-name for what "media"
does to us mopes) pure deceit and buzz-building on a par with state Lotteries: "The American Experience:
The $64,000 Question,"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/quizshow/peopleevents/pande06.html
(note that this was from PBS, in 1999, before the Reagan Rot had really gained a full head
of steam).
Once again, the popular interpretation and infusion and internalization of "information" displaying
and relating, "those who have eyes, let them see," the unhappy sicknesses of a pleasure-and-greed-driven
human infestation gets it all wrong, finds no wisdom leading out of the cave, turns possible insights
into just more grist for the Bernaysian mills to roll out
"Jerr-Y! Jerr-Y! Jerr-Y!" "And in the room the women come and go, talking of Michelangelo "
'In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom realizing
that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get information
on the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified opinion.'
Bang on Yves. And I would add that if you run a propaganda machine, and are a little paranoid,
any 'unauthorised' story on the web looks like someone else's propaganda.
Its wrong to put all this down to internet news however. Adam Curtis' 'Bitter Lake' is a must-see
on this topic. Just like in 1980s Soviet Union where the stories of Russian greatness were so
obviously contradicted by the experience of ordinary Russians of a failing state, the fakery of
the war on terror propaganda has worn away our trust in the Mighty Wurlitzer. Curtis linked the
cultural collapse of the Soviet Union intrinsically to the failure of the war in Afghanistan and
the mirror it held up to the supposed values of Soviet Society, as trumpeted by their version
of the Mighty Wurlitzer. And maybe he's right.
1933 Germany, 1989 Sovient Union, 2016 USA. All three stemmed from failures of the Mighty Wurlitzer.
The big question is whether we will long for it back.
One for Curtis hardcore fans only (he really stretched his already tenuous hold on the conventions
of documentary making in this one) but his latest,
HyperNormalisation , takes the themes you refer to in your comment above and expands on them
to explain how we got to Fake News.
The last CEO of the company, a publicly traded company, where my dad worked before the sale
to GE told my dad that in the future companies can't go public if they don't want to work for
Wall Street wolves. This was around '95. Dad still goes to company reunions. Those weirdos liked
their jobs.
Of course, the longer trend is business formation related. The Internet and social media booms
are over, and those were the new IPOs of the last 20 years. The ends of growth are the real issues.
I don't think anybody is "fetishizing news," but whilst its true that there's a far greater
variety of information sources today, and many of them are not subject to the pressures of conventional
media, the implication that somehow the overall level of "truth" has gone up is not sustainable.
If anything it's probably gone down. Those of us of a certain age remember a time when there were
far more newspapers than today, when ownership was spread much more widely, and where newspapers
had a lot more staff and were under a lot less commercial pressure than is the case now. You could,
and did, allow for political bias, and it was possible, though not common, for blatant untruths
to be published. But that was more difficult than it is today, because the barriers to entry were
much higher, and the total media space was much smaller.
I also think its unfair to blame the problem solely on the effects of neoliberalism, damaging
as those have been. Journalists themselves have to bear some of the blame. In the 1990s, it became
fashionable to deride objectivity (mere "objectivity, a white, patriarchal western concept) as
an objective of journalism. Because total objectivity was impossible, it was said, you shouldn't
even try. And as a number of journalists at the time argued "you can't be objective between good
and evil." The same people who lied about WMD in Iraq in 2002 had already lied about Bosnia a
decade before, were to lie about Darfur a few years later and are busy lying about Syria, the
Ukraine and "free trade" today. In each case, the argument is the same: the service of a higher
moral principle. I've even heard it argued that Trump is such a terrible human being that journalists
have not only a right but an actual duty to print anything that might cause him harm. To the extent
that you abandon the demand that journalists should do their professional best to be as accurate
as possible, and you see "news" itself as a contested, contingent term, it's hard to rationally
criticise the actors in any of these episodes.
Interesting essay I am not mollified by reading that Google, Facebook and Germany are uniting
to defeat 'fake news' and then remembering the recent rumors (fake news?) that Mark Zuckerberg,
of Facebook, is considering running for President so what happens when the bottle-neck king also
runs the nation, or is even just thinking of it (Zuckerberg finding God recently comes to mind),
when most voters are getting their news from their Facebook news feeds ? Would something mildly
critical of Mark Zuckerberg survive 'fake' news review ?
Also, just because China has a walled garden doesn't save them from a torrent of local fake
news. In the US the current business model of the internet news is actually a greater danger to
democracy and that is the automated binning of consumers into narrow categories (right, left,
techie etc) from which they find it hard to stray, if they even think of it, and so it makes it
hard for a reader to see in his newsfeed countervailing news or analysis, people thus get polarized.
The effort to find different/opposing opinions is not painless and quite by design. This trap
has to be broken.
Quality education of the population and freer access to information are greater defenses of
democracy and freedom the any Facebook designed filter.
great essay. Makes me think there is some bedrock reality beneath all the noise that keeps
us rational enough to survive. All forms of life display good judgment; practicality. So do we.
So I'm not very concerned that we might be pants-less without an ideology to shroud all the embarrassing
craziness. I'm encouraged by that prospect.
Sheep get slaughtered I choose not to be a sheep. I had no choice in the 60s, when I had
three oligopoly networks to choose from. With the Internet, I am my own reporter. This is more
like how the printing press destroyed the Catholic Church. I make my own narrative, I don't let
anyone else do it for me. Facts are few and far between, but they are just signposts on my own
superhighway which I build myself. Are my beliefs factual? Are they for anyone? That was a rhetorical
question. People who think their beliefs are The Truth are maniacs.
This whole "fake news" business is all about suppressing dissent, as others have noted.
The media tried to coronate Clinton. With falling advertising revenues in some cases, and decreasing
trust in the mainstream media, they have begun to panic. They know that the people realize that
they are the Pravda of plutocracy.
At the same time, the alternative media has grown with the Internet. It has reached growing
members and allowed people to see the truth.
The reason why propaganda like "fake news" exists is to create a false narrative that can be
repeated that people can believe in. The other of course is to force people to comply or face
professional and financial consequences.
The thing is, I think that we've reached the limits of propaganda. Inequality has reached an
extent that the myth that America is a meritocracy has failed, while efforts to force the American
people to accept war have been faced with opposition.
What is unsurprising is that the media does signal what the insiders want/plan to do.
I was in a library that had some old bound Life Magazines and decided to see what the Life
covered just prior to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.
There was an article about a Midwest congressmen who was visiting his district, who knew his
constituents did not want to go to war, but seemed to see the US entry into war likely.
Even Hollywood got into the act, as the Sergeant York (American WWI hero) 1941 movie was released
on July 2, 1941, well before Pearl Harbor.
There seems to be little penalty for journalists getting it wrong, for example Tom Friedman,
Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Gordon of the Times still have jobs after their "let's promote the
Iraq War effort".
Judith Miller was the lone sacrificial lamb.
Some of them even re-write history, as sanctimonious Nicholas Kristof, while recently pimping
for the USA's involvement in Syria (on humanitarian grounds, of course), pushed a "trust me on
Syria" story by asserting his prior wisdom in his alleged strong opposition to the Iraq war.
Yet I archived an August 27, 2002 column in which he wrote:
"Iraq may well be different. President Bush has convinced me that there is no philosophical
reason we should not overthrow the Iraqi government, given that Iraqis themselves would be better
off, along with the rest of the world. But Mr. Bush has not overcome some practical concerns about
an invasion."
What about ethical concerns, Kristof?
I believe it was Chomsky who said that the print media has content and filler, the content
is the advertising and the filler is everything else.
As advertising revenues have gone down, the print media may be looking for a new operating
funds, maybe from wealthy owners (Bezos, Carlos Slim) paying for their views to be featured, maybe
from US government hidden funding to "counter fake news" that is contrary to the story the elite
wants told.
If there is a feedback loop in the mainstream media, it is very slow and does not correct errors
to result in lasting reform.
The Times promoted the Iraq war and then had the Bill Keller retrospective "we got it wrong"
years later.
Then the Times moved onto promoting military action in Libya, the Ukraine and Syria.
The Times recently had an "Obama regrets Libya" retrospective, what other "we got it wrong"
retrospectives will occur in the future?
In the third paragraph Marcy begins talking about objectivity and then shifts to denigrating
"objectivity" without a word about what the scare quotes mean to her. Now I understand that the
language used by an oppressive system can itself be oppressive. But if "objectivity" omitted women
and people of color, well, clearly that's bad, but what does that have to do with objectivity?
Maybe I'm just too old and out of touch to get the post modern project to dismantle objectivity
and replace it with self-centered wishful thinking. But without objectivity, we would never have
seen the civil rights movement or the rise of feminism in the sixties.
I was still very young during the civil rights movement so I won't talk about what I don't
really know first hand, but the rise of feminism took place in the prime of my passionate youth.
What many middle class women were experiencing in the '50s was a complete isolation in the suburbs
and a feeling (due largely to rampant blaming the victim) that all the problems of their lives
were their own personal problems. It was not until politically active women began to share their
experiences in consciousness raising groups that they discovered that they were not alone in their
experiences i.e. that many of their so-called personal problems were objectively imposed
upon the entire group of women by the oppressive society. That is, these were not personal problems
at all, they were socially constructed problems that effected all women to some degree. Without
objectivity there could be no oppression theory, consciousness raising groups are transformed
into support groups, oppression theory becomes psychology, and the oppression of women is dissolved
into nothing more than the personal problems of individual women. Don't throw out the baby with
the bath water.
Here is what Bloomberg peddled for news yesterday.
Donald Trump's advisers have told U.K. officials that the incoming president's first foreign
trip will be a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin
, potentially in Reykjavik within
weeks of taking office, the Sunday Times reported.
Trump plans to begin working on a deal to limit nuclear weapons, the newspaper said, without providing
details. It cited an unidentified source for the summit plans, and added that
Moscow is ready
to agree to the meeting
, based on comments from officials at the Russian embassy in London.
The paper, citing an unidentified adviser to Trump, told the Times that the president-elect,
who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, will meet with Putin at a neutral venue "very soon."
In eyeing Iceland's capital, Trump's team may be hoping to recreate the optics of a Reagan-era nuclear
agreement. Former President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, then general secretary of the Soviet
Union's Communist Party, held a two-day summit in Reykjavik in October 1986 to work on what eventually
became a major nuclear disarmament treaty between the two superpowers in 1987.
Trump's transition team didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Did the media just make up this story out of thin air in an attempt to further deride Trump? I must
admit, only in a bizarre world, such as the one created by the left for the left, is holding meetings
with a military super power in the attempts to normalize relations and preserve peace considered a bad
thing. Alas, we are living in an era of war, where the military industrial complex works overtime to
control useful idiots to foment anger and sway public opinion towards (you guessed it) MOAR WAR.
This story was likely leaked by team Trump on purpose, in order to make the media look like jackass
fools. By leaking falsehoods to an ornery and invective media, Trump keeps them on their toes and makes
them second guess anything they hear coming out of his quarters, an effective disinformation strategy
used to fool an enemy during a time of war.
Strange feeling that pressure put on Trump to divest
association with Putin / Russia by U.S. intelligence community / MSM, is moar
than meets the eye fact sheet. Threats, veiled or otherwise appear to be
perceived deterrents by those in D.C. who would shun any illumination into
their illegal and corrupt activities, thus a Trump / Putin alliance could very
well expose many conspiritors.
Brilliant. This guy is good. All that will be left of the talking parrots and
pretend news media empires will be 18 year old interns translating his tweets and
asking John Lewis for comments to go with Obama's daily preaching to the flock.
The leftover time will be filled with protesters burning tires and viagra
commercials.
"Did the media just make up this story out of thin air in an attempt to
further deride Trump? I must admit, only in a bizarre world, such as the one
created by the left for the left, is holding meetings with a military super
power in the attempts to normalize relations and preserve peace considered a
bad thing. Alas, we are living in an era of war, where the military industrial
complex works overtime to control useful idiots to foment anger and sway public
opinion towards (you guessed it) MOAR WAR."
- Hope there are forensics on this work of fiction
Since 1989 the Political Elite and Corporate Elite don't care who the enemy is
as long as there is an Enemy.
- Except hands off Israel, and don't support
Palestine
- And Except for Saudi Arabia
- And Except for UK, Canada, Mexico, Aus, EU... but we don't mind fucking with
NATO Countries Politics using Operation Gladio type Strategy of Tension or
shipping in Millions of Refugees from M.E.
- And well there are 7-8 countries we want to collapse and maybe Venezuela and
Argentina and Brazil
Yup, this is foreign policy and your foreign policy tax dollars at work.
The MSM is not now, and has never been, "liberal" let alone,"left wing". It's
owned by 5 groups of right-wing billionaires (4 families, Murdochs, Luces, Disneys
and Redstones, and Comcast). When Georgie W was lying us into the Iraq war-crime
they supported the war push with a full-blown media "narrative" of its
inevidebility plus a 4-to1 ratio of rightwing liars (Bush, Rice, Cheney, etc) to
people telling the truth. Still, as my conservative friends noted, foreign
interventions and "nation-building" are anathema to the conservative cause. Thus,
rather than tar them with Bush's failures, I realized that W's administration was
simply a group of hypocrites, rich thugs, intent on serving their wealthy patrons.
May I suggest, after 8 years of the same hypocracy from the Obama administration,
the same dynamic holds. "Liberals", real "left wing people" (I include myself)
would never call for martial law (thanks, Rosy!), any more than they'd support
war-crime invasions (see "Libya", "Ukraine", "Syria") or right-wing coups (see
"Honduras"). Let's let up on the labels, folks. We're all up against a force that
has demonstrated NO IDEOLOGY above and beyond enriching their own tiny, wealthy
cabal. WE is all we got.
I'm not sure barfinmymouth has got it, but you do get it.
Corruption has
peaked and we have to start disassembly.
- Time to destroy powerful political aparati.
- Time to reform, Term Limits, money in politics, unlimited money in
politic, Lobbying, Foreign Lobbying, Foreign Agents in the USA, PACs, Think
Tanks, Foundations,... the Very Heart of English Corruption which it's
adherents run around supporting... Money is not free speech... Corruption of
Media and Oligopolies in General are not Freedom, Liberty or Free Speech
Reorganization in the USA is now required,... organizations have to be
down-sized
my favorite phrase was "left wing militarist war mongers."
the
snowflakes can't take much heat themselves, and go into teary rages at
the insults halloween costumes visit on various underclass ethnic groups,
but are only too ready to send a hail of explosive death on poor, brown
people defending their lands from the empire.
What a completely naive, completely pseudoscientific nonsense. The guy is completely clueless about
driving forces of rumors.: it is the distrust to the official channels that drives them
Notable quotes:
"... Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news. ..."
"... "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic
element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say
the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues.
..."
"... What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read it?
Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the source
of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected? ..."
"... Most of the time what people believes is not truth. Fake news is pervasive. ..."
"... I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley.
It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors? ..."
"... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence
community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's
eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess
such evidence. ..."
"... For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by
NSA. ..."
"... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect
to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why
U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner
sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures
were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
"... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false
testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception
was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the
press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
"... "Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on
me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS? ..."
"... Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own 90%
of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities - why shouldn't
they think they could get away with it? ..."
"... Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now
are called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels. Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the
social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from the top. And actually the same forces that
facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too
compromised. So nobody believe anything published in them, even if they publish truth. libezkova ->
libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 06:59 AM Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective
problem-solving in ambiguous situations. His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966)
had received some press in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672511487
It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic. You might be surprised
by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against rumors. They feel that they lost
trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do something to reverse this process. But
they are barking to the wrong tree. ilsm -> libezkova... Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the
US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners
in another. One opposed to tariffs and the central government growing strong from manufactures. The
other for tariffs and weakening the slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely
'news' it is indoctrination. ..."
"... The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated
than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness doctrine
was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership roles at the
CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations. ..."
"... Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud is
(should be) illegal. ..."
"... "Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who are
adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned to this, because
they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember Matrix. ..."
"... Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its
own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse
by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master signifiers
with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. ..."
"... This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more features
with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit. ..."
"... The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The
Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical
aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were
still very important to people themselves in their lives. ..."
"... These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship and safety.
Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but
for Russians they were the most important. ..."
"... Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either
blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active
resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality,
education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. ..."
"... his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities was "They
pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them." ..."
"... People were expected to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating
relationship to the ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the
context, they might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively
subscribing to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29) ..."
"... The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist
incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards),
Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief, which
in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning. ..."
"... All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism"
thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime, citizens were continually
able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative
discourse. ..."
"... "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives
of a just peace." ..."
"... Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer, jury
and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back. ..."
"... Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can be,
the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot more long-term
harm to society than most people realize. ..."
"... Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot!
Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign and
his subsequent behavior. ..."
I see that
Paul Krugman is talking abou t the consequences of Fake News so I will enter this market and
supply some thoughts. I will define fake news as stories that are "juicy" but not true.
Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news.
... ... ...
There are four cases to consider.
Case #1: Both the supplier and demander know that the story is false. Think of the
National Enquirer stories stating that Elvis is on Mars.
Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story
is true.
Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story
is true.
Case #4: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story
is false.
"Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic
element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say
the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues.
I believe that Dr. K is mainly concerned with Case #2. What % of all suspect stories fall into
this category? Dr. K has a cynical model in mind in which sophisticated agents (think of Trump and
Putin) manipulate the gullible public with messages and then the Facebook and Internet accelerate
this information throughout the system as it infects billions and influences real events.
Case #2 raises some deep issues, I will state them as questions;
1. What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read
it? Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the
source of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected?
2. In public health, we quarantine those who may spread contagion. Is Dr. K. calling for a messaging
quarantine of the "susceptible people" or is he proposing ending free speech for those who spread
the contagion?
3. If there is objective reality, do those who are susceptible to "fake news" update their beliefs
as this reality changes over time?
4. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and profit maximizing news sellers what
are pareto improving government interventions? When I taught at the Fletcher School, one student
suggested that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring people to watch the PBS News
Hour each night.
5. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and Russian propagandist news suppliers,
what are pareto improving government interventions for the nations that Russia is targeting with
this news? So, the U.S is fighting a war on terror ---- will we now open up a "second front" as we
start a "war on foreign propaganda"?
6. Why has "fake news" become an issue now? What is it about 2016? Has Facebook made communication
"too cheap"? Has Russia recognized this opportunity and increased its supply of fake news? In the
old days, Pravda was filled with such news.
The guys who leak documents for a living pointing out the establish leaks them to sway opinion!
I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley.
It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors?
US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack' , January 7, 2017
................ Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence
community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's
eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess
such evidence.
For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director
of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect
to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery
why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum
cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email
disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."
There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates,
former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian
government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC
material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S.
intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.
In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's
credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual
assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.
However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave
false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans.
Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details
of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.
....................
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/07/us-report-still-lacks-proof-on-russia-hack/
JohnH -> RGC...
"Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on
me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS?
Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own
90% of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities
- why shouldn't they think they could get away with it?
Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now are
called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels.
Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from
the top.
And actually the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news
channels: official channels are viewed too compromised. So nobody believe anything published in
them, even if they publish truth.
Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective problem-solving in ambiguous situations.
His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966) had received some press
in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too.
It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic.
You might be surprised by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against
rumors. They feel that they lost trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do
something to reverse this process. But they are barking to the wrong tree.
ilsm -> libezkova...
Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was
owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners in another. One opposed to tariffs and
the central government growing strong from manufactures. The other for tariffs and weakening the
slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination.
Peace and freedom are not valued in the US or many other places.
yuan -> ilsm.. .
The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated
than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness
doctrine was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership
roles at the CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations.
Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud
is (should be) illegal.
Exactly. That's why those people who question MSM coverage, and who try to get the "second
opinion" on the current events from blogs, and other alternative channels are considered to be
traitors.
Neoliberal MSMs are major producer of fake news as in foreign coverage they are guided by State
Department talking points. What they are adamantly against is "somebody else" fake news. They
want full monopoly on coverage.
What they trying to tell us during this McCarthyism compaign is the following: "Unapproved,
rogue fake news of questionable origin are evil, only State Department approved fakes are OK".
This is another, slightly more interesting, variant of "political correctness" enforcement
in a given society.
"Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who
are adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned
to this, because they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember
Matrix.
There is a special term for the psychological condition of the large part of the USSR population
who adapted to live such an "artificial, fake reality" and even may protest if they are provided
with a more objective picture as this created a cognitive dissonance. It is Stockholm Syndrome.
The condition common among the members of "high demand" cults.
The same happened in the USA. This neoliberal ideological captivity with its own set of myths
and falsehood reminds me USSR Bolshevism ideology, which was an official, dominant ideology for
Soviet people. Indoctrination was obligatory.
The net results was the same as now in the USA -- the dead ideology burdens, like a nightmare,
the minds of the living.
As Marx noted: "history repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce"
Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book "Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation"
called this condition of ideological Stockholm syndrome "hypernormalization"
He argues that during the last 20 or so years of the Soviet Union, everyone in the USSR knew
the system wasn't working, but as no one has real alternative and both politicians and citizens
were resigned to pretending that the can should be kicked down the road. A typical attitude of
Hillary supporters.
This "constant pretending" was accepted as normal behavior and the fake reality thus created
was accepted as necessary evil, nessesary for normal functining of the society. The whole society
reminded me large "high demand" cult from which members can't escape.
While Yurchak called this effect "hypernormalisation." in reality this probably should be called
"ideological Stockholm syndrome". Stockholm syndrome is a psychological condition that causes
hostages to develop sympathetic sentiments towards their captors, often sharing their opinions
and acquiring romantic feelings for them as a survival strategy during captivity.
Looking at events over the past few years, one would notice that the neoliberal society is
experiencing the same psychological condition.
Here are a couple of insightful reviews of the book
== quote ==
Igor Biryukov on November 1, 2012
A cautionary tale
In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil
Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan
who advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not
so fast -- says Alexei Yurchak.
He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in California. He employs
linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the Soviet Union was once
a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself
included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies
can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.
Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare
its own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative
discourse by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system
and the master signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together.
According to Yurchak "In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much
more than a deconstruction of Soviet authoritative discourse".
This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more
features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit.
The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian
people.
The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with the
Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project.
The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent.
The Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral
and ethical aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by
the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives.
These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship
and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of
law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important.
For many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily
equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.
Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between
ideological enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological
rule, which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet
Union the paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master
signifier [Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to
totalitarian temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed.
The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state are waiting in the shadows here as well,
may be ready to appropriate discourse.
It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective.
... ... ...
Nils Gilmanon April 23, 2014
A brilliant account of the interior meaning of everyday life for ordinary soviet citizens
Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters
or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the
powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little
more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures.
Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were
either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling)
or active resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet
socialism (equality, education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in
the population.
While his entire account is a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under
the Soviet system, Yurchak also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed
for some people (such as theoretical physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways
freer than for their peers in the West. All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an
explanation for the nostalgia that many in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable
to those who claim that Communism was simply and nothing but an evil.
The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative
rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime.
One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the
authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend
to believe them."
Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an
official resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement
of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected
to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the
ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they
might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing
to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)
The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely
formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the
1950s onwards), Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because
of fervent belief, which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity
and meaning.
Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or
art collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue
their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created
new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their
(inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation
of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the
regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that
transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.
"And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives
of a just peace."
Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer,
jury and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back.
JohnH -> yuan... January 08, 2017 at 12:08 PM
yuan never had the pleasure of watching the mainstream media promote the official Kool-Aid
during the Vietnam War...until the lies finally became untenable.
DeDude -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 11:38 AM
"the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels:
official channels are viewed too compromised"
Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can
be, the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot
more long-term harm to society than most people realize.
Being a knowledgeable person who spend half a lifetime studying a subject, seems to be worse
than being a regular ignorant guy confidently pulling stuff out of his ass. We are living in interesting
times.
JohnH -> DeDude...
"As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse." Wow!
Trying to judge the more credible liar.
Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot!
Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign
and his subsequent behavior.
Make room, African-Americans, Latinos, the LGBTQ community, feminists. And while we are at it,
Catholics, Jews, evangelicals, too. There is a new identity group in American life. It's the white
working class.
This is the group whose members were largely ignored by the mainstream media - at least until
Donald Trump's campaign drew attention to them - and left behind by the new media. It is the group
that was mobilized by Franklin Roosevelt but felt unmoved by Hillary Clinton.
"This crisis of white working people has been going on for some time, but we are just noticing
it,'' said Robert D. Putnam, the Harvard scholar from industrial Port Clinton, Ohio, who has written
widely on this group. "The Mon Valley around Pittsburgh didn't just suddenly run into economic problems.
The jobs left Rust Belt Ohio a long time ago. The white working-class people who voted for Trump
did so not because of the issues, or because they thought he'd bring back the auto parts factory
in my hometown. The people living in a place that has been hopeless for 20 years were just angry
at the world, and their vote was an upturned middle finger.''
With Trump's inauguration fast approaching, the surge is on: to define this newly prominent group,
to explain their viewpoints, to win their allegiance - everything, perhaps, but to address their
grievances. The big question of the dawning Trump era is this: Can Trump, or anyone else, turn an
upturned middle finger into a program for governing?
When ethnic minorities and many other identity groups entered the political mainstream, their
agenda was self-evident: protections against discrimination, the ability to serve in positions of
political power, the ability to pursue the American dream. The white working class, in contrast,
is unorganized, increasingly suspicious of government programs, and accustomed to seeing itself as
Middle America - not as a special interest.
Meanwhile, the policies that seem to be emerging out of the Trump transition lean more toward
traditional conservatism than populism. This is unfolding as an administration that would be favored
more by the acolytes of William F. Buckley than by the fans of Willie Nelson.
In theory, November's revolt of the white working class will usher in what could be a momentous
transition, the most startling political example of "Changing Places"' since the New Deal social
engineers replaced the free-market mandarins of engineer-president Herbert Hoover, in 1933. Big switches,
to be sure, are a familiar aspect of American politics - the substitution of George W. Bush's movement
conservatives for Bill Clinton's boomer liberals, for example. But in tone and timbre, the transition
of 2017 is of a different order entirely - in part because, as Sarah Purcell, a Grinnell College
historian, put it, "the result was so unexpected, the divisions are so pronounced, and the passions
are so great."
Besides the Washington transition, there is the transition in the profile of the two major parties
and the transition between those who found succor and success in the Barack Obama years and those
who found insult and indignity in it. "The people who were despondent about the Obama administration
were lurking in the background, and now they are front and center,'' said Steffan W. Schmidt, an
Iowa State political scientist. "And the people who supported the Obama administration are upset
and frightened and worried about retribution.''
Indeed, the Great Switch of 2017 involves those who feel their voices will now be heard and those
who worry theirs no longer will be heard.
"Black and brown people feel right now that the forces who opposed our rights of full citizenship
are coming into power,'' said Elaine Jones, former president and director-counsel of the NAACP's
Legal Defense Fund. "We now see that the people who fought us will be in office."
The Obama administration, to be sure, resembled the Obama electoral coalition - eggheads, upscale
professionals, and environmentalists, as well as the representatives of a multicultural America.
Trump's new administration looks less like his working-class voters than like Dwight Eisenhower's
Cabinet, which was once described as "nine millionaires and a plumber.'' Except there's not even
a plumber in the Trump inner circle. And the profile of his Cabinet leans more toward billionaires
than millionaires.
Especially if the Trump administration ends up pursuing a corporate-friendly economic policy,
working-class Americans' anxieties aren't going away. Half of working-class whites, according to
a CNN poll, expect their children's lives will be worse than their own. Two-thirds of the white working
class, according to separate CNN polls, believe hard work will no longer get people ahead in the
United States.
"This part of America is not participating in the economy the way they once did,'' said John Dick,
the new-generation pollster who is the CEO of CivicScience, a consumer and market intelligence company
in Pittsburgh. "Now they have a voice - but that voice speaks in the simplest possible narrative
about their difficulties."
The challenge for politicians courting these voters is to identify a policy agenda built on something
more than nostalgia - or explicit appeals to racial identity. Half of the Trump voters among a group
of white working-class Americans surveyed by CNN think that the increasing diversity of the United
States threatens the country's culture. The GOP nominee explicitly bemoaned the country's changing
demographics and shifting cultural norms.
His victory raises an uncomfortable question: Is there a less racially charged way of appealing
to a group whose members used to feel a sense of power but now see they're losing ground? Richard
L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, believes that it is possible - and necessary. "Working people
in general are looking for someone to address their issues - issues they discuss every day around
the kitchen table: jobs, security, and health care,'' he said in a year-end interview. "Anyone who
comes out with that is going to get support from working people." Of course, Hillary Clinton made
just such an economic pitch but came up fatefully short in once-reliable Democratic counties.
The political shift that white working-class voters have now triggered could prove wrenching.
"This powerful reversal, where one group is now down and another is up, is a lot like the 1930s,''
says David Greenberg, a Rutgers historian. "Then you saw polarization not just between a liberal
party and a conservative party but also between different conceptions of what government is for.''
The Rust Belt needs a bailout.
A big one http://bv.ms/2fZvKEO
via @Bloomberg - Conor Sen - December 2
Trade and immigration restrictions won't bring back the Rust Belt. What might? Consider the
transformation of the Sun Belt.
The South used to be the nation's Rust Belt. The devastation of the Civil War rightly gets
the headlines, but the devastation didn't end when Sherman marched out of Atlanta. Industrial
agriculture had the same impact on the Southern economy that automation and outsourcing have had
on the manufacturing economy of the Midwest. In the late 19th century, much of the South consisted
of an increasingly uncompetitive agricultural economy and woefully inadequate infrastructure.
Those who could leave for other parts of the country, like factory jobs in what we now call the
Rust Belt, did.
The South used to be the nation's Rust Belt. The devastation of the Civil War rightly gets
the headlines, but the devastation didn't end when Sherman marched out of Atlanta. Industrial
agriculture had the same impact on the Southern economy that automation and outsourcing have had
on the manufacturing economy of the Midwest. In the late 19th century, much of the South consisted
of an increasingly uncompetitive agricultural economy and woefully inadequate infrastructure.
Those who could leave for other parts of the country, like factory jobs in what we now call the
Rust Belt, did.
Many parts of the South continue to struggle to this day, but those that are thriving embraced
two things -- infrastructure and recruitment. Much of the infrastructure was courtesy of the federal
government -- programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority during the Great Depression, military
bases during World War II and interstate highways later on. But the recruitment was an attitude
the New South adopted on its own. By seeking out talent and businesses from the rest of the country
and the world, the major metro areas of today's South generated some of the strongest economic
growth and most promising labor trends in the country.
The Rust Belt has two main challenges to address -- poor demographics and legacy obligations
in the form of pension costs and physical infrastructure that needs maintaining. The demographic
component is the part it most needs to solve on its own.
One type of institution has figured this out: the region's universities. Last week, in college
football, the University of Michigan played Ohio State University in their annual rivalry game.
But in some ways it wasn't a clash between Rust Belt foes. Michigan's coach, Jim Harbaugh, was
hired from the West Coast. Ohio State's coach, Urban Meyer, was hired from Florida. Both teams
have rosters full of increasing numbers of players from regions other than the Midwest. The reason
is simple. Youth populations are shrinking in the Midwest, and increasingly the best high school
football players are in other parts of the country like the South and the West that still have
growing populations. Both universities hired coaches from elsewhere, and both coaches are using
the prestige of their universities to recruit the best players in the country, no matter where
they're from.
This recruitment isn't just happening on the football field. To address enrollment shortfalls
due to dwindling numbers of home-grown students, Midwest universities are recruiting students
from all over the world. Two of the eight universities in the U.S. with more than 10,000 international
students are in the Midwest -- Purdue University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
As a recruitment pitch, the Midwest needs to figure out its message and sell it to the world.
As Midwest urbanist and blogger Pete Saunders noted in a tweetstorm this week, the resurgence
of coastal cities began with assets that the cities had all along. Wall Street and media for New
York, higher educational institutions for Boston, the federal government for Washington, a unique
topography and culture in San Francisco. Similarly, the Midwest has great educational and medical
institutions, an incredibly affordable lifestyle that becomes more compelling as housing costs
rise on the coasts and in the Sun Belt, plentiful water that could become a competitive advantage
because of climate change, and a sense of "rootedness" that many find compelling.
The most influential policy change the federal government could employ to "save" the Midwest
is one that would have been unthinkable when Congressional Republicans were battling President
Obama -- a huge bailout of the Rust Belt's legacy obligations. Pension costs are eating a higher
and higher share of tax revenue in cities like Chicago and states like Illinois. That leaves municipalities
less money to spend on ongoing operations and maintenance, let alone infrastructure improvements.
Eroding public services not only keep people from moving to the area, but also encourage young
people to leave for places with better public services. If President-Elect Donald Trump could
persuade Congress to bail out the region, that could the fiscal slate clean and give the Midwest
the breathing room to invest in its future.
It took a Nixon to go to China, perhaps it takes a Trump to save the Rust Belt.
Reasonable people can disagree. Then again - my views on these issues have dovetailed DeLong's
for over a decade. In fact he gave me credit for the "Natural Rate of the Employment to Population
Ratio" back in 2005. I should have patented the concept.
Donald Trump barreled into the White House with a "terrific" plan for infrastructure, and Washington
is abuzz with a seemingly "bipartisan" job-creation initiative. Though the GOP-dominated Congress
has for years thwarted similar infrastructure-based stimulus proposals, fiscal conservatives in
Washington and market profiteers nationwide are now fully confident in Trump's vision for shovel-ready
business partnerships.
After all, the one competency Trump has demonstrated so far seems to be making money off of
building stuff, from casinos and golf courses to his promised Mexican border wall.
But the public project of fixing America's crumbling bridges and highways is a different animal
than Trump's private real-estate empire of gleaming glass towers, at least for now.
Trump wants private investors to basically direct $1 trillion in infrastructure projects nationwide
through a "revenue neutral" financing plan, which banks on financing from private investors, allegedly
to control deficit spending (which the GOP generally deems wasteful, while promoting tax breaks
as a wiser redistribution of public funds into corporate coffers). To draw some $167 billion to
jumpstart the $1 trillion, 10-year infrastructure plan, Washington would grant a giant tax break
"equal to 82 percent of the equity amount." The goal isn't fixing bridges so much as fixing the
corporate tax codes to promote privatization and unregulated construction with virtually no public
input. Moreover, whereas effective stimulus plans aim to fill infrastructure gaps that big business
has ignored, Mike Konzcal observes in The Washington Post, that the developers Trump is courting
would follow the money and "back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical
grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway."
Dave Dayen calls the program a "privatization fire sale" that ensured that private, not common,
interests determine where funding is focused.
Trump is further sweetening the pot by promising drastic deregulation that would "provide maximum
flexibility to the states" and "streamline permitting and approvals."
Activists now fear that Trump's job plan will yield relatively substandard jobs by mowing down
longstanding regulatory protections, including environmental review process (a critical tool activists
use to challenge developments that involve public-health threats) and prevailing wage regulations.
While private business partnerships on federal construction projects are routine, Trump's camp
is distinctly poised to launder corporate money through federal coffers at workers' and taxpayers'
expense.
The details of Trump's infrastructure vision are fairly sparse, summarized in a cheerleading
10-page pre-election analysis. But the author byline is telling: right-wing business professor
Peter Navarro and private equity mogul Wilbur Ross (Trump's pick for commerce secretary, with
historic links to the Sago mine accident scandal). And Trump's own investment track record speaks
volumes: The president-elect is facing allegations of major wage violations involving his latest
project site, which is sited on federal property, an antique Post Office to be transformed, in
Trump's words, into "truly one of the great hotels of the world."
It hasn't been so great for the non-union subcontracted construction workers who have complained
of getting paid below the wage standard that should apply under the federal Davis Bacon Act. Vice
President–elect Mike Pence, meanwhile, has actively pushed to repeal his state's similar prevailing
wage laws for publicly contracted workers.
Trump may have previewed his approach to publicly funded construction with his glamorous Bronx
golf course on a 192-acre landfill site, using public money to reclaim a wasteland for the benefit
of wealthy golfers, charging the highest fees of any other city golf grounds. Not only did it
colonize a tract of a borough starved for community recreational spaces and affordable housing,
it also produced a mere 100 local jobs and, according to community advocates, little additional
economic activity in the surrounding neighborhood.
Trump's real-estate portfolio embodies the long-term danger that watchdog groups see in so-called
"public-private partnerships" for infrastructure development.
In the Public Interest (ITPI) observed in a recent report on abuses of private contractors:
To maximize profit, companies have often cut corners by reducing the quality and accessibility
of services, reducing staffing levels, lowering worker wages, and sidestepping protections for
the public and the environment.
The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.
"[T]he bottom line is that they will strip away standards, provide hefty subsidies and guaranteed
profits and hand over control over large scale projects for decades," according to ITPI executive
director Donald Cohen.
The overarching drive to privatize resources and services, meanwhile, might not only fail to
solve infrastructure problems but might also disrupt the structure of democracy; the process of,
for example, privatizing a highway or contracting out a public utility, in the long-term, effectively
outsources governance. "With control comes hidden information," Cohen adds. Institutionalizing
opacity in government-funded ventures could give corporations free reign to decide unilaterally
on electricity rates or easements on tribal lands.
There is no doubt that infrastructure investment is still crucial. However, a more progressive
approach would aim to bring more social equity into the private sector, not more profit motives
into government budgets.
An alternative, progressive infrastructure proposal, penned by Senator Bernie Sanders, would
operate on a similar scale as Trump's, with $1 trillion over five years. But instead of handing
a blank check to contractors, the budget would prioritize the critical infrastructure needs identified
by engineering authorities, and support stimulus through workers' wages rather than corporate
financing.
Such a plan could also be used to direct investment toward green energy development, expanding
public Wi-Fi networks, or increasing wage standards. While legislation to mandate these types
of projects and standards was continually stonewalled in the GOP-controlled congress, Obama did
manage, through a series of precedent-setting executive actions, to raise the minimum wage for
subcontracted federal workers, expand anti-discrimination protections, and to penalize subcontractors
who have failed to comply with regulations. Those initiatives may disappear as the new administration
takes over in January. Given that Trump has previously blown off crucial policy priorities like
the Paris Climate Change Treaty, there's no reason why his infrastructure plan should reflect
pro-worker interests.
If Trump is serious about rebuilding the country, his infrastructure program will both expose
his underlying kleptocratic motives and offer community and labor organizations an opportunity
to hold his administration accountable for spending responsibly.
Trump has big plans to make taxpayers and workers pay for his big gamble; the public has a
lot on the line, but also a chance to reclaim the public trust.
"An alternative, progressive infrastructure proposal, penned by Senator Bernie Sanders, would
operate on a similar scale as Trump's, with $1 trillion over five years. But instead of handing
a blank check to contractors, the budget would prioritize the critical infrastructure needs identified
by engineering authorities, and support stimulus through workers' wages rather than corporate
financing."
And the deplorables will do their best to make sure this is the last time.
"f you're in the area of 500 5th St in DC at 11:00AM on January 11, you might want to stop.
You could see something you may never see again
Valuing Climate Damages:
Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (Phase 2 report)
This new report from the Board on Environmental Change and Society of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examines potential approaches for a comprehensive update
to the current methodology for estimating the social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) for U.S.
regulatory analysis. The SC-CO2 is an estimate, in dollars, of the net damages incurred by society
from a 1 metric ton increase in carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. As required by executive
orders and a court ruling, government agencies use the SC-CO2 when analyzing the impacts of various
regulations.
The report also recommends near- and longer-term research priorities. The study was requested
by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, which is co-chaired by
the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget."
A few more comments on the Republicans' Corporate Tax Plan
by Jared Bernstein
January 3rd, 2017 at 11:18 am
I didn't want to jam too much into my piece last week on the interesting Border Adjustment
Tax-come on peeps, you know that BAT is a much better acronym than DBCFT (destination-based-cash-flow
tax)-that House R's want to use to replace the current corporate tax. Like I said, it's a complicated
bit of work about which we know little, particularly regarding its impact on consumer prices (and
thus, its distributional impact) and on exchange rates.
That said, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which a tax that clearly favors net exports would
not lead to some degree of dollar appreciation. Ed Kleinbard, a guy who thinks deeply about such
things, makes the intuitive point that a multi-trillion-dollar side effect of the dollar appreciation
is a transfer of wealth from US investors with foreign holdings to foreign investors holding US
assets. He explains here using Freedonia to symbolize not-the-US:
It also follows from this that the transition to a destination based profits tax, and with
it the appreciation in the U.S. dollar, will work a one-time very large wealth transfer from U.S.
investors to foreign investors. Foreign investments held by U.S. investors overnight will be worth
less in dollar terms, and U.S. investments held by Freedonian investors overnight will be worth
more in Freedonian pfennig terms. Carroll and Viard have estimated that at the end of 2010 the
wealth transfer attributable to the introduction of border adjustments without any transition
relief would have amounted to a $7.88 trillion loss to American investors and an $8.85 trillion
pickup in wealth for foreign investors. As of the time of this writing, I am reasonably confident
that policymakers have not weighed the implications of this.
Those are many more trillions than I would have guessed, but note that the analysts Ed's citing
are strong proponents of the tax, so I don't think their thumb would be on the scale.
I'm not saying this is or should be a deal killer-any transition to a better corporate tax
system will create winners and losers. But I share Ed's "reasonable confidence" that policy makers
haven't thought much about this, and you can add US investors holding foreign assets to the retailers
and other producers that depend on imported inputs to the list of those who will fight hard against
the BAT.
One more point on this dollar appreciation business. I enjoyed this useful oped in today's
NYT about how Trump will probably have to go through Congress if he wants to increase tariffs
(I've seen some counter-arguments, but the NYT piece made more sense to me). But this part seemed
off (my italics):
A border adjustment tax is a far better option than tariffs. It would eliminate incentives
in the current tax system to manufacture abroad, and to shift income abroad. Unlike a tariff,
it aims to be trade neutral, with any changes in consumer pricing of imports and exports being
offset by a rise in the dollar. And with strong support in the House, it could be enacted in full
compliance with the Origination Clause, lending it legitimacy that a unilateral tariff would lack.
If the dollar fully adjusts, then the trade balance, which is measured in dollars, not quantities,
is unaffected. Tariffs, of course, are designed to improve the trade balance. I'm not sure they
would, and, in fact, I suspect our trading partners would retaliate against either tariffs or
a tax scheme that subsidized exports, so the impact on the trade balance of either of these interventions
is not clear. But a selling point by BAT proponents is that the balance of trade would be unaffected,
which is a very different selling point than the one offered by proponents of tariffs.
AS much as I appreciate what Jared is saying, he is pulling his punches. I have hinted at why
I hate the transfer pricing angles but I too have pulled my punches. Working on something (after
I clear this snow) for Econospeak that goes after what Auerbach ducks. Think Disney as I shovel.
Interesting, thought-provoking post from Tim Johnson in today's links. There's a video with
the Bank of England's chief economist Andy Haldane who also discusses Brexit.
Should-Read: Manufacturing-centric industrial policy works (or worked) best when the hegemon
of the world economy plays the role of the Importer of Last Resort. And only worked when there
was a highly competent government--which raises the possibility that pretty much any other non-nonsensical
development strategy would have worked as well...
Pseudoerasmus: The Bairoch Conjecture on Tariffs and Growth:* "There is a vast empirical literature
which finds a positive correlation between economic growth and various measures of openness to
international trade in the post-1945 period...
...This huge body of research does have a few very compelling critics, the most prominent being
Rodríguez & Rodrik (2000). That widely cited paper argues - amongst many other things - that there
is no necessary relationship between trade and growth, either way. It depends on the global context
as well as domestic economic conditions. I think that's correct. There is also a smaller literature
on 19th century trade and growth associated with the historian Paul Bairoch. He argued informally
that European countries with higher tariffs grew faster in the late 19th century. This rough eyeball
correlation was confirmed econometrically by O'Rourke (2000)... [and] Clemens & Williamson (2001,
2004), but was disputed by Irwin (2002).... Lehmann & O'Rourke (2008, 2011) then countered by
disaggregating tariffs of those 10 rich countries into revenue, agricultural, and industrial components,
reporting that duties specifically protecting the manufacturing sector were indeed correlated
with growth....
The positive growth-tariff relationship for the rich countries is large; much smaller for the
non-European periphery, and negative for the European periphery (e.g., Spain, Russia, etc.) So
obviously even with the same global conditions there's a lot of heterogeneity. According to Clemens
& Williamson (2001, 2004) the reason there was an overall positive correlation in the 19th century,
is that most countries with high tariffs exported to countries with lower tariffs. In other words,
Great Britain et al. acted as free-trade sinks (my phrase, not theirs) for exporting countries
such as post-Bismarckian Germany which protected their steel and other industries.... Jacks (2006)
- using the Frankel-Romer gravity model approach - both replicates O'Rourke (2000) and supports
the free-trade-sink view of Clemens & Williamson (2001, 2004).... Tena-Junguito (2010) focuses
on industrial tariffs and supports the other aspect of the Clemens & Williamson finding: the tariff-growth
correlation applies only to the "rich country club"...
It would be interesting to look at how possibly hegemonic Great Britain (or Cold War America)
acted as a free-trade sink/Importer of Last Resort in order to further its aims of diplomacy and
empire.
Manufacturing-centric industrial policy works (or worked) best when the hegemon of the world economy
plays the role of the Importer of Last Resort. And only worked when there was a highly competent
government--which raises the possibility that pretty much any other non-nonsensical development
strategy would have worked as well...
The Republican Party in 2018: I'm from the current administration of the US government and I am
here to take away your health insurance. And oh by the way, vote for us.
EMichael : , -1
"The election of 2016 may well have been stolen-or to use Donald Trump's oft-repeated phrase-"rigged,"
and nobody in the media seems willing to discuss it.
The rigging was a pretty simple process, in fact: in 27 Republican-controlled states (including
critical swing states) hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people showed up to vote,
but were mysteriously blocked from voting for allegedly being registered with the intent to vote
in multiple states.
Greg Palast, an award-winning investigative journalist, writes a stinging piece in the highly
respected Rolling Stone magazine (August 2016 edition), predicting that the November 8, 2016 presidential
election had already been decided: "The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters." He also wrote and produced
a brilliant documentary on this exact subject that was released well before the election, titled
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
He said a program called the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck had been quietly put
together in Kansas and was being used by Republican secretaries of state in 27 states to suppress
and purge African American, Asian and Hispanic votes in what would almost certainly be the swing
states of the 2016 election.
Crosscheck was started by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach back in 2007 under the guise
of combating so-called voter fraud. In the ultimate thumb in the eye to the American voter, the
state where Crosscheck started was the only state to refuse to participate in a New York Times
review of voter fraud in the 2016 election, which found that, basically, there wasn't any fraud
at the level of individual voters. Turns out, according to Palast, that a total of 7 million voters-including
up to 344,000 in Pennsylvania, 589,000 in North Carolina and up to 449,000 in Michigan (based
on available Crosscheck data from 2014)-may have been denied the right to have their votes counted
under this little known but enormously potent Crosscheck program."
"... "Identity Politics" is now thrown about as an insult at many progressive activists. Critics
say that Identity Politics make everything about gender, everything about sexuality, and everything
about race. And to this I say: yes, yes, and hell yes. ..."
"The other day on Twitter, a man posted a picture of my coloring book he'd given his daughter
for Christmas. He was excited to give her a coloring book full of badass intersectional feminists.
He wanted to thank me for creating it.
"I don't know," chimed in a random stranger (because Twitter), "Sounds like identity politics
to me."
Hell yeah it does.
"Identity Politics" is now thrown about as an insult at many progressive activists. Critics
say that Identity Politics make everything about gender, everything about sexuality, and everything
about race. And to this I say: yes, yes, and hell yes.
Call it what you want. I don't care. Complain that we're making shit about race - you know
what? We are. Complain that we're keeping the left from focusing only on class - yup, and proudly
so. Complain all you want because I am not and will never be ashamed of focusing on the politics
of identity. I will not feel a moment's guilt for slowing this whole train down to make sure that
everyone can get on and we're on the right track. I will proudly own up to making shit hard for
you.
Apologies are highly over-rated. People apologize and then go right back to doing the same shit
all over again. Late in his brief life Martin Luther King refocused his civil rights movement
into the Poor People's Campaign and union activism because he wanted to win and new that social
division could keep him for winning. King did not suddenly turn towards advocating for only white
dudes. King got smart, so smart he became dangerous enough that a white dude killed him.
Most of the beneficiaries of King's Poor People's Campaign and his union activism would be
black people, but it would go further faster with less resistance from his natural allies, poor
white people maybe - but fair and decent white people more so, by being more inclusive rather
than inviting white backlash. Martin Luther King wanted to fulfill his dream for his people. It
is a lot easier to be just a self-absorbed and self-righteous loser than it is to be a winner.
The identity politics campaign that survived after Martin Luther King was murdered has done a
great job of winning, for Republicans.
"The identity politics campaign that survived after Martin Luther King was murdered has done a
great job of winning, for Republicans."
This is of course, correct. But I do not think it means what you think it means.
The GOP has done a great job of convincing white racists that the Dems have destroyed, or are
destroying, their lives. They have used identity politics for over 50 years. Now it is time(past
time) to turn that around and give them their own medicine.
In terms of King, he already had "fair and decent white people" with him, and the Dems do also.
Can't alienate, or worry about alienating, white racists. That white backlash has given the GOP
the majority of their votes the last 50 years. That number is not going to get better regardless
of Dem policy.
From your background working with lower income people I would think that you would not paint it
all so black and white as you do. There is a lot of gray area between racists and secular humanists
of activist conscience including a lot of church people and blue collar whites. A lot of these
are disaffected voters, nothing in it for them to vote. These were the people that King wanted
to include. If King's movement were just for black people then what reason would they have to
vote for liberals supporting his cause, that of blacks rather than lower income working people?
Martin Luther King's Economic Dream: A Guaranteed Income for All Americans
Jordan Weissmann Aug 28, 2013
One of the more under-appreciated aspects of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy is that by
the end of his career, he had fashioned himself into a crusader against poverty, not just among
blacks, but all Americans.
In the weeks leading to his assassination, the civil rights leader had been hard at work organizing
a new march on Washington known as the "Poor People's Campaign." The goal was to erect a tent
city on the National Mall, that, as Mark Engler described it for The Nation in 2010, would "dramatize
the reality of joblessness and deprivation by bringing those excluded from the economy to the
doorstep of the nation's leaders." He was killed before he could see the effort through.
So what, exactly, was King's economic dream? In short, he wanted the government to eradicate
poverty by providing every American a guaranteed, middle-class income-an idea that, while light-years
beyond the realm of mainstream political conversation today, had actually come into vogue by the
late 1960s.
To be crystal clear, a guaranteed income-or a universal basic income, as it's sometimes called
today-is not the same as a higher minimum wage. Instead, it's a policy designed to make sure each
American has a certain concrete sum of money to spend each year. One modern version of the policy
would give every adult a tax credit that would essentially become a cash payment for families
that don't pay much tax. Conservative thinker Charles Murray has advocated replacing the whole
welfare state by handing every grown American a full $10,000.
King had an even more expansive vision. He laid out the case for the guaranteed income in his
final book, 1967's Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Washington's previous efforts
to fight poverty, he concluded, had been "piecemeal and pygmy." The government believed it could
lift up the poor by attacking the root causes of their impoverishment one by one-by providing
better housing, better education, and better support for families. But these efforts had been
too small and too disorganized. Moreover, he wrote, "the programs of the past all have another
common failing-they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else."
It was time, he believed, for a more straightforward approach: the government needed to make
sure every American had a reasonable income.
In part, King's thinking seemed to stem from a sense that no matter how strongly the economy might
grow, it would never eliminate poverty entirely, or provide jobs for all. As he put it:
"We have come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation
of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy
and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or
frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed from our conscience
today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically
the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty.
[...]
The problem indicates that our emphasis must be two-fold. We must create full employment or we
must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed
in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted.
New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional
jobs are not available."
Note, King did not appear to be arguing that Washington should simply pay people not to work.
Rather, he seemed to believe it was the government's responsibility to create jobs for those left
behind by the economy (from his language here, it's not hard to imagine he might even have supported
a work requirement, in some circumstances), but above all else, to ensure a basic standard of
living.
More than basic, actually. King argued that the guaranteed income should be "pegged to the
median of society," and rise automatically along with the U.S. standard of living. "To guarantee
an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty
conditions," he wrote. Was it feasible? Maybe. He noted an estimate by John Kenneth Galbraith
that the government could create a generous guaranteed income with $20 billion, which, as the
economist put it, was "not much more than we will spend the next fiscal year to rescue freedom
and democracy and religious liberty as these are defined by 'experts' in Vietnam."
As practical economics, ensuring every single American a middle class living through government
redistribution and work programs seems a bit fanciful. The closest such an idea ever really came
to fruition, meanwhile, was President Nixon's proposed Family Assistance Plan, which would have
ended welfare and instead guaranteed families of four $1,600 a year, at a time when the median
household income was about $7,400.
But as a statement of values, King's notion remains powerful. So with that in mind, I'll leave
you with man's own words:
"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has
vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes
until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to
adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading
human life by clinging to archaic thinking.
The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as
the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they
had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them.
The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of
poverty."
Good point about MLK and support for the Memphis Santiation workers strike.
I agree with your take. You can alieniate people on the fence. You can ween sons and daughters
from the racism of their parents, if you have an economy with shared prosperity and opportunity
like in the 1950s and 1960s. Their parents' scapegoating will fall on deaf ears if they have good
jobs and lives. Stupid racist grandparent.
What have been possible to elect a black president back then before decades of economic progress?
No.
Economic stagnation is fertile ground for scapegoating and xenophobia.
Yep. More than alienation, King needed inclusion to gain effective political solidarity. We don't
have that much of a democracy, but minority rule only works here for the rich.
In the recent HBO series on LBJ and his passage of the Civil Rights legislation, the screenwriters
had the unions - specifically the autoworkers - funding MLK's civil rights campaign.
MLK was unhappy with LBJ's compromises on the first act in 1964, but then Walter Reuther told
him to back off and wait for LBJ to get the rest of what they wanted the second time around, which
LBJ did to some degree in 1965. MLK listened in part b/c the unions were funding his campaign.
According to the screenwriters. I don't know how true it is.
"In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula
as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The
Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.[12]"
The progressive neoliberals suggest that it's not worth to try to appeal to the white working
class or to try to change their minds.
I would suggest it doesn't work to try to move to the center on economics and appeal to upper
middle class or upper class voters. Suburban Republican women voted for Trump even though he was
obnoxious.
One needs to get the poor and working class politically active and involved in fighting for
their fair share as MLK was doing instead of relying on the noblesse oblige of wealthier classes.
The progressive neoliberals want to be Republican lite with their talk about opportunity and
entrepreneurship. That helps with wealthy donors but isn't a good long term strategy as it alienates
your working class base.
"
Socialists, [neo]liberals insist, are just as bad as
fascists.
[they claim that] Now is not the time to
criticize the Democrats. [neo]Liberalism is working.
Women and people of color who criticize identity politics are
rendered white men or called self-hating. Glenn Greenwald is
a Russian agent.
Leftists are accused of believing that only class
matters...
"... IN JULY 1995, Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to cement his relationship with Rupert Murdoch at a News Corporation conference. Introducing him, the media tycoon joked: "If the British press is to be believed, today is all part of a Blair-Murdoch flirtation. If that flirtation is ever consummated, Tony, I suspect we will end up making love like two porcupines - very carefully." ..."
Murdoch's courtship of Blair finally pays off
By Fran Abrams and Anthony Bevins
IN JULY 1995, Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to cement his relationship with Rupert
Murdoch at a News Corporation conference. Introducing him, the media tycoon joked: "If the British
press is to be believed, today is all part of a Blair-Murdoch flirtation. If that flirtation is
ever consummated, Tony, I suspect we will end up making love like two porcupines - very carefully."
For Mr Blair, the relationship bore fruit when he was elected with the key support of the Sun.
But Mr Murdoch had to wait until yesterday for full satisfaction when No 10 launched a passionate
attack on his critics after the Lords passed an anti-Murdoch amendment to the Competition Bill.
A year earlier, few Labour MPs would have believed such a scene was possible....
"... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
"... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
"... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
.... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online.
But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake
stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their
agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all
purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to
undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now
it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship
by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of
a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social
media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary
Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable
conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson,
the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And
I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think
about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally,
mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans
often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label
is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.
"What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea
that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that
polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."
.... ... ...
Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as
the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote.
(He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work,
if any, he will do on the show.)
Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr.
Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.
"The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College,"
said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."
Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org
have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.
When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers
who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan
Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.
"They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.
There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of
independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.
Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist,
has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.
The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people
you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio
host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."
(Does this have something to do
with Jon Stewart's retirement &
Stephen Colbert 'going legit'?)
Wielding Claims of 'Fake News,' Conservatives
Take Aim at Mainstream Media http://nyti.ms/2iuFxRx
NYT - JEREMY W. PETERS - December 25, 2016
WASHINGTON - The CIA, the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind
the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart
News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as "left-wing fake news."
Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. "The fake news is the everyday news"
in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."
Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters
were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts
of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are
meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans
and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing
the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to
their agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing
on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing
political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media,
a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything
that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host,
who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers
have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that
turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention
is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed
Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary
Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick
facts to draw disputable conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks
and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes
bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice
to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives
to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its
conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets
had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the
middle. Republicans often found that laughable.
As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake
news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate
source. ...
"... Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given for the last 40 years, losing this election. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place. ..."
So that's the story, or one story. But stories have morals. What moral does identity politics
offer?
Adolph Reed on identity politics[2]:
[I]t is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression
and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are
treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the
critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized
categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially
are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that
moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be
just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever
the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that
expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates
for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
So, if we ask an identitarian[3] whether shipping the Rust Belt's jobs off to China was fair -
the moral of the story - the answer we get is: "That depends. If the private equity firms that did
it were 12% black, 12% Latino, and half women, then yes." And that really is the answer that the
Clintonites give. And, to this day, they believe it's a winning one[4].
Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another
country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country
was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given
for the last 40 years, losing this election.
That's funny. Okay, I was soooo naive. I woke up finally in 2004 to the realization that the
"awful " people were the 01% including good friends. The Rest are trying to survive with dignity.
They are not awful.
The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the
1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the
subsequent cover-up of the crimes.
"My editor was dubious. I had been explaining that 50 years ago, in the spring and summer of
1933, Ukraine, the country of my forebears, had suffered a horrendous catastrophe. In a fertile,
populous country famed as the granary of Europe, a great famine had mowed down a sixth, a fifth
and in some regions even a fourth of the inhabitants. Natural forces – drought, flood, blight
– have been at least contributory causes of most famines. This one had been entirely man-made,
entirely the result of a dictator's genocidal policies. Its consequences, I said, are still being
felt.
Erudite, polyglot, herself a refugee from tyranny, the editor remained skeptical. "But isn't
all this ," she leaned back in her chair and smiled brightly, "isn't all this a bit recondite?"
My face must have flushed. Recondite? Suddenly I knew the impotent anger Jews and Armenians
have felt. Millions of my countrymen had been murdered, and their deaths were being dismissed
as obscure and little known.
Later I realized that the editor had said more than she had intended. The famine of 1933 was
rationalized and concealed when it was taking its toll, and it is still hidden away and trivialized
today. George Orwell need not have limited his observation to British intellectuals when he remarked
that "huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people,
have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles."_1_
Still later, after I had set about uncovering the whole story by delving into newspaper files
and archives and talking to people who had witnessed the events of 1933, I came to understand
how Walter Duranty and The New York Times helped Stalin make the famine recondite.
Walter Duranty worked for The New York Times for 21 years "
" The combination of ambiguous policy signals and the cult of secrecy could produce absurd
results , as when certain categories of officials could not be informed of relevant instructions
because the instructions were secret. In one blatant example, the theater censorship and the Ministry
of Enlightenment, headed by A. V. Lunacharsky, spent weeks arguing at cross purposes about Mikhail
Bulgakov's controversial play Days of the Turbins, despite the fact that the Politburo had instructed
the Ministry that the play could be staged, because "this decree was secret, known to only key
officials in the administration of art, and Lunacharsky was not at liberty to divulge it." [42]
A few years later, after Stalin had expressed strong views on cultural policy in a private
letter that had circulated widely, if unofficially, on the grapevine, Lunacharsky begged him to
allow publication of the letter so that people would know what the party line on art actually
was.
Some of Stalin's cultural signals were even more minimalist, involving telephone calls to writers
or other cultural figures whose content was then instantly broadcast on the Moscow and Leningrad
intelligentsia grapevine. A case in point was his unexpected telephone call to Bulgakov in 1930
in response to Bulgakov's letter complaining of mistreatment by theater and censorship officials.
The overt message of the call was one of encouragement to Bulgakov. By extension, the "signal"
to the non-Communist intelligentsia was that it was not Stalin who harrassed them but only lower-level
officials and militants who did not understand Stalin's policy.
This case is particularly interesting because the security police (GPU, at this date) monitored
the effectiveness of the signal. In his report on the impact of Stalin's call, a GPU agent noted
that the literary and artistic intelligentsia had been enormously impressed. "It's as if a dam
had burst and everyone around saw the true face of comrade Stalin. "People speak of Stalin's simplicity
and accessibility. They "talk of him warmly and with love, retelling in various versions the legendary
history with Bulgakov's letter." They say that Stalin is not to blame for the bad things that
happen: He follows the right line, but around him are scoundrels. These scoundrels persecuted
Bulgakov, one of the most talented Soviet writers. Various literary rascals were making a career
out of persecution of Bulgakov, and now Stalin has given them a slap in the face. [44]
The signals with Stalin's personal signature usually pointed in the direction of greater relaxation
and tolerance, not increased repression. This was surely not because Stalin inclined to the "soft
line," but rather because he preferred to avoid too close an association with hard-line policies
that were likely to be
unpopular with domestic and foreign opinion. His signals often involved a "good Tsar" message:
"the Tsar is benevolent; it is the wicked boyars (a member of the old aristocracy) who are responsible
for all the injustice." Sometimes this ploy seems to have worked, but in other cases the message
evoked popular skepticism.
When Stalin deplored the excesses of local officials during collectivization in a letter, "Dizzy
with success," published in Pravda in 1930, the initial response in the villages was often favorable.
After the famine, however, Stalin's "good Tsar" ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and
was even mocked by its intended audience
People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil
who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat
who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points.
Don't blame me. I voted Sanders. Hindsight is 2020.
Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance?
As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy
among a wider and wider circle of people.
The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics
is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy),
while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind.
But note that this is only because we insist on operating under the zero sum economics of monetarism.
Once this restriction is removed; once we acknowledge the power of the sovereign fiat, the zero
sum is left behind, and the either-or choices forced upon us by identity politics are no longer
necessary.
Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being
blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due
to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must
be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes
doing his thing.
An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars.
The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by
any measure, a "stretch."
Yes, well. We must all do our bid to perpetuate the State - even those of us who are too weak-kneed
to serve as cannon fodder (no disrespect intended, of course - just observing). After all, it's
only
thanks to liberal "democracy" that our betters were able to create this best/least-worst of
all possible worlds in the first place. Being bothered by those few remaining necessary egg-shells
just goes to show I'm in the right place.
Oh, good sir, those "necessary egg shells" are needed to settle the grounds of the strong coffee
required to energize the masses to continue the work designed to bring on the Dawn of the Neoliberal
dispensation!
You are in the "right place."
As for States; some years ago, Louisiana had a motto on their automobile license plates that read;
"Louisiana: A Dream State." Truth in advertising. That motto didn't last long.
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing
the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."
They believe their own fake news. Now they can't believe their lying eyes.
Difficult for me to believe the NYT originates "The Narrative" any more than Pravda or Izvestia
did so in the USSR. I am more receptive to the idea that its senior editors coordinate with upstream
sources to assure news coverage and opinion pieces are consistent with policies favored by the
administration and other senior government officials, as well as other selected constituencies.
Also of interest to me is what is occurring at the Washington Post in this regard.
There may well be truth to that idea. I recall
reading a blog post by a Swedish journalist who
did an article on the NY Times. He writes that they
have a building that none of their journalists are allowed
to enter as it is sometimes visited by important dignitaries
who negotiate how they will be covered. He gave
Gaddafi of Libya as an example. I suppose this is possible if
you fixing the narrative.
The Michael Cieply story reminds me of this (from 9/14/2016):
This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial
board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when
he successfully negotiated to be removed from "The Axis of Evil" list after 9/11. At that point
in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the
world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations.
Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable
coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor
and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors.
In retrospect, whatever "deal" that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating
article penned by Judith Miller didn't save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might
of the US air force.
Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times
was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller
spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered
by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor
was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed
to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller
also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in
daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would
personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election
coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would
make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public
eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).
Just an FYI, the reason that hardly any Americans featured in the Panama Papers was that Panama
was not a favored destination for US tax evaders. So the Times had nothing to protect.
I still think the story is evolutionary. In the sense that just as the central nervous system
of society, government, started as a privatized function and eventually evolved into a public
utility, for basic reasons of efficiency and scale, the financial system, as the medium and circulation
system of society, is going through a similar evolutionary process. The premise of vast notional
wealth, which is necessarily backed by debt, is insupportable, at its current levels, simply because
the debt is unsustainable. So collapse is inevitable and the only question is how well and quickly
we develop a viable alternative.
From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala:
"The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked
of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a
topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ," in the words of Hanson Baldwin, one of Dulles's
trusted friends at The New York Times . Nonetheless, reported Baldwin, the operation
had "global importance." This is precisely how Dulles liked his overseas exploits to be chronicled
– as entertaining espionage capers, with serious consequences for the Cold War struggle. New
York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was extremely accommodating to Dulles throughout
the covert operation, agreeing to keep foreign correspondent Sydney Gruson, whom Dulles considered
insufficiently compliant, out of Guatemala and even assuring the CIA director that Gruson's future
articles would be screened "with a great deal more care than usual."
The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and
poor. Those in between have no place.
The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor
as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only
a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place
in their governance.
For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth
News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone
hacking conspiracy, is authoritative.
The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important
context for understanding the current attempts to centralise control of the internet news narrative.
"... Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all ..."
"... When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed. ..."
"... With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. ..."
"... But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!? ..."
"... Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. ..."
"... This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. ..."
"... It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections. ..."
"... One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on. ..."
"... That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology. ..."
"... Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective. ..."
"... I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well. ..."
"... On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least. ..."
"... Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about. ..."
"... Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy . ..."
"... Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP]. ..."
"... Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility. ..."
"... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state. ..."
"... Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking. ..."
"... "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket." ..."
"... But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda? ..."
"... Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. ..."
"... Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion. ..."
"... Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs. ..."
"... There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism). ..."
"... This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way. ..."
"... But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation. ..."
"... Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore. ..."
"... The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is. ..."
"... Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate. ..."
"... PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. ..."
"... In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people. ..."
"... What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him. ..."
"... "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss." ..."
"... "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change" ..."
"... Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines? ..."
"... It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it. ..."
"... You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy. ..."
"... The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. ..."
"... Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes. ..."
"... Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left. ..."
"... On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population" ..."
"... The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality. ..."
"... You can see why liberals love identity politics. ..."
"... labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance. ..."
"... But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion. ..."
"... A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London. ..."
"... The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity). ..."
"... But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world. ..."
"... A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is. ..."
"... Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied. ..."
"... So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning. ..."
"... powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify ..."
"... Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican. ..."
"... When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster. ..."
"... So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties. ..."
"... I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well. ..."
"... But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer. ..."
Yves here. This piece gives a useful, real-world perspective on the issues discussed in
a seminal Adolph Reed article . Key section:
race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics
of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order
and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral
element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced
by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort
us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have
argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1%
of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of
the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were
LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously
the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least
significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
My take on this issue is that the neoliberal use of identity politics continue and extends the
cultural inculcation of individuals seeing themselves engaging with other in one-to-one transactions
(commerce, struggles over power and status) and has the effect of diverting their focus and energy
on seeing themselves as members of groups with common interests and operating that way, and in particular,
of seeing the role of money and property, which are social constructs, in power dynamics.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat
magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Originally posted at
MacroBusiness
Let's begin this little tale with a personal anecdote. Back in 1990 I met and fell in love with
a bisexual, African American ballerina. She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College
at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved
in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year.
I was fortunate to arrive at Smith during a period of intellectual tumult. It was the early years
of the US political correctness revolution when the academy was writhing through a post-structuralist
shift. Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around
truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy
was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements
that spawned gender and racial studies.
Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all
power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it,
and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed
to the objective existence of any truth at all .
... ... ...
The post-structural revolution transpired before and during the end of the Cold War just as the
collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice
impulse didn't die, it turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within
capitalism, empowered by control over the language that defined who they were.
Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded
every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new
emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead
to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned
into a cultural supermarket.
As the Left turned inwards, capitalism turned outwards and went truly, madly global, lifting previously
isolated nations into a single planet-wide market, pretty much all of it revolving around Americana
replete with its identity-branded products.
But, of course, this came at a cost. When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That
meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in
the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and
withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and
so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out,
and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed.
Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers
in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So
satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it
turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those
losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital
and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist".
This great confluence of forces reached its apogee in the Global Financial Crisis when a ribaldly
treasonous Wall St destroyed the American financial system just as America's first ever African American
President, Barack Obama, was elected . One might have expected this convergence to result in a revival
of some class politics. Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change" very much cultured in the vein
of seventies art and inherited a global capitalism that had just openly ravaged its most celebrated
host nation.
But alas, it was just a bit of "retro". With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned
to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A gobalisation like the one promised in the brochures, that benefited the majority via competition
and productivity gains, driven by trade and meritocracy, with counter-balanced private risk and public
equity.
But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the
bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of
the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines
to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime
be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!?
Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street
economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but,
let's face it, he had other priorities. And so the US working and middle classes, as well as
those worldwide, were sold another pup. Now more than ever, if they said say so they were quickly
shut down as "racist", "xenophobic", or "sexist".
Thus it came to pass that the global Left somehow did a complete back-flip and positioned itself
directly behind the same unreconstructed global capitalism that was still sucking the life from the
lower classes that it always had. Only now it was doing so with explicit public backing and with
an abandon it had not enjoyed since the roaring twenties.
Which brings us back to today. And we wonder how it is that an abuse-spouting guy like Donald
Trump can succeed Barack Obama. Trump is a member of the very same "trickle down" capitalist class
that ripped the income from US households. But he is smart enough, smarter than the Left at least,
to know that the decades long rage of the middle and working classes is a formidable political force
and has tapped it spectacularly to rise to power.
And, he has done more. He has also recognised that the Left's obsession with post-structural identity
politics has totally paralysed it. It is so traumatised and pre-occupied by his mis-use of the language
of power – the "racist", "sexist" and "xenophobic" comments – that it is further wedging itself from
its natural constituents every day.
Don't get me wrong, I am very doubtful that Trump will succeed with his proposed policies but
he has at least mentioned the elephant in the room, making the American worker visible again.
Returning to that innocent Aussie boy and his wild romp at Smith College, I might ask what he
would have made of all of this. None of the above should be taken as a repudiation of the experience
of racism or sexism. Indeed, the one thing I took away from Smith College over my lifetime was an
understanding at just how scarred by slavery are the generations of African Americans that lived
it and today inherit its memory (as well as other persecuted). I felt terribly inadequate before
that pain then and I remain so today.
But, if the global Left is to have any meaning in the future of the world, and I would argue that
the global Right will destroy us all if it doesn't, then it must get beyond post-structural paralysis
and go back to the future of fighting not just for social justice issues but for equity based upon
class. Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what
role government plays between them.
This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called
"Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics.
Essentially, the comment vividly displays the exact methodology the author lambasts in the
piece - it hijacks the discussion about an economic issue, attempts to turn it into a mere distraction
about semantics, and in the end contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the "discourse".
It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant
and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic
Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back
in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections.
One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration
and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few
people really understand what is going on.
Explained in more detail here if anyone interested in some truly 'out of the box' perspectives
– It's not 'the left' trying to take over the world and shut down free speech and all that other
bad stuff – it's 'the right'!! http://tinyurl.com/h4h2kay
.
Although I haven't yet read the article you posted, my "feeling" as I read this was that the
author inferred that the right was in the mix somehow, but it was primarily the fault of the left.
That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political
correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage
of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to
keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and
physical ecology.
Exactly. My guess is that this plays out somewhat like this:
Dems: This group _____ should be free to have _____ civil right.
Reps: NO. We are a society built on _____ tradition, no need to change that because it upends
our patriarchal, Christian, Caucasian power structure.
Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social
order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting
the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.
I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle
the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well.
Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which
is why it is so effective.
On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise
the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least.
When have they ever done any such thing? Vote for Hillary because she's a woman isn't even
any kind of politics it's more like marketing branding. It's the real thing. Taste great, less
filling. I'm loving it.
Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left'
or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes
and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling
the Liberal power politics which they are really about.
They exploit the happy historical accident of the coincidence of names. The Liberal ideology
was so called because it was slightly less right-wing than the Feudalism it displaced. In today's
terms however, it is not very liberal, and Neoliberalism is even less so.
If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate
the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they
indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call.
I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at
any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony
Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch. If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this
piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no
one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just
pursue identity politics. Amazing. I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then
make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on
their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every
established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion
of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.
Sigh . the left was marginalized and relentlessly hunted down by the right [grab bag of corporatists,
free marketers, neocons, evangelicals, and a whole cornucopia of wing nut ideologists (file under
creative class gig writers)].
Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and
an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private
ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain
dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian
crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy .
Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged]
the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation
via the Casino or RE [home and IP].
Yes, it's interesting that the academic "left" (aka liberals), who so prize language to accurately,
and to the finest degree distinguish 'this' from 'that', have avoided addressing the difference
between 'left' and 'liberal' and are content to leave the two terms interchangable.
The reason for that is that when academic leftists attempted a more in depth critique, of one
sort or another, of the actually existing historical liberal welfare state, the liberals threw
the "New Deal-under-siege" attack at them and attempted to shut them down.
There is very little left perspective in public. All this whining about identity politics is
not left either. It is reactionary. I can think of plenty of old labor left academics who have
done a much better job of wrapping their minds around why sex, gender, and race matter with respect
to all matters economic than this incessant childish whine. The "let me make you feel more comfortable"
denialism of Uncle Tom Reed.
Right now, I would say that these reactionaries don't want to hear from the academic left any
more than New Deal liberals did. Not going to stop them from blaming them for all their problems
though.
Maybe people should shoulder their own failures for a change. As for the Trumpertantrums, I
am totally not having them.
Since the writer led off talking about an academic setting, it would be useful to flesh out
a bit more how trends in academic theoretical discussion in the 70s and 80s reflected and reinforced
what was going on politically. He refers to postructuralism, which was certainly involved, but
doesn't give enough emphasis to how deliberately poststructuralists - and here I'm lumping together
writers like Lyotard, Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari - were all reacting to the failure of
French Maoism and Trotskyism to, as far as they were concerned, provide a satisfactory alternative
to Soviet Marxism.
As groups espousing those position flailed about in the 70s, the drive to maintain
hope in revolutionary prospects in the midst of macroeconomic stabilization and union reconciliation
to capitalism frequently brought out the worst sectarian tendencies. While writers like Andre Gorz bid adieu to the proletariat as an agent of change and tried to tread water as social democratic
reformists, the poststructuralists disjoined the critique of power from class analysis.
Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It
was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty
despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant
identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of
"grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people
joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow
them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility.
When imported to US academia, traditionally much more disengaged from organized politics than
their European counterparts, these tendencies flourished. Aside from being socially cut off from
increasingly anodyne political organizations, poststructuralists in the US often had backgrounds
with little orientation to history or social science research addressing class relations. To them
the experience of a much more immediate and palpable form of oppression through the use of language
offered an immediate critical target. This dovetailed perfectly with the legalistic use of state
power to end discrimination against various groups, A European disillusionment with class politics
helped to fortify an American evasion or ignorance of it.
There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats
– a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial
countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality.
The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending
the goal was to get to that state.
The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society
but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of
and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.
Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to
them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate
about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that
many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order
to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so
many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.
Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate
view of reality.
"Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and
rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself
back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated
itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference
that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket."
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went
further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing
it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed
the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against
the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic"
and "sexist". "
That is not it at all. The real reason is the right wing played white identity politics starting
with the southern strategy, and those running into the waiting arms of Trump today, took the poisoned
bait. Enter Bill Clinton.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming the academics
and the leftists and the wimmins and the N-ers.
But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are
smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why
then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda?
Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. I doubt more than half of them could define neoliberalism
much less describe how it has destroyed the country. They are mostly motivated by the identity
politics aspects.
Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus
national security and religion.
Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time
the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism
is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within
a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee
ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs.
There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?)
– it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then
patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority
claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism).
We live in a society where no one gets what they want. The Left sees the standard of living
fall and is powerless to stop it. The Right see the culture war lost 25 years ago and can't even
offer a public protest, let alone move things in a conservative direction. Instead we get the
agenda of the political Left to sell out at every opportunity. Plus we get the agenda of the political
Right of endless war and endless security state. Eventually the political Left and Right merge
and support the exact same things. Now when will the real Left and Right recognize their true
enemy and join forces against it? This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If
the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and
rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way.
But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and
are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act
of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps
the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation.
After all, the Left won the culture war and continues to push its agenda to extremes(even though
such extremes will guarantee a back lash that will send people running back to their closets to
hide). The Left still has the MSM media on its side when it comes to cultural issues. Thus the
Left is satisfied with the status quo, with gorging themselves on the crumbs which fall from the
1% table. Consequently, you not only have a political Left that has sold out, you also have the
rest of the Left content to accept that sell out so long as they get their symbolic victories
over their ancient enemy – the Right.
Until the Left recognize its true enemy, the fight will only come from the Right. During that
process more people will filter from the Left to the Right as the latter will offer the only hope
for change.
I think left and right as political shorthand is too limited. Perhaps the NC commentariat could
define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start
to take control of the framing. Hence we would have up-left, down-left, up-right, and down-right.
I would suggest that up and down could relate to environmental viewpoints.
Just a thought that I haven't given much thought, but it would be funny (to me at least) to
be able to quantify one's political stance in terms of radians.
Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site.
Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left"
in any meaningful way anymore.
This seems to assume that change is an intrinsic good, so that change produced by the right
will necessarily be improvement. Unfortunately, change for the worse is probably more likely than
change for the better under this regime. Equally unfortunately, we may have reached the point
where that is the only thing that will make people reconsider what constitutes a just society
and how to achieve it. In any case, this is where we are now.
The economic left sees its standard of living fall. The social right sees its
cultural verities fall.
The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the
left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's
a point here, if I can figure out what it is.
"He [Trump] was the only option for change and the Right took it."
You forget Bernie. The Left tried, and Bernie bowed out, not wanting to be another "Nader"
spoiler. Now, for 2020, the Left thinks it's the "their turn."
The problem is, the Left tends to blow it too (e.g. McGovern in 1972), in part because their
"language" also exudes power and tends to alienate other, more moderate, parts of the coalition
with arcane (and rather elitist) arguments from Derrida et. al.
Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting
for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on
racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate.
Trump is starting out with some rallies in the near-future. The Republicans in Congress think
they are going to play patty-cake on policy to push the Koch Brothers agenda. We are going to
see a populist who promised jobs duke it out publicly with small government austerity deficit
cutters. It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls out Republican Congressmen standing
in the way of his agenda by name.
PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. I n the 60's the Black churches
and the labor unions fought Jim Crow laws and explicit institutional discrimination. In the 70's
the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions
fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles,
real problems, real people.
[Tinfoil hat on)]
At the same time the reformist subset was losing themselves in style points, being 'nice',
and passive aggressive intimidation, the corporate community was promoting the anti-government
screech for the masses. That is, at the same time the people lost sight of government as their
counterweight to capital, the left elite was becoming the vile joke Limbaugh and the other talk
radio blowhards said they were. This may be coincidental timing, or their may be someone behind
the French connection and Hamilton Fish touring college campuses in the 80's promoting subjectivism.
It's true the question of 'how they feel' seems to loom large in discussions where social justice
used to be.
[Tinfoil hat off]
There are many words but no communication between the laboring masses and the specialist readers.
Fainting couch feminists have nothing to say to wives and mothers, the slippery redefinitions
out of non-white studies turn off people who work for a living, and the promotion of smaller and
more neurotic minorities are just more friction in a society growing steeper uphill.
"She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may
recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty
and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year."
I hate to be overly pedantic, but Smith College is one of the historically female colleges
known as the Seven Sisters: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe
College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. While Barnard is connected to Columbia,
and Radcliffe to Harvard, none of the other Sisters has ever been considered any part of the Ancient
Eight (Ivy League) schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton,
and Yale.
I find it highly doubtful that someone, unaware of this elementary fact, actually lived off
a beautiful bisexual black ballerina's (wonderful alliteration!) "old man's purse," for a full
year in Northampton, MA. He may well have dated briefly someone like this, but it strains credulity
that– after a full year in this environment– he would never have learned of the distinction between
the Seven Sisters and the Ivy League.
The truth of the matter is not so important. The black ballerina riff had two functions. First
it helped push an ethos for the author of openness and acceptance of various races and sexual
orientations. This is a highly charged subject and so accusations of racism, etc, are never far
away for someone pushing class over identity.
Second it served as a nice hook to get dawgs like me to read through the whole thing; which
was a very good article. Kind of like the opening paragraph of a Penthouse Forum entry, I was
hoping that the author would eventually elaborate on what happened when she pirouetted over him
What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set
his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen
to him.
I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either
Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, over several decades of knowing quite well many alumnae from Wellesley,
Smith, etc. I have never once heard them speak of their colleges as "Ivy League."
I do get your point, however. Perhaps Mr. Llewellyn-Smith was deliberately writing for a non-U.S.
audience, and chose to use "Ivy League" as synonymous with "prestigious." I have seen graduates
of Stanford, for example, described as "Ivy Leaguers" in the foreign press.
I think the gradual process whereby the left, or more specifically, the middle class left,
have been consumed by an intellectually vacant went hand in hand with what I found the bizarre
abandonment of interest by the left in economics and in public intellectualism. The manner in
which the left simply surrendered the intellectual arguments over issues like taxes and privatisation
and trade still puzzles me. I suspect it was related to a cleavage between middle class left wingers
and working class activists. They simple stopped talking the same language, so there was nobody
to shout 'stop' when the right simply colonised the most important areas of public policy and
shut down all discussion.*
A related issue is I think a strong authoritarianist strain which runs through some identity
politics. Its common to have liberals discuss how intolerant the religious or right wingers are
of intellectual discussion, but even try to question some of of the shibboleths of gender/race
discussions and you can immediately find yourself labelled a misogynist/homophobe/racist. Just
see some of the things you can get banned from the Guardian CIF for saying.
This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss. Democrat-bashing
is the new pastime.
Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change:
Caps on executive gains in terms of multiples in both public and private companies of a big
enough size. For example, the CEO at most can make 50 times the average salary. Something to that
effect. And any net income gains at the end of the year that are going to be dispersed as dividends,
must proportionally reach the internal laborers as well. Presto, a robust economy.
All employees must share in gains. You don't like it? Tough. The owner will still be rich.
Historically, executives topped out at 20-30 times average salary. Now it's normal for the
number to reach 500-2,000. It's absurd. As if a CEO is manufacturing products, marketing, and
selling them all by himself/herself. As if Tim Cook assembles iPhones and iMacs by hand and sells
them. As if Leslie Moonves writes, directs, acts in, and markets each show.
Put the redistributive mechanism in the private sphere as well as in government. Then America
will be great again.
Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of
the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders
banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some
basic guidelines?
It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together
with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything
remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here
I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it.
You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch
of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the
dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy.
As someone who grew up in and participated in those discussions:
1) It was "women's studies" back then. "Gender studies" is actually a major improvement in
how the issues are examined.
2) We'd already long since lost by then, and we were looking to make our own lives better.
Creating a space where we could have good sex and a minimum of violence was better. Reagan's election,
and his re-election, destroyed the Left.
I feel like this piece could use the yellow waders as well. Instead of simply repeating myself
every time these things come up, I proffer an annotation of a important paragraph, to give a sense
of what bothers me here.
The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the
Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison
detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, [a certain, largely liberal tendency in the
North American academy] turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities
within capitalism[, which, if you paid close attention to what was being called for, implied
and sometimes even outright demanded clear restraints be placed upon the power of capital in
order to meet those goals], empowered by control over the [images, public statements, and widespread
ideologies–i.e. discourse {which is about more than just language}] that defined who they were.
The post-structural turn was just as much about Derrida at Johns Hopkins as it was about Foucault
trying to demonstrate the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of power in the explicit context of
the May '68 events in France. The economy ground to a halt, and at one point de Gaulle was so
afraid of a violent revolution that he briefly left the country, leaving the government helpless
to do much of anything, until de Gaulle returned shortly thereafter.
Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to
articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism.
To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power
in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes.
A claim is being made here regarding the "global left" that clearly comes from a parochial,
North American perspective. Indian academics, for one, never abandoned political economy for identity
politics, especially since in India identity politics, religion, regionalism, castes, etc. were
always a concern and remain so. It seems rather odd to me that the other major current in academia
from the '90s on, namely postcolonialism, is entirely left out of this story, especially when
critiques of militarism and political economy were at the heart of it.
The saddest point of the events of '68 is that looking back society has never been so equal
as at that point in time. That was more or less the time of peak working class living standard
relative to the wealthy classes. It is no accident, at least in my book, that these mostly bourgeois
student activists have a tard at the end of their name in French: soixante-huitards.
In the Sixites the "Left" had control of the economic levers or power - and by Left I mean
those interested in smaller differences between the classes. There is no doubt the Cold War helped
the working classes as the wealthy knew it was in their interest to make capitalism a showcase
of rough egalitarianism. But during the 60's the RIght held cultural sway. It was Berkeley pushing
Free Speech and Lenny Bruce trying to break boundaries while the right tried to keep the Overton
Window as tight and squeaky clean as possible.
But now the "Right" in the sense of those who want to increase the difference between rich
and poor hold economic power while the Left police culture and speech. The provocateurs come from
the right nowadays as they run roughshod over the PC police and try to smash open the racial,
gender. and sexual orientation speech restrictions put in place as the left now control the Overton
Window.
The Left and Liberal are two different things entirely.
In the UK we have three parties:
Labour – the left
Liberal – middle/ liberal
Conservative – the right
Mapping this across to the US:
Labour – X
Liberal – Democrat
Conservative – Republican
The US has been conned from the start and has never had a real party of the Left.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century US ideas changed and the view of those
at the top was that it would be dangerous for the masses to get any real power, a liberal Democratic
party would suffice to listen to the wants of the masses and interpret them in a sensible way
in accordance with the interests of the wealthy.
We don't want the masses to vote for a clean slate redistribution of land and wealth for heaven's
sake.
In the UK the Liberals were descendents of the Whigs, an elitist Left (like the US Democrats).
Once everyone got the vote, a real Left Labour party appeared and the Whigs/Liberals faded
into insignificance.
It is much easier to see today's trends when you see liberals as an elitist Left.
They have just got so elitist they have lost touch with the working class.
The working class used to be their pet project, now it is other minorities like LGBT and immigration.
Liberals need a pet project to feel self-righteous and good about themselves but they come
from the elite and don't want any real distribution of wealth and privilege as they and their
children benefit from it themselves.
Liberals are the more caring side of the elite, but they care mainly about themselves rather
than wanting a really fair society.
They call themselves progressive, but they like progressing very slowly and never want to reach
their destination where there is real equality.
The US needs its version of the UK Labour party – a real Left – people who like Bernie Sanders
way of thinking should start one up, Bernie might even join up.
In the UK our three parties all went neo-liberal, we had three liberal parties!
No one really likes liberals and they take to hiding in the other two parties, you need to
be careful.
Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour party back where it belongs slowly.
Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on.
This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left.
On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world"
2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"
Doing the maths and assuming a straight line .
5.4 years until one person is as wealthy as poorest half of the world.
This is what the traditional left normally concentrate on, but as they have switched to identity
politics this inequality has gone through the roof. They were over-run by liberals.
Some more attention to the y-axis please.
The neoliberal view L
As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this
is equality.
left – traditional left – y-axis inequality
liberal – elitist left – x -axis inequality (this doesn't affect my background of wealth and privilege)
labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with
Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing
for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance.
Identity politics does make democrats lose. The message needs to be economic. It can have the
caveat that various sub groups will be paid special attention to, but if identity is the only
thing talked about then get used to right wing governments.
Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't
and what role government plays between them.
Empowerment is very much about capital, but the Left has never had the cajones to
stare down and take apart the Right's view of 'capital' as some kind of magical elixir that mysteriously
produces 'wealth'.
I ponder my own experiences, which many here probably share:
First: slogging through college(s), showing up to do a defined list of tasks (a 'job', if you
will) to be remunerated with some kind of payment/salary. That was actual 'work' in order to get
my hands on very small amounts of 'capital' (i.e., 'money').
Second: a few times, I just read up on science or looked at the stock pages and did a little
research, and then wrote checks that purchased stock shares in companies that seemed to be exploring
some intriguing technologies. In my case, I got lucky a few times, and presto! That simple act
of writing a few checks made me look like a smarty. Also, paid a few bills. But the simple
act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental
exertion.
Third: I have also had the experience of working (start ups) in situations where - literally!!!
- I made less in a day in salary than I'd have made if I'd simply taken a couple thousand dollars
and bought stock in the place I was working.
To summarize:
- I've had capital that I worked long and hard to obtain.
- I've had capital that took me a little research, about one minute to write a check, and brought
me a handsome amount of 'capital'. (Magic!)
- I've worked in situations in which I created MORE capital for others than I created for myself.
And the value of that capital expanded exponentially.
If the Left had a spine and some guts, it would offer a better analysis about what 'capital'
is, the myriad forms it can take, and why any of this matters.
Currently, the Left cannot explain to a whole lot of people why their hard work ended up in
other people's bank accounts. If they had to actually explain that process by which people's hard
work turned into fortunes for others, they'd have a few epiphanies about how wealth is actually
created, and whether some forms of wealth creation are more sustainable than other forms.
IMVHO, I never saw Hillary Clinton as able to address this elemental question of the nature
of wealth creation. The Left has not traditionally given a shrewd analysis of this core problem,
so the Right has been able to control this issue. Which is tragic, because the Right is trapped
in the hedge fund mentality, in the tight grip of realtors and mortgage brokers; they obsess on
assets, and asset classes, and resource extraction. When your mind is trapped by that kind of
thinking, you obsess on the tax code, and on how to use it to generate wealth for yourself. Enter
Trump.
One small correction: Smith is not an Ivy League school, it is one of the "Seven Sisters:
Ivy League:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale
Seven Sisters:
Barnard
Bryn Mawr
Mount Holyoke
Radcliffe
Smith
Vassar
Wellesley
A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and
the US is
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/
"Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division
of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London.
And let's not forget that identity politics arose in the first place because of genuine discrimination,
which still exists today. In forsaking identity politics in favor of one of class, we should not
forget the original reasons for the rise of the phenomena, however poorly employed by some of
its practitioners, and however mined by capitalism to give the semblance of tolerance and equality
while obscuring the reality of intolerance and inequality.
Trivially, I would think the last thing to do is adopt the "alt-" moniker, thereby cementing
the impression in the mind of the public that the two are in some sense similar.
The blogger Lord Keynes at Social Democracy for the 21st Century at blogspot suggests Realist
Left instead of alt-left. I think how people are using the term "identity politics" at the moment
isn't "actual anti-racism in policy and recruitment" but "pandering to various demographics to
get their loyalty and votes so that the party machine doesn't have to try and gain votes by doing
economic stuff that frightens donors, lobbyists and the media". Clinton improved the female vote
for Democratic president by 1 percentage point, and the black and Latino shares of the Republican
were unchanged from Romney in 2012. Thus, identity politics is not working when the economy needs
attention, even against the most offensive opponent.
So to repress class conflicts, the kleptocracy splintered them into opposition between racists
and POC, bigots and LGBTQ, patriarchal oppressors and women, etc., etc. The US state-authorized
parties used it for divide and rule. The left fell for it and neutered itself. Good. Fuck the
left.
Outside the Western bloc the left got supplanted with a more sensible opposition: between humans
and the overreaching state. That alternative view subsumes US-style identity politics in antidiscrimination
and cultural rights. It subsumes traditional class struggle in labor, migrant, and economic rights.
It reforms and improves discredited US constitutional rights, and integrates it all into the concepts
of peace and development. It's up and running with binding
law and authoritative
institutions
.
So good riddance to the old left and the new left.
Human rights have already replaced
them in the 80-plus per cent of the world represented by UNCTAD and the G-77. That's why the USA
fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach.
To All Commenters: thanks for the discussion. Many good, thoughtful ideas/perspectives.
Mine? Living in California (a minority white populace, broad economic engine, high living expenses
(and huge homeless population) and a leader in alternative energy: Trump is what happens when
you don't allow the "people" to vote for their preferred candidates (Bernie) and don't listen
to a select few voters in key electoral states (WI,MI,PA).
The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything").
If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely
wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity).
Hold this same election with different (multiple) candidates and the outcome is likely different.
In the end, we all need to work and demand a more fair and Just society. (Or California is likely
to secede.)
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence."
I can only imagine the glee of the wealthy feminists at Smith while they witnessed the white,
lunch pailed, working class American male thrown out of work and into the gutter of irrelevance
and despair. The perfect comeuppance for a demographic believed to be the arch-nemesis of women
and minorities. Nothing seems quite so fashionable at the moment as hating white male Republicans
that live outside of proper-thinking coastal enclaves of prosperity. Unfortunately I fail to see
how this attitude helps the country. Seems like more divide and conquer from our overlords on
high.
just more whining from the Weekly Standard. While men may have been disproportionately displaced
in jobs that require physical strength, many women (nurses?) likely lost their homes during the
Great Financial Scam and its fallout.
The enemy is a rigged political, financial, and judicial system.
Identity Politics gestated for a while before the 90s. Beginning with a backlash against Affirmative
Action in the 70s, the Left began to turn Liberal. East Coast intellectuals who were anxious they
would be precluded from entering the best schools may have been the catalyst (article from Jacobin
I think).
But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that
point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life
to the world.
A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!)
and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest.
Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally
started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition
bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which
seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something
is.
"Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political
philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing."
Well, I'll have a first go, since I was around at the time.
Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth,
and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically
the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense
that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment,
little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential
political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where
the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied.
Three things happened that made the Left completely unprepared for the counter-attack in the 1970s.
First, simple complacency. When Thatcher appeared, most people thought she'd escaped from a Monty
Python sketch. The idea that she might actually take power and use it was incredible.
Secondly, the endless factionalism and struggles for power within the Left, usually over arcane
points of ideology, mixed with vicious personal rivalries. The Left loves defeats, and picks over
them obsessively, looking for someone else to blame.
Third, the influence of 1968 and the turning away from the real world, towards LSD and the New
Age, and the search for dark and hidden truths and structures of power in the world. Fueled by
careless and superficial readings of bad translations of Foucault and Derrida, leftists discovered
an entire new intellectual continent into which they could extend their wars and feuds, which
was much more congenial, since it involved eviscerating each other, rather than seriously taking
on the forces of capitalism and the state.
And that's the very short version. We've been living with the consequences ever since. The
Left has been essentially powerless, and powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone
weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force,
with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify continuing, or it would have
no reason to exist.
So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I
respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning.
" powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is
why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest
in the problems it has chosen to identify "
Yes. As long as the doyens of identity politics don't have any real fear of being homeless
they can happily indulge in internecine warfare. It's a lot more fun than working to get $20/hour
for a bunch of snaggle-toothed guys who kind of don't like you.
I read: "Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based
around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the
US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil
rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies."
Of course, I have been a college professor since the late 1970s. On the other hand, I am a
physicist. The notion that truth is discourse is, in my opinion, daft, and says much about the
nature of the modern liberal arts, at least as understood by many undergraduates. I have actually
heard of the folks referenced in the above, and to my knowledge their influence in science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics–the academic fields that are in this century actually central*–is
negligible.
*Yes, I am in favor of a small number of students becoming professional historians, dramatists,
and composers, but the number of these is limited.
Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to
have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South,
where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican.
When that spreads to the rest
of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new
major disaster.
Second, some Democratic commentators appear to have assumed that if your forebearers
spoke Spanish, you can not be white. This belief is properly grouped with the belief that if your
forebearers spoke Gaelic or Italian, you were from one of the colored races of Europe (a phrase
that has faded into antiquity, but some of my friends specialize in American history of the relevant
period), and were therefore not White.
Identity politics is a losing strategy, as will it appears
be noticed by the losers only after it is too late.
An extremely important point, but overblown in a way that may reflect the author's background
and is certainly rhetorical.
So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation,
etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left
with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties.
That doesn't invalidate his point. If you want to see it in full-blown, unadorned action, try
Democrat sites like Salon and Raw Story. A factor he doesn't do justice to is the extreme self-righteousness
that accompanies it, supported, I suppose, by the very real injustices perpetrated against minorities
– and women, not a minority.
The whole thing is essentially a category error, so it would be nice to see a followup that
doesn't perpetuate the error. But it's valuable for stating the problem, which can be hard to
present, especially in the face of gales of self-righteousness.
Well said. An excellent attack on 'identity politics.'
I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well.
George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't
do very well.
But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer.
'Identity politics' is both more accurate, and more useful, a term than any alternative such as
racism, fascism, ethnonationalism, etc. It's just the identity in question is that of the majority.
Voters voted for Trump, or Brexit, because they identified with him, or it. In doing so, they
found that whatever they wanted is what that represents.
But the action always comes before the consequences; you can't get upset about Trump supporters
being called racists unless you already identify with them. The action is the choice of identity,
the consequence is the adoption of opinion.
"... CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing." ..."
"... CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump. ..."
"... So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election. ..."
"This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
lied us into multiple bogus wars,"according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by
Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."
"These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'"
he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in
a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"
Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications
they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from.
In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the
exact sources of the list unknown.
CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC,
with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who
accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing
them as "failing."
The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election,
with a surge in new subscriptions.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN
for an interview with Donald Trump.
Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely
with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.
So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed
that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential
election.
Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting
third parties with filtering the news.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the
government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success
of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news
blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better,
create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk
all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and,
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not
really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to
make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out
route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back
position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction,
troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of
evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma
City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge
by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a
press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but
Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:
The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international
norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny
and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something
that we can set aside.
We've seen the make-shift "fake news" list created by a
leftist feminist professor. Well, another fake news list has been revealed
and this one holds a lot more water.
This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied
us into multiple bogus wars. These are the news sources that told us "if you like your doctor, you
can keep your doctor." They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They
tell us in a never-ending loop that "The economy is in great shape!"
The Republican brass degenerated into a bunch to neocon racketeers who want to impoverish regular Americans. That's why Trump won.
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting
the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." ..."
"... Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in
a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first
find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media. ..."
IN DECEMBER 1953, Henry Regnery convened a meeting in Room 2233 in New York City's Lincoln Building. Regnery, a former Democrat
and head of Regnery Publishing, had moved sharply to the Right after he became disillusioned with the New Deal. His guests included
William F. Buckley Jr.; Frank Hanighen, a cofounder of Human Events ; Raymond Moley, a former FDR adviser who wrote a book
called After Seven Years that denounced the New Deal; and John Chamberlain, a lapsed liberal and an editorial writer for the
Wall Street Journal . Regnery had not called these men together merely to discuss current events. He wanted to reshape them.
"The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country," he said. "The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which
most Americans instinctively believe in also." So why was liberalism in the ascendant? Regnery explained that media bias was the
problem. Anywhere you looked, the Left controlled the commanding heights-television, newspapers and universities. It was imperative,
Regnery said, to establish a "counterintelligence unit" that could fight back.
In her superb Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer examines the origins of conservative media. Hemmer, who is an assistant
professor at the University of Virginia, has performed extensive archival research to illuminate the furthest recesses of the Right,
complementing earlier works like Geoffrey Kabaservice's Rule and Ruin . She provides much new information and penetrating
observations about figures such as Clarence Manion, William Rusher and Henry Regnery. Above all, she shows that there has been a
remarkable consistency to the grievances and positions, which were often one and the same, of the conservative movement over the
decades.
According to Hemmer, the modern Right first took shape in the form of the America First Committee. A number of leading conservatives
saw little difference between Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regnery recollected that "both Hitler and Roosevelt-each in
his own way -- were masters of the art of manipulating the masses."
Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting
the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." Others such as the gifted orator Clarence Manion, a former FDR
acolyte, joined the America First Committee in 1941. After the war, Manion became the dean of the Notre Dame Law School and wrote
a book called The Key to Peace , which argued that limited government was the key to American greatness, not a quest to "take
off for the Mountains of the Moon in search of ways and means to pacify and unify mankind."
While serving in the Eisenhower administration, he also became a proponent of the Bricker Amendment, which would have subjected
treaties signed by the president to ratification by the states. Eisenhower demanded his resignation. An embittered Manion, Hemmer
writes, concluded that columnists such as James Reston, Marquis Childs, and Joseph and Stewart Alsop had effectively operated as
a united front to ruin him.
Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in
a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first
find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media.
In 1954, the Manion Forum of Opinion , which aired on several dozen radio stations, was born. It soon became a popular
venue that allowed Manion, who was cochair of a political party called For America, to inveigh against the depredations of liberalism
and preach the conservative gospel.
... ... ...
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative media seemed to have arrived. But as Hemmer notes, a New Right generation
of activists that included figures such Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and Jerry Falwell of
the Moral Majority had arrived that did not have much in common with the older conservative generation. She points out that leaders
of the New Right backed Republican congressman Phil Crane, then former Texas governor John Connally, only supporting Reagan during
the general election. Buckley and his cohort, Hemmer writes, saw the New Right paladins as "Johnnies-come-lately to the movement,
demanding rigorous fealty to social issues that had only recently become the drivers of politics." Hemmer might have noted that,
although Reagan has since become a conservative icon, George F. Will and Norman Podhoretz, among others, lamented what they viewed
as Reagan's concessive posture towards Mikhail Gorbachev.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do?
Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman
Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?
The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade
voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or
as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This
strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...
This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of
Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his
financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of
economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer
work."
Does Finance care about bigotry?
Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable.
Home values could drop if too many blacks moved to a neighborhood so finance created red-lining
to protect their investments while promoting bigotry.
Finance is all in favor of tearing down minority neighborhoods or funding polluters in those neighborhoods
to protect investments in gated communities and white sundown towns.
Finance is often part of the problem, not the solution.
All of what you say is true but I have some contrarian/devil's advocate thoughts.
Some finance people are smart and have an enlightened self-interest. Think of Robert Rubin,
George Soros or Warren Buffet. They often back Democrats. Think of Chuck Schumer. Think of Hillary
Clinton's speeches to the banks.
Finance often knocks down walls and will back whatever makes a profit. Often though as you
say it conforms to prejudice and past practices, like red-lining.
I think of the lines from the Communist Manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal,
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his
"natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest,
than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour,
of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.
It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible
chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word,
for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless,
direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to
with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of
science, into its paid wage labourers."
But the cash nexus isn't enough spiritually or emotionally and when living standards stagnate
or decline, anxious people retreat into tribalism.
When I first glances at your question I immediately answered your query like you everyone here
did, 'no, finance does not care about bigotry except to the degree finance can profit from it.'
Then I realized there are too many assumptions contained in your question for me to respond
b/c I was thinking inside the box and not taking in all that impacts Finance and bigotry.
Your question assumes "Finance" is Private and for profit. But that is not true is it, since
there is Public, NGO, Charity, Socialistic, Communistic, et. al., Finance.
And, then there is the problem with the word "bigotry."
Your post makes clear to me that you are referring to American bigotry in housing, but that
means you ignore that "bigotry" exists largely from ones individual perspective, which we know
depends upon from where one sees it.
What I mean by that is Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc., all see and proclaim bigotry
in the USA but deny bigotry in their own countries.
If your point is simply that America Finance discriminates against people of color in Housing
or that such discrimination perpetuates bigotry then no one can disagree with you, imo, however,
your implication that that is done to perpetuate bigotry and racism is probably false since Finance
is amoral, looking to secure profit, and not out to discriminate against a particular group such
as people of color as long as they can profit.
"... "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people." ..."
"... And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him. ..."
"... I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election. ..."
"... And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%. ..."
"... You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about? ..."
"... Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together." ..."
"... I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here. ..."
"... I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama) ..."
The idea that people who are against capitalism (or neoliberalism, if you want) are also not
generally against patriarchy and racist colonialism ( as a system ) is obviously false.
On the contrary it's people who are 'into' identity politics who generally are not against
these things (again, as a system). People who are into identity politics are against racism and
sexism, sure, but seem to have little if any idea as to why these ideas came into being and what
social purposes they serve: they seem to think they are just arbitrary lifestyle choices, like
not liking people with red hair, or preferring The Beatles to the Rolling Stones or something.
And if this is true, all we have to do is 'persuade' people not to 'be racist' or 'be sexist'
and then the problem goes away. Hence dehistoricised (and, let's face it, depoliticised) 'political
correctness'. which seems to insist that as long as you don't, personally , call any African-American
the N word and don't use the C word when talking about women, all problems of racism and sexism
will be solved.
The inability to look at History, and social structures, and the history of social structures,
and the purpose of these structures as a pattern of domination, inevitably leads to Clintonism
(or, in the UK, Blairism), which, essentially, equals 'neoliberalism plus don't use the N word'.
I'm not going to argue directly with people because some people are obviously a bit angry about
this but the question is not whether or not sexism or homophobia are good things (they obviously
aren't): the question is whether or not fighting against these things are necessarily left-wing,
and the answer is: depends on how you do it. For example, in both cases we have seen right-wing
feminism ('spice girls feminism') and right wing gay rights (cf Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos)
which sees 'breaking the glass ceiling' for women and gays as being the key point of the struggle.
I know Americans got terribly excised about having the first American female President and that's
understandable for its symbolic value, but here in the UK we now have our second female Prime
Minister.
So what? Who gives a shit? What's changed (not least, what's changed for women?)?. Nothing.
Eventually you are going to get your first female President. You will probably even someday
get your first gay President. Both of them may be Republicans. Think about that.
What's wrong with -(from the NYT):
'Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face
a profound decision after last week's stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr.
Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them
– while always reminding the people that F face von Clownstick actually is a Fascistic Racist
Birther.
and at the same time (from E. Warren):
"He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American
people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need
to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the
high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure
and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that
their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy
for working people."
Straw man much, hidari? Just to pick a random example of someone who thinks these things are important,
Ursula le guin Sure she's never made any state,nets about systematic oppression, and economic
systems? The problem you have when you try to claim that these ideas "cameo to being" through
social and structural factors is that you're wrong.
Everyone knows rape is as old as sex, the idea it's a product of a distorted economic system
is a fiction produced by Beardy white dudes to shut the girls up until after the revolution.
Which is exactly what you "reformers" of liberalism, who think it has lost its way in the maze
of identity politics, want to do. Look at the response of people like rich puchalsky to BLM –
trying to pretend it's equivalent to the system of police violence directed against occupy, as
if violence against white people for protesting is the same as e murder of black people simply
for being in public.
It's facile, it's shallow and it's a desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced
to respond to issues outside the concerns of white rust belt men – it's no coincidence that this
uprising g of shallow complaints against identity politics from the hard left occurs at the same
time we see a rust belt reaction against the new left. And the reaction from the hard left will
be as destructive for the dems as the rust belt reaction is for the country.
nastywoman 11.17.16 at 8:04 am
– and what a 'feast' for historians this whole 'deal' must be?
– as there are all kind of fascinating thought experiment around this man who orders so loudly and
in fureign language a Pizza on you-tube.
And wasn't it time that our fellow Americans find out that Adolf Hitler not only ordered Pizza
or complained about his I-Phone – NO! – that he also is very upset that Trump also won the erection?
And there are endless possibilities for histerical conferences about who is the 'Cuter Fascist
– or what Neo Nazis in germany sometimes like to discuss: What if Hitler only would have done 'good'
fascistic things?
Wouldn't he be the role model for all of US?
Or – as there are so many other funny hypotheticals
1) And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social
justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him.
2) I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least
the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered
by her campaign and possible election.
And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide,
and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans
delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered
somewhere around 60-70%.
American feminism has catastrophically, an understatement, failed over the last couple
generations, and class had very much to do with it, upper middle class advanced degreed liberal
women largely followed Clinton's model, leaned in, and went for the bucks rather than reaching
ou to their non-college sisters in the Midwest. Kinda like Mao staying in Shanghai, or Lenin in
Zurich and expecting the Feminist Revolution to happen in the countryside while they profit.
Feminism, also playing to its base of upper middle class women, has also shifted its focus
from economic and labor force issues, to a range of social and sexuality issues that are of
less concern to most women. Personally, I feel betrayed. The male-female wage gap has not narrow
appreciably since the 1990s, glass ceilings are still in place and, for me most importantly,
horizontal sex segregation in the market for jobs that don't require a college degree, where
roughly 2/3 of American women compete, is unabated. I looked at the most recent BLS stats for
occupations by gender recently. Of the two aggregated categories of occupations that would
be characterized as 'blue collar' work, women represent a little over 2 and 3 percent respectively.
For specific occupations under those categories more than half (eyeballing) don't even include
a sufficient number of women to report.
Again, it isn't hard to see why. Upper middle class women can easily imagine themselves, or
their daughters, needing abortions. The possibility that that option would not be available is
a real fear. They do not worry that they or their daughters would be stuck for most of their adult
lives cashiering at Walmart, working in a call center, or doing any of the other boring, dead-end
pink-collar work which are the only options most women have. And they don't even think of blue-collar
work.
Which Marxists always have expected and why we strongly prefer that the UMC and bourgeois be
kept out of the Party. It's called opportunism and is connected to reformism, IOW, wanting to
keep the system, just replace the old bosses with your owm.
You backed the war-mongering plutocrat and handed the world to fascism. Can you show responsibility
and humility for even a week?
You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted
a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination,
but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general.
Who exactly are these people you are talking about?
reason 11.17.16 at 8:43 am
Of course Hidari might have had a point if he was making an argument
about campaign strategy and emphasis, but he seems to be saying more that that, or are I wrong?
Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the
Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not
sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years,
and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together."
basil 11.17.16 at 9:09 am
I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity
politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial
struggles – by capital and the state.
engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here.
CT's really weird on identity. Whose work are we thinking through? 'Gender'and 'Race' are political
constructions that are most explicitly economic in nature. There were no black people before racism
made certain bodies available for the inhumanity of enslavement, and thus the enrichment of the slaver
class. Commentators oughtn't, I don't think, write as if there are actually existing black and white
people. As Dorothy Roberts – Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race
in the 21st Century (and Paul Gilroy – Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color
Line, and Karen and Barbara Fields – Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, etc put
it, it is racism that creates and naturalises race. Of course liberalism's logics of governance,
the necessity of making bodies available for control and exploitation constantly reproduce and entrench
race (and gender).
I offered that racialised people, particularly those gendered as women/queer, the ones who have
been refused whiteness, are also super suspicious of these deployments of identity politics, especially
by non-subjugated persons who've a political project for which they are weaponising subordinated
identities. It really is abusive and exploitative.
We must listen better. As the racialised and gendered are pointing out, it is incredible that
it has taken the threat of Trump, and now their ascension for liberals to tune in to the violence
waged against racialised, gendered, queer lives and bodies by White Supremacy. History will remember
that #BLM (like the record deportations, the Clintons' actual-existing-but-to-liberals invisible
border wall, the Obamacare farce in the OP, de Blasio's undocumented persons list, Rahm in Chicago,
the employment of David Brock, Melania's nudes, the crushing poverty of racialised women, the exploitation
of those violated by Trump, the re-invasion and desecration of Native American territory) happened
under a liberal presidency. That liberal presidency responded to BLM with a Blue Lives Matter law.
This is evidence of liberalism's inherently violent attitude towards those it pretends to care about.
All this preceded Trump.
If you are for gender emancipation or anti-race/racism, be against these all the time, not just
to tar your temporary electoral foes. Be feminist when dancing Yemenis gendered as women – some of
the poorest, most vulnerable humans – are droned at weddings. Be feminist when Mexico's farmers gendered
as women are dying at NAFTA's hand. Be feminist when poor racialised queer teens are dying in the
streets as you celebrate the right of wealthy gays to marry. Be feminist and reject people who've
got multiple sexual violence accusations against them and those who help them cover these up and
shame the victims. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject people who glory in making war on poor
defenceless people. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject white nationalists gendered female who
call racialised groups 'super-predators' to court racists. Reject people who say of public welfare
improvements – it will never, ever happen, this is not Denmark. The people who need those services
the most are vulnerable humans, racialised and gendered as women. Never say that politicians who
put poor migrants in cages on isolated islands are nice people. They absolutely aren't. Some of this
is really easy.
These puerile rhetorical gestures reveal the people for whom 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday was simply
a glass ceiling left unbroken by a woman who launched a massive Yemeni bombing campaign. Perhaps
as a mechanic of coping, it has become incredibly sexy for a certain class of liberals to dodge
any responsibility for the lives they, too, have compromised. They aren't the same ones who have
to worry about who will be the first person to call them a terrorist faggot ..For the rest of
us, the victory of this fascist is a confirmation of the biases we have known all along, no matter
public liberal consciousness's inabilities to wrangle them into submission."
– and just a suggestion I have learned from touring the rust belt – waaay before it was as 'fashionable'
as it is right now.
While we in some hotel room in Scranton fought our Ideological fights -(we had a French Camera
Assistant who insisted that America one day will elect 'a Fascist like Hitler') –
the mechanic we had scheduled to interview about his Camaro SS for the next day – had exchanged
all the spark plucks of his car.
bob mcmanus above, I really think social justice and economic justice are bound together, and that Universal Healthcare,
for example, as a fundamental right is a basic feminist and anti-racist goal. Most particularly because
the vulnerability of these groups, their economic hardship, their very capacity to live, to survive
is at stake in a marketised health care system.
Racialised outcomes for ACA.
Similarly with marketised higher education and skills training. How cynical that HRC used HBCUs
to argue that racialised people would suffer from free public tertiary education!
Dorothy Roberts' work for example has interesting perspectives on how race is created in part
through the differentiated access to healthcare. They discuss how this plays out for both maternal
and child mortality, and for breast cancer survival. 'Oh, the evidence shows that racialised women
are more vulnerable to x condition'. Exactly, because a racist and marketised system denies them
necessary healthcare.
A funny thing about the new comment moderation regime is that you can get two people posting in
rapid succession saying pretty much opposite things like me then Hidari. It seems as if (although
again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something
like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though: patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism.
In fairness though, I think I understand what Hidari and engels are getting at. I know lots
of young people, women and people of colour, who probably fit their description in a way. They
are young, smart, probably a bit naive, and at least some of them probably from privileged backgrounds.
They appear driven by desire to succeed in a hierarchical academic system that still tends to
be dominated by white men at the upper levels, and they don't seem to question the system much,
at least not openly.
But can I just mention, some of our hosts here are actually fairly high up in that system.
Why aren't they being attacked as liberals or proponents of "identity politics"? Why is it only
when women or people of colour try to succeed in that very same academic system that it becomes
so wrong?
Another Nick, yes I can comment on that. I think it's fascinating that the old beardy leftists
and berniebros are fixated on Lena Dunham. Who else is fixated on Lena Dunham? The right bloggers,
who are inflamed with rage at everything she does. Who else is fixated on identity politics? The
right bloggers, who present it as everything wrong with the modern left, PC gone mad, censorship
etc. You guys should get together and have a party – you're made for each other.
Also, the Democrats don't have a "celebrity campaign mascot." So what are you actually talking
about?
basil @ 64
basil what in any conceivable world makes you think that feminists on CT don't know about the
issues you're talking about? I work in a school of public health and my entire work consists of
trying to address those sorts of issues, plus ecological sustainability.
Seriously this has all gone beyond straw-wo/manning. Some people here are talking to others
who exist only in their minds or something. The world's gone mad.
engels 11.17.16 at 12:06 pm
Umm Val and FaustusNoted, which part of-
identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're
all needed now more than ever.
-was unclear to you?
I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a
world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight,
female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that
has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism.
it often gets thrown around as a kind of all-encompassing epithet
Point taken-but there's really nothing I can do to stop other people misusing terms (until
the Dictatorship of the Prolerariat anyway :) )
Cranky Observer 11.17.16 at 12:27 pm
= = = faustnotes @ 4:14 am The reason these conservative Dems come from those states is
that those states don't support radical welfare provisions – they don't want other people getting
a free lunch, and value personal responsibility over welfarism. = = =
As long as you don't count enormous agricultural, highway, postal service, and military base subsidies
as any form of "welfare", sure. And that's not even counting the colossal expenditures on military
force and bribes in the Middle East to keep the diesel-fuel-to-corn unroofed chemical factory (i.e.
farming) industry running profitably. Apparently the Republicans who hate the US Postal Service with
a vengeance, for example, are unaware that in 40% of the land area of the United States FedEx, UPS,
etc turn over the 'last hundred mile' delivery to the USPS.
Ps I'm kind of surprised this thread has been allowed to go on so long but I'm going to bow out
now-feel free to continue trying to smear me behind my back
bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 12:35 pm
Would a real leftist let her daughter marry a hedge-fund trader?
I suppose they are a step above serial killers and child molesters, but c'mon. Quotes from Wiki,
rearranged in chronological order.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky used a wide variety of 419 scams. According to a federal
prosecutor, Mezvinsky conned using "just about every different kind of African-based scam we've ever
seen."[11] The scams promise that the victim will receive large profits, but first a small down payment
is required. To raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he
was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of former political contacts, dropping the name of
the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.[12]
In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank
fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud
"In July 2010, Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton in an interfaith ceremony in Rhinebeck, New York.[12]
The senior Clintons and Mezvinskys were friends in the 1990s ; their children met on a Renaissance
Weekend retreat in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina."
Subsequent to his graduations, he worked for eight years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs
before leaving to join a private equity firm, but later quit. In 2011, he co-founded a Manhattan-based
hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, with two longtime partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.[1][8]
In May 2016, The New York Times reported that the Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity Fund is said to
have lost nearly 90 percent of its value, [which equated to a 90% loss to investors] and sources
say it will be shutting down.[9][10] Emails discovered as part of Wikileaks' release of the "Podesta
emails" seemed to indicate that Mezvinsky had used his ties to the Clinton family to obtain investors
for his hedge fund through Clinton Foundation events.
Marcotte, Sady Doyle, Valenti, the Clinton operatives knew this stuff.
Prioritizing women's liberation over economic populism, just a little bit, doesn't quite cover
it. Buying fully into the most rapacious aspects of predatory capitalism is more lie it.
If Clinton is your champion, and I am still seeing sads at Jezebel, you have zero credilibity
on economic issues. She's one of the worst crooks to ever run for President. And we will see how
Obama fares on his immediate switch from President to his ambition to be a venture capitalist for
Silicon Valley. I'll bet Obama gets very very lucky!
Val @49 &
"they (at some confused and probably not fully conscious level) do seem to assume that violence
and oppression of women and people of colour never used to happen when white men (including white
working class men) had 'good jobs' .. patriarchy and racism predate neoliberalism by centuries."
"patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."
I think this framing is misleading, because you're historically comparing forms of oppression
with economic systems, rather than varieties of one or the other.
Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be something like: patriarchy and sexism are coeval with
classism and economic inequality?
What concretely are racism and sexism, after all, but ideologies dependent upon power inequalities,
and what are those but inequalities of social position (man, father) and wealth and ownership
that make possible that power difference? How could sexism or racism have existed without class
or inequality?
novakant 11.17.16 at 1:32 pm
I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all
candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama)
Strawman (I have heard a lot of times before):
nobody criticizes Clinton for being imperfect, people criticize her for being a terrible, terrible
candidate and the DNC establishment for supporting this terrible, terrible candidate: she lost
against TRUMP for goodness' sake.
bob mcmanus: "In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony
charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud "
Well, either I'm shocked to discover that Clinton was involved in her daughter's husband's
father's crimes some 20 years ago, or you've demonstrated that Clinton's daughter married a man
whose father was a crook. I'm guessing the latter, though I'm left wondering WTF that has to do
with Clinton's character.
engels 11.17.16 at 2:03 pm
One more:
"we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white men and a majority of white women,
across class lines, voted for a platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny,
xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth, militarism, torture, and policies
that blatantly maintain income inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against
Trump, with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton of any other demographic
(93 percent). It is an astounding number when we consider that her husband's administration oversaw
the virtual destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare, cutting food
stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving benefits, and denying former drug felons
and users access to public housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention
centers, and the fence on Mexico's border; a crime bill that escalated the war on drugs and accelerated
mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA and legislation deregulating financial institutions.
"Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been defeated, we still would
have had ample reason to worry about our future.
"I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump's victory. Nor am I dismissing
the white working class's very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus
racism or sexism versus fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies
operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would say, intersectionally."
https://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back
Bob, a real feminist would not tell her daughter who to marry.
You claim to be an intersectional feminist but you say things like this, and you blamed feminists
for white dudes voting for trump. Are you a parody account?
Michael Sullivan 11.17.16 at 2:41 pm
Mclaren @ 25 "As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes
were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented
those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive."
There may be ways in which the home ownership statistic is deceptive or fuzzy, but it's hard
for me to imagine this being one of them.
The definition you seem to imply for home ownership (somebody somewhere owns the home) would
result in by definition 100% home ownership every year.
I'm pretty sure that the measure is designed to look at whether one of the people who live
in a home actually owns it. Ok, let's stuff the pretty sure, etc. and use our friend google. So
turns out that the rate in question is the percentage of households where one of the people in
the household owns the apartment/house. If some banker or landlord buys a foreclosure and then
rents the house out, that will be captured in the homeownership rate.
Where that rate may understate issues is that it doesn't consider how many people are in a
household. So if lots of people are moving into their parent's basements, or renting rooms to/from
unrelated people in their houses, those people won't be counted as renters or homeowners, since
the rate tracks households, not people. Where that will be captured is in something called the
headship rate, and represents the ratio of households to adults. That number dropped by about
1.5% between the housing bust and the recession, and appears to be recovering or at worst near
bottom (mixed data from two different surveys) as of 2013. So, yes, the drop in home ownership
rate is probably understated (hence the headline of my source article below) somewhat, but not
enormously as you imply, and the difference is NOT foreclosures - unless they are purchased by
another owner occupier, they DO show up in the home ownership rate. The difference is larger average
households: more adults living with other adults.
engels @70, "I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want
to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black,
white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which
is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism."
So many prominent people and such a large majority of voters have be so completely wrong, so
many times, on everything, for a year that I really am not confident about making any strong political
claims anymore. However, it has opened me to possibilities I wouldn't have previously considered.
One is this: I'm beginning to wonder (not believe, wonder), if a lot of working class and lower-to-middle
middle class Americans, including a lot of the ones who didn't vote or who switched from Obama
to Trump (not including those who were always on the right) would already be on board, or in the
long run be able of getting on board, with the picture Engels paints at 70.
That possibility seems outrageous because we assume this general group are motivated *primarily*
by resentment against women and people of color. But the more I read news stories that directly
interview them–not the rally goers, but the others–the more it seems that they will side with
*almost anyone* who they think is on their side, and *against anyone* who they think has contempt
or indifference for them. Put another way: they are driven by equal opportunity resentment to
whatever prejudices serve their resentment, rather than by a deeply engrained, fixed, rigid, kind
of prejudice. (I have in mind a number of recent articles, but one thing that struck me is interviews
with racially diverse factory workers, with Latinos and women, who voted for Trump.)
I also begin to wonder if there is as much, if not more, resistance to wide solidarity among
the left than among this group of voters who aren't really committed to either party. I begin
to think that many on the left are strongly, deeply, viscerally opposed to the middle range working
class, period, and not *just* to the racism and sexism that are all too often found there. I worry
the Democrats' class contempt, their conservative disgust for their social, educational, professional,
and economic inferiors is growing–partly based in reasonable disgust at the horrendous excesses
of the right, but partly class-based, pathological, and subterranean, independent of that reasonable
side.
I say this not to justify Trump voters or non-voters or to vilify Democrats, but actually with
a bit of optimism. For a very long time even many on the far left has looked at the old Marxist
model of wide solidarity among the proletariat with skepticism. But I'm wondering if that skepticism
is still justified. I wonder if what stands in the way of a truly diverse working class movement
is not the right but the left. If they're ready, and we've not been paying attention.
Are we really faced with a working class that rejects diversity? Are we really opposing to
them a professional class that truly accepts diversity? Isn't there a kind of popular solidarity
appearing, in awkward and sometimes ugly ways, that is destroying the presumptions of that opposition?
engels 11.17.16 at 3:32 pm Cornel West:
In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and
escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten
to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. What is to be done? First we must try
to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals
lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed
with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling
in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous
exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build
multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global
warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties .
Val: "It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created
sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though, patriarchy
and sexism predate capitalism."
If Hidari is coming from a more-or-less mainline contemporary Marxist position, this is a misunderstanding
of their argument, which is no more a claim that capitalism "created sexism and racism" than it
would be a claim that capitalism created class antagonism. What's instead being suggested is that
just as capitalism has systematized a specific form of class antagonism (wage laborer vs.
capitalist) as a perceived default whose hegemony and expansion shapes our perception of all other
potential antagonisms as anachronistic exceptions, so it has done the same with specific forms
of sexism and racism, the forms we might call "patriarchy" and "white supremacy". In fact the
argument is typically that antagonisms like white vs. POC and man vs. woman function as normalized
exceptions to the normalized general antagonism of wage laborer vs. capitalist, a space where
the process known since Marx as "primitive accumulation" can take place through the dispossession
of women and POC (up to and including the dispossession of their very bodies) in what might otherwise
be considered flagrant violation of liberal norms.
As theorists like
Rosa Luxemburg and
Silvia Federici
have elaborated, this process of accumulation is absolutely essential to the continued functioning
of capitalism - the implication being that as much as capitalism and its ideologists pretend to
oppose oppressions like racism and sexism, it can never actually destroy these oppressions without
destroying its own social basis in the process. Hence neoliberal "identity politics", in which
changing the composition of the ruling elite (now the politician shaking hands with Netanyahu
on the latest multibillion-dollar arms deal can be a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name! now
the CEO of a company that employs teenaged girls to stitch T-shirts for 12 hours a day can be
a woman!) is ideologically akin to wholesale liberation, functions not as a way to destroy racism
and sexism but as a compromise gambit to preserve them.
Another Nick 11.17.16 at 4:01 pm f
austusnotes, I asked if you could comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice
of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot. ie. their strategy. What they were planning and
thinking? And how you think it played out for them?
Not a list of your favourite boogeymen.
"So what are you actually talking about?"
I was attempting to discuss the role of identity politics in the Clinton campaign. I asked
about Dunham because she was the most prominent of the celebrities employed by the Clinton campaign
to deploy identity politics. ie. she appeared most frequently in the media on their behalf.
Not seeing much discussion about actual policies there, economic or otherwise. It's really
just an entire interview based on identity politics. With bonus meta-commentary on identity politics.
Lena blames "white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look
past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves," for the election loss.
Why didn't the majority of white women vote for Hillary? Because they "hate themselves".
"... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
"... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
"... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
"... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
"... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
"... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
"... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
"... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
"... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
"... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
"... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
"... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
"... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
"... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
"... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
"... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
"... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
"... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
"... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
"... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
"... working class white women ..."
"... Obama is personally likeable ..."
"... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
"... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The
only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.
Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not
get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton
save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people
needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders
in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.
Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean
house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the
2004 elections.
I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or
Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.
"Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question
is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a
question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.
What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought
about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to
the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation,
either.
What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years
running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common
with working class people anywhere?
The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in
Congress.
Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?
What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They
already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not
underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.
The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political
power – because with power come blame.
I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point
to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and
made it happen (such as TPP).
We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's
understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously
there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump
out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist
whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to
stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist
siren call?
Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt
tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.
And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown
PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist.
(Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was
like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no
friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.
I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that
the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.
Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under
the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g.
Privateers at SSA.
My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over
the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees
a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more
parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.
She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to
do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their
butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad
places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her
class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they
don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of
which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of
the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids
end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.
Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary
kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.
On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick
the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So
the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told
we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?
The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and
in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know,
hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.
The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich
a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips,
a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part
of the 1%).
The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.
I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply
rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.
I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number
of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.
It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,
Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes
in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian
YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm
labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations
associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being
subservient to the planter capitalists locally.
Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed
independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina
and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and
the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class
system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic
groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".
One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure
in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers
or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of
classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that
of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th
century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and
often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict
the relationship to boss and worker.
Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people
without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes
it open season on a certain class of victims.
It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce
the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.
So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest
the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes
(true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights
of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of
wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and
interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike,
people do still care for each other.
This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both
black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts
because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized
by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile
mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure
in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's
politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.
It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that
hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of
the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that
19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid,
Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.
You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and
it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race
can be transcended in action.
Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems
is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important
segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal
and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens
and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National
Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting
what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they
would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.
Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history.
Link . The
unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was
for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle,
in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by,
Pablo O'Higgins , to
celebrate the accomplishment.
Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published
by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white
people here is a choice excerpt:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my
own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and
alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with
all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't
Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from
Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine
or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very
little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor
white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to
life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the
factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.
Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap
theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory
towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your
goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American
underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used
heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.
Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can
be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a
position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically
courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article,
and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that
will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is:
what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by
such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward
those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities
"stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt
whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white
America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial
chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.
[In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working
classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE
LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]
Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could
the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The
fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.
[So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of
crony capitalist enablers,]
I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get
away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for
rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across
as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.
If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers),
create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians
spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get
votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple
of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would
be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to
be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed.
It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature
of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).
The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA,
a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.
[[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve
more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity
politics]
Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity
politics? Privatized identity politics?
I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of
successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate
that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.
If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict
that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not
rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members
from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist
candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something
like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which
fails to address the power imbalance.
[This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic
system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]
For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to
today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in
America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original
Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England
and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own
resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.
Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and
later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites.
The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming,
all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always
someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction,
the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class
whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority"
would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote,
etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous
and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let
me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:
White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very
existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American
society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They
are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history,
whether we like it or not".
Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must
start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts.
The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive,
negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing
oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is
the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same
time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises
in pandering.
Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and
anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage
to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life
is getting shorter.
To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:
"To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists
"
IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT
won. And I concur.
This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016
was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
(Source:
US Election Atlas )
Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this
time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens
in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just
race.
Class played in several ways:
Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his
Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his
outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white
women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint
to offer.
Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.
If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim
that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply
cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.
The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the
crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all
over again.
Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working
class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media
mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black
'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the
one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.
Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.
Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class
blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set
the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the
Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.
that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree
that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example.
the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites,
too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators";
that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black
people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights
movement in the 60's.
I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that
we share class status.
That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.
Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the
UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.
It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?
I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.
Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics
as it is about to disappear.
I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the
UK working class with no political outlet.
Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools
but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.
How is this left?
Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower
down the scale.
It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class,
but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.
Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has
there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be
bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.
Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your
wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.
Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.
So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right),
but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.
Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into
hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative
of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.
Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is
still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.
Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming
the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History
tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the
activist class there are identity purity battles going on.
Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend
to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement
policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why
we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and
no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.
Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here
in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there.
I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be
free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.
Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I
may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.
"... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
"... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
"... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
"... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued
for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple,
just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened
a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they
bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept
known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom
from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims,
who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology
Center
The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening.
When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger
for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if
she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"
The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it;
Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally
retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in
a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta
in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which
force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick
up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.
Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since
winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was
based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of
life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're
coming from:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully
unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind
of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd
barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and
doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy
about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally
important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through
the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"
On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always
one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black
people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they
passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city,
winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned
alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city,
and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities,
but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has
utterly collapsed."
^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical
degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts
aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to
that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the
job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of
mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks.
There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.
I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite
will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone
has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!"
Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away
white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit,
at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."
And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight
racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism
and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part
of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.
"... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
"Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the
Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who
would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate,
was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis.
"I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about
those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little
levity."
####
While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours
a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty
solid.
"... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
"... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
"... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
"... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
"... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
"... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
"... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
"... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
"... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
"... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
"... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
"... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
"... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
"... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
"... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
"... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going
to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton
loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter,
entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially
egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.
How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states
Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states
[Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.
Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins
into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and
win them;
the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when
it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both
the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin
means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society;
therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.
Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because
the following talking points prevent a
(vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is
then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!
Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism
The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist
yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.
First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats
.
Carl
Beijer :
From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring.
Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4
points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in
any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.
Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total
population numbers from the US Census):
Beijer interprets:
White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that
apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less.
Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more,
by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was
driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats
with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support
among people of color.
Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated
voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these
groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they
did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.
Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to
believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.
Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 .
The Washington Post :
These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House,
a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump
.
The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many
of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped
states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total,
but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)
Here's the chart:
And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the
black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me,
I suppose, to sexism.
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism
Here's an article showing the talking point from
Newsweek :
This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.
(The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist
yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim
might seem true :
On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent
to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the
surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.
There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what
they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:
In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with
white women without college degrees going for [Trump]
two to one .
So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim
to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum,
and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist.
Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of
the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor
Tina Brown is worth repeating:
Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played
in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate,
when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments
with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.
These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an
occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's
unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer
who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.
Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign
data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came
home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white
working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum.
They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers,
who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is
everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same
since his job at the factory went away" .
Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did
better than Obama in 2012). From
the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...
So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased
the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move
in opposite directions?
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity
Here's an example of this talking point from
Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:
Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally
And the lead:
OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated,
low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton
was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the
election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election,
college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw
something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected
a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.
The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid,
and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.
First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with
education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care
system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented
the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial
heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair
- college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the
political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.
Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories. From
The Week :
Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college
degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama
votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites.
Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.
So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they
voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to
believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they
are worth paying attention to.
By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns
in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the
horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left
priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism
against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush
I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC
coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to
debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the
general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire
high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that
repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.
Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed
like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.
* * *
All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is.
I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election
this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase
class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over
and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity
politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite
numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.
NOTES
[1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.
NOTE
You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More
myths are coming.
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
"No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be
important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear.
*snark
'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:
1) Blacks
for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't
tell me what to think.'
2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture,
pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella
I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted.
So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of
body and self.
My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going
to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian
says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests,
is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have
too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications
clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications
Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds
the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food
industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is
helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been
had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue.
Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I
get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering
the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about
wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of
industry regulatory capture
. Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen.
LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked
about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton
was, instead. And
she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to
about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the
judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of
this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing
reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the
obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton
holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders.
And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably
campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
An
organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists,
representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer,
Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is
positively
salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients
in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is
considering
for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little
guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different
from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will
be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees
of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of
real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha;
this Mike Pence –has
replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is
likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try
to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI
inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman,
begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
"... my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language. ..."
"... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
"... But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree. ..."
"... The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp ..."
I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric
1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that
the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because
it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.
Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street
+ Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words
on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than
the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological.
Capital is Language.
2) Consider the above an intro to
Lauren
Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase
cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical
It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described
in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.
People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all
their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing
social relations
( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved.
We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)
"Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness.
Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word
salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message
increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful,
somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."
(Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase
the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem
I have with CT's new policy)
"You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says,
and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "
(If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two
year old and teenage guitarist understands)
"But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a
sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the
law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in
there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed,
or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means
"I feel unfree."
The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal
noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp
Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests,
is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have
too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications
clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications
Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds
the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food
industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is
helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been
had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue.
Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I
get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering
the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about
wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of
industry regulatory capture
. Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen.
LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked
about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton
was, instead. And
she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to
about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the
judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of
this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway … can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing
reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the
obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton
holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders.
And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably
campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
An
organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists,
representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer,
Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is
positively
salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients
in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is
considering
for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little
guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different
from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will
be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees
of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of
real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha;
this Mike Pence –has
replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is
likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try
to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI
inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman,
begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional
or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into
neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than,
say, just behaving well towards all of them.
And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed
ruthlessly.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development
of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Softpanorama
Deap says: May 26, 2021 at 11:47 am
TV says: May 26, 2021 at 12:30 pm
Steve+G says: May 26, 2021 at 4:07 pm
akaPatience says: May 26, 2021 at 12:11 pm
Fred says: May 26, 2021 at 1:03 pm
Le Comte says: May 26, 2021 at 1:15 pm
Some Dude says: May 26, 2021 at 2:18 pm
blue peacock says: May 26, 2021 at 2:55 pm
Alex says: May 27, 2021 at 7:43 am
optimax says: May 27, 2021 at 1:08 pm
Bill H. says: May 27, 2021 at 8:38 pm
© Greg Nash Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
T Shirt Dress For Women Microsoft Ads
Cloth Clothes with Clothcture Microsoft Ads
Gap Tee Shirt Dres Microsoft Ads
Annie Cloth Shirts Microsoft Ads
Deals for Fitech Microsoft Ads
Pat Lang says: April 25, 2021 at 1:35 pm
PRC90 says: April 26, 2021 at 3:33 am
Carey says: April 26, 2021 at 1:35 pm
EEngineer says: April 25, 2021 at 11:10 am
Eric Newhill says: April 25, 2021 at 2:48 pm
John+Merryman says: April 25, 2021 at 4:07 pm
Sam says: April 25, 2021 at 4:47 pm
J says: April 26, 2021 at 6:53 am
Peter Moritz says: April 10, 2021 at 12:15 pm
Jose says: April 10, 2021 at 2:40 pm
Keith Harbaugh says: April 12, 2021 at 8:21 pm
irf520 says: April 10, 2021 at 6:33 pm
Oilman2 says: April 10, 2021 at 11:14 am
![Rand Paul wearing a suit and tie: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1fmvAL.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=437&y=176"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1fmvAL.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=437&y=176"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1fmvAL.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=437&y=176"}})
© Greg Nash Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
'Guardians of the Galaxy' (2014) Dir: James Gunn © Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Studios
Motion Pictures 42 Follow RT on 
Monty Python's classic 'The Life of Brian' relentlessly mocked Christianity. Now we must do the
same thing to the Church of Woke
Anti-Trump demonstrators march to Black Lives Matter plaza while joining a counter protest
against "Million MAGA March" in Washington, DC © Getty Images / Probal Rashid/LightRocket
27 Follow RT on 
In
the left's victim culture, Eva Longoria's accused of 'anti-blackness' for calling Latinas the
'real heroines' in beating Trump
By
backing housing charity's 'Jewish only' rule, UK court drops the ball. Aren't we all equal in
Britain?
Alastair Crooke
July 13, 2020 © Photo: США REUTERS/Ringo Chiu
.svg)
.svg)
WATCH: DC Police unleash on 'Black House autonomous
zone' protesters, fulfilling Trump's vow to use 'serious force'
© Getty Images / Karla Ann Cote / NurPhoto Follow RT on
'As soon as I saw the slaveowner's statue being toppled in Bristol, I knew the real anti-racism protest was OVER' 
Guilt and self-loathing pervades the 'we must do better' responses of businesses and institutions over #BLM – it's truly pathetic
'No exceptions!' Trump orders the arrest of anyone vandalizing
monuments, warns they face up to 10 years in prison
CHAZ protesters reinforce barricades & form human chains as
Seattle mayor vows to dismantle anarchic encampment (PHOTOS, VIDEO)
Republish our stories! MintPress News is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International
License.
George Floyd's life mattered
Video
FILE PHOTO: New York City police officers stand guard in front of the
Charging Bull sculpture © Reuters / Adrees Latif
Follow RT on
Reminiscent of Great Depression? Here is a list of food
& booze gone down the drain due to Covid-19
Video
The
out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming
aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political
divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others
weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett
Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the
damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary
Brett Kavanaugh
during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters
Ronan Farrow /
Reuters
Christine Blasey
Ford in her school yearbook.
Brett Kavanaugh, on
the right, in his high school yearbook.
What Dianne
Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters
Pure motivations:
Asia Argento / Reuters
